1 / 31

Raquel Fernández Fuertes Juana M. Liceras Aurora Bel

Syntactic variability in child 2L1 and L2 grammars : the view from code-switching. Raquel Fernández Fuertes Juana M. Liceras Aurora Bel. opogram madrid oct 2011. INTRODUCTION. VARIABILITY & OPTIONALITY INTRA-SPEAKER - representational account? VARIATION - processing account?

tait
Download Presentation

Raquel Fernández Fuertes Juana M. Liceras Aurora Bel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Syntacticvariability in child 2L1 and L2 grammars: theviewfromcode-switching Raquel Fernández Fuertes Juana M. Liceras Aurora Bel opogram madrid oct 2011

  2. INTRODUCTION VARIABILITY & OPTIONALITY INTRA-SPEAKER - representational account? VARIATION - processing account? - competing grammars account? - formal proposals? Chomsky, Pesetsky & Torrego, van Gelderen & MacSwan … -learnability proposals? Liceras et al. … INTER-SPEAKER - within 2L1 and cL2 groups? VARIATION - between 2L1 and cL2 groups? EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  3. INTRODUCTION FUNCTIONAL-LEXICAL CS: CHILD & ADULT DATA PRODUCTION - pervasiveness ≠ abundance INTERPRETATION -more variability - clear-cut trends METHODOLOGY - acceptability judgments - eye-tracking EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  4. INTRODUCTION YANG´S MODEL & CS DATA VARIATION & CORE VARIATION & PERIPHERY variable CS preferences? - if no CS input, reliance on UG? CS preferences as in different formal proposals? EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel - if variation in input, difficult access to competing options?

  5. INTRODUCTION OUR STUDY WHAT English/Spanish code-switched structures WHY - CS restrictions & syntax/learnability proposals - characterization of 2L1 & cL2 child bilinguals - variability patterns HOW - 2L1 & cL2 bilingualchildren - oralacceptability judgments EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  6. INTRODUCTION 3 types of EN/SP CS structures CONCORD determiner – noun (1a) La house (1b) Thecasa AGREEMENT 1DP subject – copula+Adj[copula agr.] (2a) The houseesbonita (2b) La casais nice AGREEMENT 2 DP / pronominal subject – verb [S-V agr.] (3a) La profesora/ Ellatalks about syntax (3b) The teacher / Shehabla de sintaxis EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  7. BACKGROUND • GFSH (Liceras et al. 2005 & 2008) • Grammatical Features Spell-out Hypothesis • highly grammaticalizedfeatures guide the bilingual child CS preferences • an internal view of language dominance • genderand gender agreement features • EN/SP bilingual children and adults’ preference for SP Det • (1a) La house • (1b) The casa EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel la

  8. BACKGROUND GFSH (Liceras et al. 2005 & 2008) EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  9. BACKGROUND • Minimalist account of CS (Moro 2002 & MacSwan 2005) • Deletion as a ‘one fell swoop’ operation, dealing with the phi-set as a unit (Chomsky 2000, 124) • EN-Det+ SP-N sequences are blocked EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  10. BACKGROUND • Double gender feature valuation mechanism (Liceras et al. 2008) • Pesetsky& Torrego’s (2001) double feature valuation proposal • Double gender feature valuation in concord structures • Gender feature (Gen) • Gender Agreement feature () • spontaneous data: 2L1 children´s preference for SP Det • experimental data • L1 English and L1 Spanish adults’ acceptance of EN Det EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  11. BACKGROUND • Double gender feature valuation mechanism (Liceras et al. 2008) • Pesetsky& Torrego’s (2001) double feature valuation proposal • Double gender feature valuation in concord structures • Gender feature (Gen) • Gender Agreement feature () • experimental data • L1 Spanish adults’ preference for the ‘analogical criterion’ EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel … also in copula agr.? (5c) thecityFem es ruidosaFem

  12. TP TP T’ T’ Spec vP vP T D T DP VP VP D’ Ellosi [ellosi] fight all the time Mis amigosi [mis amigosi] fight all the time head movement spec movement BACKGROUND • Minimalist account of S-V CS (van Gelderen & MacSwan 2008) • DP subjects can enter in an S-V code-switched relationship, subject pronouns cannot • PF disjunction theorem rules out CS below X0 (p. 774) • (6a) (6b) EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  13. RESEARCH QUESTIONS & HYPOTHESES 1. 2L1 and cL2 children’s acceptance of SP det concord structures? = GFSH (1a) La house (1b) Thecasa 2.the double-feature valuation mechanism triggers the analogical criterion in concord & copula agr. CS? = GFSH (2a) The houseesbonita [+ac] (2b) The house es bonito[-ac] however … different mechanisms different degrees of preference H#1. Gender features have a similar representation for 2L1 & cL2 children EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel H#2. Gender features have a similar representation for 2L1 & cL2 children in concord & copula agr. CS

  14. RESEARCH QUESTIONS & HYPOTHESES • 3.categorical nature of SU reflected in acceptance of DP versus pronominal subject IN S-V agreement sequences? • (3a) La profesora/ Ellatalks about syntax • (3b) The teacher/ Shehabla de sintaxis • However • SP pronouns are DP-like? No preference • EN verb requires no checking? No PF violation • SP 3rdp V requires no checking? No PF violation H#3. DP+V sequences will be preferred over pronoun+V ones because there is no PF violation EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  15. THE STUDY • Participants • 2L1 group EN heritage in Spain • cL2 group L1 SP in and EN immersion program in Spain EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  16. THE STUDY • Data elicitation • 2 oral acceptability judgment tasks • read a short dialogue + evaluate the ANSWER by means of emoticons EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  17. THE STUDY • Data elicitation • concord • practice items: CS at different grammatical points • (7a) La jirafa está nearthetreescopula verb + PP • (7b) Esto es un fishitoword-internalmixing • (7c) Los niños están jumping Vaux + Vlex • (7d) The rabbit has a big zanahoriaOd = det-Adj + N • distractors & fillers: CS at other grammatical points + non-CS • (9a) El mono has a banana • (9b) This is a pirate bike EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  18. THE STUDY • Data elicitation • concord • experimental items: SP Det + EN N • EN Det + SP N • (8a) La leche está en el glassspdet MM match • (8b) El pájaro está en el handspdet MF non-match • (8c) El niño está abriendo la doorspdet FF match • (8d) El niño está jugando con la clockspdet FM non-match • (8e) The man is falling to the sueloen det–spmasc n • (8f) They are playing with the nieveen det–spfem n MM MF EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel FF FM

  19. THE STUDY • Data elicitation • agreement • practice items: CS at different grammatical points (as in concord) • (7a) La jirafa está nearthetreescopula verb + PP • (7b) Esto es un fishitoword-internalmixing • (7c) Los niños están jumping Vaux + Vlex • (7d) The rabbit has a big zanahoriaOd = det-Adj + N • fillers: deverbal compounds (EN & SP; possible and non-possible) • (12a) Es un salvavidas *Es un platoslava • (12b) Itis a hair dryer *He is a fighter fire EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  20. THE STUDY • Data elicitation • agreement 1. copula agreement • experimental items: EN SU + SP copula Adjpredicate • SP SU + EN copula Adj predicate • (10a) The tree es alto spadj mm match • (10b) The toy esbonitaspadj mf non-match • (10c) The house espequeñaspadjff match • (10d) The door esblancospadjfmnon-match • (10e) El puente islongspmasc SU • (10f) La mesa is round sp fem SU MM MF EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel FF FM

  21. THE STUDY • Data elicitation • agreement 2. S-V agreement • experimental items: EN DP/pronominal SU + SP verb agr. • SP DP/pronominal SU + EN verb agr. • (11a) I quiero este vestido en pronouns • SheleeØ un libro • (11b) Túcook every day sppronouns • Élruns many kilometers • (11c) The boybebeØaguaen dps • The ladytocaØ el violín • (11d) El niño paints landscapes spdps • La señora hugs her sister EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  22. THE STUDY • The results • concord. figure 1 • EN Detfavoured • SP Det: matching favoured (MM; FF) • cL2: higher preference for matching • 2L1: preference for matching • analogical criterion: sensitive to double gender valuation mechanism • (1a) la house el train • cL2 > 2L1 • (8d) la clock EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel [+ ac]

  23. THE STUDY • The results • agreement 1. figure 2. copula agr. • SP SU favoured • EN SU -SP Adj: matching favoured • cL2: higher preference for matching • analogical criterion: sensitive to double gender valuation mechanism • (10a) the tree es alto (10c) the house espequeña • cL2 > 2L1 • (10d) the door esblanco EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel [+ ac]

  24. THE STUDY • The results • agreement 2. figure 3. S-V agr. • EN: DPs preferred over pronouns • SP: DPs preferred over pronouns • cL2: SP pronouns favoured over EN ones • EN: no preference for 3rd p pronouns • SP: 3rd p pronouns preferred • DPs and pronouns have a different status … but … • SP pronouns = EN pronouns? • pf violation: EN 3rdp pronoun (SP -agrV): • SP 3rdp pronoun (EN +agrV): • cL2 ≈ 2L1 EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel no pf violation but not favoured pfviolation butfavoured

  25. THE STUDY • Syntactic variability • intra-subject • cL2 • copula≈concord • < S-V • 2L1 • copula ≈ S-V • < concord • inter-subject • 2L1, less homogeneous EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  26. THE STUDY • Syntactic variability • intra-subject • cL2 • copula≈concord • < S-V • 2L1 • copula ≈ S-V • < concord • inter-subject • 2L1, less homogeneous EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  27. CONCLUSIONS RESEARCH QUESTIONS & INITIAL HYPOTHESES 1. 2L1 and cL2 children’s acceptance of SP det concord structures? = GFSH (1a) La house (1b) Thecasa 2.the double-feature valuation mechanism triggers the analogical criterion in concord & copula agr. CS? = GFSH (2a) The houseesbonita [+ac] (2b) The house es bonito[-ac] however … cL2 in copula > in concord 2L1 in copula ≈ in concord H#1. Gender features have a similar representation for 2L1 & cL2 children not confirmed EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel H#2. Gender features have a similar representation for 2L1 & cL2 children in concord & copula agr. CS confirmed

  28. CONCLUSIONS • RESEARCH QUESTIONS & INITIAL HYPOTHESES • 3.categorical nature of SU reflected in acceptance of DP versus pronominal subject IN S-V agreement sequences? • (3a) La profesora/ Ellatalks about syntax • (3b) The teacher/ Shehabla de sintaxis • because • SP 3rd p. verb requires no checking Seem not to affect PF violation • EN 3rd p. verb requires checking Seem not to affect PF violation • SP pronouns > EN ones Different status of 3rd p? • Different status of EN & SP pronouns? H#3. DP+V sequences will be preferred over pronoun+V ones because there is no PF violation partially confirmed EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel

  29. TP T’ Spec vP VP V AdjP The houseespequeña CONCLUSIONS • GFSH & GENDER FEATURES • cL2 [2L1]children: concord • analogical criterion • cL2 [2L1]children: copula agr. • analogical criterion (13b) EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel • the double gender feature • valuation mechanism [uGen-fem. + u()] [Gen: fem. + ()]

  30. TP T’ Spec vP VP My friendsi[my friendsi] se peleansiempre CONCLUSIONS • EN & SP PRONOUNS • cL2 & 2L1 children: • EN DPs ≠ EN pronouns • spec mov. versus head mov. • PF theorem versus PF violation • cL2 & 2L1 children: • SP pronouns ≠ EN pronouns • DPs > SP pronouns > EN pronouns T T D Theyi[theyi]se peleansiempre EN/SP CS Fernández Fuertes, Liceras & Bel • different status of • en pronouns & sp pronouns • different status of • 1st-2nd & 3rd p. pronouns

  31. THANK YOU TEST DESIGN & DATA COLLECTION Language Acquisition Research Laboratory of the University of Ottawa University of Valladolid Language Acquisition Laboratory PARTICIPANTS the children & their parents the International School in Valladolid, Spain FUNDING Canada-Europe Award Program Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Catalan Government Syntacticvariability in child 2L1 and L2 grammars: Theviewfromcode-switching Raquel Fernández Fuertes Juana M. Liceras Aurora Bel opogram madrid 2011

More Related