1 / 44

Implicatures in L2 French:

Implicatures in L2 French:. Evidence from the c ’est-cleft in near-native French. Emilie Destruel 1 & Bryan Donaldson 2 1 University of Iowa, 2 UC Santa Cruz. 1- Introduction. Overview. examine acquisition of a pragmatic property of the French c’est - cleft:

tyme
Download Presentation

Implicatures in L2 French:

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. Implicatures in L2 French: Evidence from the c’est-cleft in near-native French Emilie Destruel1 & Bryan Donaldson2 1University of Iowa, 2UC Santa Cruz

  2. 1-Introduction

  3. Overview • examine acquisition of a pragmatic property of the French c’est-cleft: • exhaustivity (pragmatic implicature) • syntax/semantics • near-native speakers of French • corpus data (briefly) • experimental data • results hint at a proficiency effect at very high levels of attainment

  4. Organization of the talk • Background on implicature, exhaustivityand the Frenchc’est-cleft • c’est (-cleft) in L2 French • Corpus & experimental study • Results (corpus, experimental) • Discussion/conclusion

  5. 2- The French c’est-cleft

  6. Example: c’est-cleft (1) C’est Jean qui a cuisiné les haricots. It’s John who has cooked the beans. “It’s John who cooked the beans” • Bi-clausal structure containing a matrix copula and a non-restrictive relative-clause. • Semantically equivalent to the SVO form in (2)… Yet, (1) is the felicitous form to answer a wh-question in spoken French. (2) is grammatical but pragmatically infelicitous. • Lambrecht(1994); Katz (1997); Hamlaoui(2009). (2) #Jeana cuisiné les haricots. “John cooked the beans.”

  7. Relevant property • C’est-cleft marks focus (new or contrastive info). • The c’est-cleft is assumed to convey exhaustivity. • With a c’est-cleft, a speaker exhaustively identifies all things (from a contextually determined set of alternatives) that satisfy the relative clause. i.e. It’s John and no one else who cooked the beans. • Clech-Darbon et al. (1999); Destruel (2012, 2013).

  8. Implicatures • The part of the sentence that’s “suggested” (pragmatic interpretation/non-literal meaning), as opposed to what is “stated” or clearly expressed (logical interpretation/ literal meaning). • Grice (1975,1989); Levinson (2000); Horn (2004); Chierchia (2004) (5) Paul: Are you going to Fred’s party? Lisa: I have to work. • Lisa implies that she is not going, although she did not state so. • What she stated is distinct from what she implied. • Searle (1975)

  9. Applied to the c’est-cleft … (6) It’s John who cooked the beans. What is said: John cooked the beans. What is meant: John and no one else cooked the beans. • If speaker wanted to reinforce and fully commit to an exhaustive interpretation, she would have used the stronger term only, cf. contrast between (6) and (7). • ByramWashburn et al. (2012) (7) Only John cooked the beans. • Crucially, with the cleft, exhaustivity can be cancelled, see (8): • Horn (1981) (8) Paul: It’s John who cooked the beans … Lisa: Well yes, but Mary also cooked the beans.

  10. Summary: Exhaustivity & Syntax • Exclusive marker Only • Only John cooked the beans =exhaustivity is part of what is said (semantically encoded, i.e an entailment). It cannot be overruled. • C’est-cleft construction • C’est Jean qui a cuisiné les haricots = exhaustivity is part of what is suggested (pragmatically inferred, i.e. an implicature). It can be overruled. • SVO sentence (canonical) • Jean a cuisiné les haricots = no exhaustivity implied.

  11. 3-On the L2 acquisition of theC’est-cleft

  12. Contrastive analysis: French-English • semantics of exhaustivity • c’est-cleft and it-cleftpresentsimilarpropertieswith respect to exhaustivity (Destruel et al., forthcoming) • overallfrequency • c’est-cleftglobally more frequentthan English it-cleft; Katz (2000); Trévise (1986) • English it-clefts “exceedingly rare” (Roland et al., 2007: 353) • register • c’est-cleft = informal, mostlyspoken; it-cleft= formal,written; Gess(2009); Katz (2000); Roland et al. (2007) • syntax • c’est-cleftpreferssubjects; it-cleftprefers non-arguments (adjuncts); subjects are rare; Carter-Thomas (2009)

  13. C’est& c’est-cleft in L2 French • Early & fixed interlanguage strategy? • c’est one of earliest syntactic structures to emerge in L2 French interlanguage (not the cleft); Trévise (1986) • overuse of c’est to avoid more complex morphology; Bartning (1997) • formulaic use of c’estpersists even in advanced L2 French; Bartning (1997) • confusion between c’est-cleft and presentational avoir-cleft; Watorek (2004) • targetlike syntax versus targetlike discourse • difficulty constructing discourse even when syntactic form is mastered; Bardovi-Harlig (1999); Bartning (2009); Watorek (2004) • do advanced speakers move beyond early use of c’est?

  14. Advanced L2 French • relatively little use of c’est-cleft in advanced L2 French elicited production; Sleeman(2004) • However: • focus-marking via c’est-clefts = nativelike in spontaneous oral production of near-natives; Donaldson (2012) • focus contextswithc’est-cleftyieldnativelike ERP signatures in adult L2 French (but modulated by proficiency); Reichle & Birdsong (2014) • caveat: in thesestudies, examinationlimited to focus (fairlybroadlywrit) • L2 c’est-cleft studies limited to focus-marking • no examination (to our knowledge) of implicature with c’est-cleft in L2 French (semantics of c’est-cleft)

  15. Interest for SLA? • Advanced/near-native/successful endstate L2 proficiency • L2 pragmatics • fine-grained interpretative properties dependent on discourse context (e.g, syntax-discourse, syntax-semantics; Sorace 2011, Sorace & Serratrice 2009) • L1 transfer: subtle but important differences between English it-cleft and French c’est-cleft • distinction between ‘near-native’ proficiency and ‘highly proficient L2 users’ (Lundell et al. 2013: 11) • acquisition/use of informal linguistic variants in L2; Trévise (1986); Regan (1997); Dewaele (2000, 2002); Sax (2003)

  16. Research Questions • 1. Do near-native speakers of French use the c’est-cleft to conveyexhaustivity in spontaneous conversation? •  corpus examination (Donaldsonnear-native French corpus) • 2. Whatis the relationshipbetween the c’est-cleft and exhaustivity in near-native French? • Does the near-native grammarrecognizeexhaustivity? • If so, do NNSsexhibitdifferent reflexes of exhaustivityacrossclefts, exclusives, and canonical sentences? (Is theirsemantic notion of exhaustivity sensitive to syntactic structure/grammar?) • If so, are the distinctions nativelike? •  forced-choiceexperimentaltask (fromDestruel 2013)

  17. Hypotheses • We assume that the semantic notion of exhaustivityis present in the L2 grammar (transfer of a notion acquired in L1). • However, several scenarios for L2 mapping of exhaustivity and syntax: 1. Near-native grammar not sensitive to exhaustivity/syntax mapping. 2. NNSs interpret the cleft as semantically exhaustive (like only); no pragmatic derivation of exhaustive inference. 3. NNSs interpret the cleft as non-exhaustive (like canonical SV); no pragmatic derivation of exhaustive inference. 4. NNSs pattern like NSs and evince pragmatically derived exhaustivity in clefts vs. canonical SV; the c’est-cleft is not semantically monolithic

  18. Participants • Corpus data • 10 near-natives + 10 natives (Donaldson 2008, 2012) • near-natives • L1 English • “late” L2 learners (Johnson & Newport, 1989; Marinova-Todd, 2003; Abrahamson & Hyltenstam, 2009) • Experimental data • L2 group • 10 near-natives (new participants) • L1 English • “late” L2 learners • L1 control group • 24 native speakers of French (Destruel 2013)

  19. Proficiency Measures • Corpusgroup • partial replication of Birdsong (1992) GJT • Experimental group • replication of Tremblay’s (2011) French cloze test

  20. Corpus analysis • 8.5 hour corpus (Donaldson 2008, 2012) • 10 native/near-native dyads • spontaneous informal speech • Tokens of c’est-clefts examined for clearly exhaustive readings

  21. Experimental task • Forced-choice task (Destruel 2013) • 2 X 3 design • Grammatical function of clefted element (Subject vs. object) • Sentence form (exclusive sentence, cleft, SVO) • administered by computer via online survey website • Participants instructed to select the most natural continuation to a prompt. • Each participant: 30 experimental items + 20 fillers

  22. Experimental task • Sample item (glossed in English) • Prompt: Who kissed John? It’s Mary who kissed John. (c’est-cleft)

  23. Experimental task • Sample item (glossed in English) • Prompt: Who kissed John? It’s Mary who kissed John. (c’est-cleft) • Forced choice: __Yes, and Lisa also kissed John. (no contradiction, no exhaustivity) __Yes, but Lisa also kissed John. (pragmatically inferred exhaustivity; implicature) __No. Lisa also kissed John. (semantically encoded overt contradiction)

  24. Predicted results • 1. Exclusivesentences should be overtly contradicted (No, ...) • 2. Cleft sentences should not be overtly contradicted, demonstrating (a) that the inference can be cancelled and (b) that the exhaustivity is not an inherent semantic property of the cleft (Yes, but ...) • 3. SV sentences (canonical) should not be contradicted in any way (Yes, and...)

  25. Sample item (glossed into English) Who kissed John? It’s Mary who kissed John. (cleft condition) __Yes, and Lisa also kissed John. (38%) X  Yes, but Lisa also kissed John. (59%) __ No. Lisa also kissed John. (3%) (French native speaker judgments; Destruel 2013) Predicted results

  26. 6-Results

  27. Proficiency Results (experimental, NNS) • Participant %accurate Group mean A19 97.8% = 94.53% A18 97.8% A13 95.6% A15 95.6% A11 94.9% A12 91.1% A14 88.9% A20 82.2% = 80.73% A17 80% A16 80% Highest 7 Lowest 3

  28. Results from the corpus • Donaldson (2012) • near-natives use c’est-cleft felicitously to mark focus • contrast, corrective, broad focus, etc. • nativelike preference for focused subjects • All the near-natives produce at least some examples of the c’est-cleft in clearly exhaustive contexts • demonstrates mapping of exhaustivity and c’est-cleft in spontaneous production

  29. Experimental results: Native Speakers p<0.001 p<0.001 * * 80

  30. Experimental results: Near-Natives (all) p<0.005 p=0.06 *

  31. Experimental results: 7 highest-scoring NNSs p<0.05 p<0.001 * *

  32. Experimental results: 3 lower-scoring NNSs p=0.6 p=0.6

  33. Discussion

  34. Exhaustivity in near-native French • Corpus data suggestthatnear-natives can use c’est-clefts to encode exhaustivity (like natives) • quantification difficult, thereforeexperimentaltask • Experimentalresults show thatnear-natives pattern like natives: • Canonical SV: preference for non-exhaustive reading • C’est-cleft: preference for pragmaticallyderived exhaustive reading • Crucially, like natives, the near-natives derive exhaustive implicature and allowpreferredinterpretations for exhaustivity to beoverruled (in SV and c’est-clefts) • Near-native mastery of c’est-cleftgoesbeyond focus-marking to includepragmatics/semantics

  35. Upper limits of L2 proficiency • preliminary indications that L2 performance is modulated by (slight) differences in proficiency at very high levels of attainment • lower proficiency = weaker distinction between cleft and SV • further participants needed at “not quite near-native” levels • “highly proficiency L2 users” (Lundell et al., 2013) • When is pragmatic exhaustivity acquired? • difficult/obscure syntax-semantic properties can emerge early in L2 French (e.g., Dekydtspotter et al.,1997) • discourse/syntax acquired late? (Hopp 2009, Rothman 2009) • lower/intermediate participants needed as well • role of L1 transfer in earlier interlanguage stages • c’estmay be a fixed expression in early IL – effect on acquisition of c’est-cleft?

  36. Thank you!

  37. Appendix

  38. NNS, Age of first exposure CORPUS STUDY EXP. TASK

  39. NNS, Age of first instruction CORPUS STUDY EXP. TASK

  40. CORPUS STUDY

  41. EXP. TASK

  42. Overall: • Native speakers (n=34) (from Donaldson 2012 & Destruel 2013) • Corpus n=10, exp. Task n=24, • Female = 20, Male = 14, • 28 < Age range < 62, • Country of birth: France (33), Morocco (1). • Near-native speakers (n=20) • Corpus n=10, exp. Task n=10, • Female = 13, Male = 7, • 25 < Age range < 74, • Country of birth: UK (7), USA (13), • All “late learners” of French: age of first exposure > 10yold. • Johnson & Newport, 1989; Marinova-Todd, 2003; Abrahamson & Hyltenstam, 2009.

  43. Corpus Data • 10 dyads of NS and NNS acquaintances. • Conversation length per dyad: 45 < x < 58 minutes. • Total of 8.25 hours recorded. • ~77,300 words with full transcription (following the conventions in Jefferson, 1984) • Researcher not present during recording sessions. • No discussion topics were prescribed. Simply told to enjoy the chance to visit with a friend. • When possible, recordings conducted in participants’ homes; otherwise, in a lounge at a local university.

  44. Proficiency Results (experimental, NNS) • Participant code %accurate Group mean A19 97.8% = 96.34% A18 97.8% A13 95.6% A15 95.6% A11 94.9% A12 91.1% = 84.44% A14 88.9% A20 82.2% A17 80% A16 80%

More Related