sign in sign up
<<
Home , Finite verb

CAS LX 400 Delving into Second Language Acquisition ¥ Syntactic theory has advanced quite a bit over the time that theories of L2A have been proposed and tested, and to make sense of the newer results, we will need to Week 5a. UG and L2A: dig a little deeper into current syntactic Functional categories, minimalism approaches within the Principles & Parameters framework.

The Minimalist Program Lexical vs. functional

¥ A fairly recent development is the approach to ¥ To a first approximation at least, it is possible to grammar referred to as the “Minimalist split the words of a language into two groups, Program” discussed at length in Chomsky lexical and functional words. (1995) (which builds on a lot of prior work). ¥ Under this conception of grammar, the ¥ Lexical words include things like and syntactic principles of language are , and generally the open-class items in the completely fixed crosslinguistically; the language. These are words that can be easily “parameters” are actually aspects of special added to the language, e.g., xerox. items in the lexicon (the functional items).

Lexical vs. functional Lexical vs. functional

¥ Functional items are generally closed-class words, ¥ The parameters of a language are features words that have a strictly grammatical function of functional words in the lexicon. and which generally cannot have new members added. For example, the, a, each, or, not, … ¥ In a sense, learning the grammar of a ¥ The functional items are the ones which are most language under this view is just a matter of closely tied to the grammar of a language. learning the properties of the function According to the MP, it is solely properties of these functional categories that determine the words. We’ll delve into this deeper as we differences between grammars of different continue… languages (rather than independent parameters).

1 Functional heads X-bar theory XP ′ ¥ The inventory of functional items in a language is Specifier X not restricted to words. X Complement ¥ Functional items also include suffixes and prefixes, ¥ For thinking about functional structure in a , e.g., -ed (past tense), -s (3sg ), -s we will make use of a recent development in the theory (plural),-ing (progressive), and so forth. of syntactic structure: X-bar theory. ¥ Under this view of syntax, the basic structure of ¥ X-bar theory is primarily based on the hypothesis that the sentence is held together by functional all structural components of a sentence can be elements, with the lexical elements sort of filling described in terms of the X-bar template above. in the blanks. ¥ X stands for any category (for example V, N, …)

X-bar theory X-bar theory XP ′ ¥ Every category can have a complement (like an Specifier X ). For example the complement of V is the X Complement direct object (eat lunch), the complement of P is the object of the preposition (at school), the ¥ The complement and the specifier are themselves complement of N (book of poems). each some kind of XP. ¥ Consider book of poems. Of poems is the VP XP complement of the book. Book of poems is an NP. But of poems is itself an XP—it is a PP — V′ X′ Specifier (prepositional ), with of as the P and with the VNP X Complement complement poems. eat lunch

DP X-bar theory A real live X-bar structure D′ ¥ Here’s the book of poems. DP ¥ A fairly clear example D NP ¥ The is a , of an X-bar structure the taking an NP complement ′′′ N′ DP D is a noun phrase with book, which takes a PP a possessor, like ′ D NP N PP complement of, which D the student’s book. takes an NP complement ’s book ′ D NP N′ P poems. ¥ Notice that the higher the D is not a word, it’s PNP ¥ So far all of the specifier N′ N book of positions are empty. the little suffix-like N′ N particle (clitic) ’s. student N poems

2 A real live X-bar structure A real live X-bar structure

DP ¥ Notice that anything that DP ¥ This includes the counts as a “DP” (that is student’s book, which ′′′ basically a noun phrase ′′′ DP D DP D counts as a DP too (as with an , like the the structure to the left D′ D NP student or a happy D′ D NP indicates). ’s millionaire) can go into ’s N′ N′ D NP the first slot. D NP Ð The student’s book’s the the cover was torn. N′ N Ð The woman from N′ N book Australia’s book. book Ð The student’s book’s N N Ð The storekeeper we met cover’s title art was student last week’s book. student mesmerizing.

X-bar parameters X-bar parameters

¥ Languages overwhelmingly tend to use the same ¥ Compare Japanese, which has the reverse property. ordering in all of their X-bar structures. That is, In Japanese the object precedes the , objects complements follow the (in English, say), precede postpositions, nouns follow relative whether the head is a verb (eat lunch), a preposition (e.g., that I read book). (in class), a noun (book that I read). ¥ Not every language for every XP, but strong tendency. XP ¥ “Head parameter” XP

Specifier X′ Specifier X′

X Complement Complement X

Clause structure structure

¥ Across languages, clauses are believed to have ¥ Below (inside) the CP, there is a phrase which for a long basically the same underlying structure. time syntacticians called IP ( phrase), which has ¥ At the top of the structure, there is a the in its specifier and has the tense and agreement “” phrase that is realized by inflection in its head (like the past tense or 3sg present elements like that, or if: suffixes), or modals like will or must or auxiliaries like be or Ð I said [that [John left]]. have. This is the “tense slot” I was talking about when we Ð I asked [if [John left]]. talked about verb-raising. IP ¥ A complementizer heads a CP, and takes Ð John will leave. I′ essentially a whole sentence as its complement. Ð John has eaten. John I… will

3 CP Clause structure C′ Clause structure C AgrP ¥ However, there is reason to believe based on a lot of that ¥ Below the TP, there is a Agr′ syntactic work over the past 10 years that actually tense DP VP () which and agreement are separate things, and that they each Agr TP generally contains the need to have their own position in the clause structure. John verb and any object. All T′ ¥ So, the Infl phrase was “split” into two , a together… T VP ¥ This is pretty much Tense Phrase (TP) and an Agreement Phrase (AgrP), will and their duties were split up as well. V′ what is assumed to be ¥ The subject is in the specifier of AgrP. the basic clause VDPstructure across ¥ T is where modals (will, must) and tense are initially eat languages: (i.e. before they move anywhere if they do). lunch CP-AgrP-TP-VP.

CP C′ Movement Movement C AgrP that ¥ Under certain conditions, ¥ As discussed before, this kind of movement (for Agr′ DP things move around in the example, V moving to T) happens in all sentences in a sentence. Agr TP language, for example French. John ¥ In questions, T usually ′ ¥ Under the MP, this is a property of T. In some T moves to C. languages T requires verb movement, in some Ð Will John eat lunch? T VP languages it doesn’t. will ¥ In French, V moves to T. ¥ This is considered to be a (morphological) property of V′ Ð Jean (ne) mange pas du T. It is part of learning the “words” that can be used in chocolat. VDP the T node of a sentence in a language. There is eat something about these words (like for example, that lunch they are affixes) that requires a verb.

Functional categories Functional categories in L1A ¥ To reiterate, functional categories (T, Agr, D, P) ¥ There is some debate concerning L1A and are taken to be where the parameters that children’s use of functional categories. differentiate languages are ¥ Kids start out saying sentences that tend to ¥ For example, for T we can see that it is either of omit words we associate with functional the “needs a verb” type (French) or not categories—they often do not inflect their (English). verbs (for tense or agreement, a property of T), ¥ Functional categories and their properties are a they often do not use (D). crucial component of the adult native-speaker ¥ Some researchers take this to be evidence that knowledge of a language. kids learn lexical categories first and only later move on to using functional categories.

4 Functional categories in L1A Functional categories in L1A

¥ Over the past decade or so, it has become ¥ In French, recall, verbs often move up to T. clearer, however, that kids do seem to have We know this, for example, because the access to (knowledge of) functional verb appears before the negative marker pas categories and their properties. There is a (assumed to mark the boundary between TP and VP). fairly dramatic example of this we can observe in both French and German. ¥ Nonfinite verbs (like to go in I want to go) generally occur after the negative marker pas. (I want not to go). Ð Ne pas regarder la télé consolide l’esprit critique.

Functional categories in L1A Functional categories in L1A

¥ That is, only tensed (finite) verbs move up ¥ However, what is interesting is that once to T. Nonfinite verbs do not. There is kids start using finite verbs, they put them in difference, depending on what is in T. the right place. That is, when the French kid ¥ Children around age 2 are producing multi- uses a (even if the adult word sentences, but across many languages would have used a finite verb), s/he’ll put it it appears to be the case that they will after a negation marker pas, and when s/he sometimes use nonfinite verbs where an uses a finite verb, s/he’ll put it before the adult would have to use a finite verb. negation marker pas.

Functional categories in L1A Functional categories in L1A

¥ So, even though kids will sometimes use ¥ In German, something very similar happens. nonfinite verbs, they know the difference ¥ German is at a certain level a lot like between finite and nonfinite verb and know Japanese; its basic is SOV, with how the grammar treats each kind. They are the verb at the end of the sentence. However, using T correctly. They just sometimes pick German has an extra complication; in the wrong one. simple sentences, a finite verb has to appear in “second position.”

5 CP German and L1A German and L1A

DP C′ ¥ This “second position” is generally thought to ¥ Like in French, it turns out that kids around C+I IP John ate be C, where something age 2 learning German will sometimes use ′ — I else (like the subject, or nonfinite verbs, but when they use nonfinite any other XP) needs to verbs, they leave them at the end of the VP — appear in SpecCP. sentence, and when they use finite verbs, V′ ¥ This only happens with finite verbs. Nonfinite they put them in “2nd position.” — DP verbs remain at the end of the sentence (after the lunch object).

Re: L2A Functional categories

¥ This raises the question (in the general ¥ Rephrasing a bit, what we’re talking about is ballpark of “how much is L2A like L1A?”) essentially the structural complexity of the as to whether second language learners learner’s (L1A/L2A) knowledge (at a given point). show this effect as well. ¥ It has been pretty well established by theoretical linguistics that adult native languages are quite complex, containing functional phrases like AgrP, TP and CP, and there is a lot of support for this idea that most if not all parameteric difference stem from properties of the functional .

Functional categories Functional categories

¥ What we’re looking at is the question of ¥ So, the evidence we just reviewed suggests how much of this structure is present in the very strongly that kids learning German and L1 and L2 learner’s grammar. French produce sentences which comply ¥ Verb movement (if it conforms to the rules with the rules of adult syntax that make of adult native-speaker verb movement, reference to this complex functional anyway) serves as evidence for this complex structure. Kids seem to “know about” the functional structure, since the verb moves TP and the CP and the rules that pertain into a functional “slot” (T, for example). thereto.

6 Functional categories Prévost and White (1999, 2000)

¥ The question we’re about to look at is whether adult ¥ Prévost and White (1999, 2000) investigated this second language learners also have this same very question, and here’s what they found. complex structural knowledge in their IL. Do L2’ers ¥ Like kids do during L1A, second language “know about TP” in other words? learners will sometimes omit, and sometimes ¥ Note that if L2’ers can usually produce sentences provide, inflection (tense, subject agreement) on which are grammatical in the TL but yet don’t the verb. “follow the rules” which are associated with that ¥ When there is tense or agreement, the verb is finite structure (i.e. that only finite verbs move to T), we (as opposed to being an ). In adult/native do not have evidence that their mental representation languages, finite verbs are generally the ones that of these sentences includes the higher functional move (like in French and German). phrases like TP.

Prévost and White Inflection and movement ¥ Prévost and White try to differentiate two possibilities of what their data might show, given ¥ The L1A cases of movement of the verb if and that second language learners sometimes use only if it is finite are fairly dramatic because it inflected verbs and sometimes don’t. shows that the kids Ð Impairment Hypothesis. The learners don’t really Ð Know the difference between finite and nonfinite (consistently) understand the inflection or how to use it. (that is, they “know about T” and they know the Their knowledge of inflection is “impaired”. Their trees don’t contain the functional XPs. implications of the properties of T). Ð Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis. The learners Ð Know that finite verbs move. will sometimes pronounce finite verbs in their infinitive Ð Know that nonfinite verbs do not move. form (the verbs act finite, the function XP’s are there, but ¥ What about second language learners? the learner couldn’t find the right inflected form in his/her lexicon in time, so s/he used the nonfinite form).

Prévost and White Prévost and White ¥ The first possibility (impairment) suggests basically no correlation between verb movement ¥ P&W looked at spontaneous speech data from and inflection. two adults learning L2 French (from Moroccan ¥ The second possibility (mispronouncing a finite Arabic, after a year) and two adults learning L2 verb by using its nonfinite form) predicts that German (from Spanish and Portuguese, after 3 months). Monthly interviews followed for Ð When the finite form is pronounced, the verb will definitely be (and act) finite—i.e., it will move. about 2 years. Ð When the nonfinite form is pronounced, it might act finite or nonfinite.

7 Prévost and White found… ¥ Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in non-finite Prévost and White contexts at all. ¥ When verbs are marked with inflection, they systematically ¥ That is, their data strongly supports the hypotheses (overwhelmingly) appear before negation (i.e., they move). that: ¥ Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts (used Ð (These) second language learners know the difference finitely, moved). between finite and nonfinite verbs. Oblig. Fin Oblig. Nonfin Ð They know that finite verbs move, and that nonfinite +Fin -Fin -Fin +Fin verbs do not move. A(F) 767 243 278 17 Ð The only real errors they make are essentially lexical retrieval errors (errors of pronunciation), pronouncing Z(F) 755 224 156 2 verbs which are abstractly finite in their infinitive form. A(G) 389 45 76 7 Z(G) 434 85 98 6

L2A and L1A L2A and L1 ¥ We don’t know really to what extent “UG” ¥ One thing this tells us is that, despite played a role, based only on this—after all, we possible appearances to the contrary, second know that the L1 had the full structural language learners’ interlanguages are quite complexity of a natural language, including the systematic and complex, and the L2 learners distinction (perhaps abstract) between finite and have the same kind of abstract structural nonfinite, and including (perhaps abstract) knowledge incorporated into their IL that subject agreement, etc. There’s no reason that we can argue for in the case of L1 learners. knowledge of the distinction between finite and nonfinite couldn’t simply carry over (“transfer”) to the IL during L2A.

Functional categories Functional categories

¥ There is a “competing” view (which we will ¥ That is, initially L2’ers (and L1’ers) do not close out this portion of the course with next represent sentences with AgrP, TP, CP, and time) of the role that abstract functional all of that, but rather have very reduced categories (like T) play in L2A (and L1A). representations of sentences, but that they ¥ It is based on the idea that L2’ers (and proceed through stages of “taller and taller actually L1’ers too) proceed to a point where trees” until the full functional structure is they have the whole functional structure, but present. by “building up the tree”

8