Batia Snir-Ling190 1

TANJA KUPISCH AND CRISTINA PIERANTOZZI INTERPRETING DEFINITE PLURAL SUBJECTS: A COMPARISON OF GERMAN AND ITALIAN MONOLINGUAL AND BILINGUAL CHILDREN QUESTION: HOW AND WHY DOES CROSS-LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE MANIFEST IN BILINGUALS?

BACKGROUND DETERMINERS IN GERMAN AND ITALIAN It has been suggested that Interface phenomena are especially vulnerable to cross-linguistic influence. Doubly so if there is overlap in the phenomena between the two languages. FIG. 1: DETERMINERS BY SUBJECT TYPE German Italian Subject DP type Specific reading (any number) DEFINITE: DEFINITE: “The cat eats mice” Die Katze frisst Mäuse. Il gatto mangia topi. “The cats eat mice” Die Katzen fressen Mäuse. I gatti mangiano topi “The wine is healthy” Der Wein ist gesund. Il vino è sano. Generic reading (singular) DEFINITE: DEFINITE: “The cat eats mice” Die Katze frisst Mäuse. Il gatto mangia topi. Generic reading (plural) BARE: DEFINITE: “Cats eat mice.” Katzen fressen Mäuse. I gatti mangiano topi. Generic reading (mass noun) BARE: DEFINITE: “Wine is healthy” Wein ist gesund. Il vino è sano.

FIG. 2: INTERPRETATION BY DETERMINER TYPE German Italian Singular noun Definite Specific/Generic Specific/Generic Bare * * Plural noun Definite Specific Specific/Generic Bare Generic * Mass noun Definite Specific Specific/Generic Bare Generic *

CROSS-LINGUISTIC INTERFERENCE Though the Separate System Hypothesis posits that bilinguals treat their languages discretely, there is clear evidence that the languages are in contact and influence each other accordingly. HYPOTHESES FOR CROSS-LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE Researchers have hypothesized that language influence is driven by any of a number of factors:

 STRUCTURAL OVERLAP: It has consistently been shown that if two languages have a great deal of structural overlap, we predict a higher degree of influence (Müller & Hulk 2000, Bernardini 2004, Nicoladis 2006) Specifically, if one language (the superset) has two options where the other (the subset) has one, the overlapping option will be overused— the subset influencing the superset. Batia Snir-Ling190 2

Here, this means we would expect Italian to influence German, with a result of definite marked DPs being acceptable with a generic reading.  LANGUAGE-INTERNAL FACTORS: Influence could result from considerations of computational complexity at the syntax-semantic or syntax-pragmatic interface. (Müller & Hulk 2000, Paradis & Navarro 2003, Serratrice et al. 2009) Economy considerations might come into play if comparing bare and definite DPs, but are not relevant given the structure of the experimental task.  LANGUAGE-EXTERNAL FACTORS: Alternatively, degree of influence may depend on factors such as language dominance. (Bernardini 2004, Argyri & Sorace 2007, Kupisch 2007, Yip & Matthews 2009) Here, this predicts that the German-dominant bilinguals will have problems with the Italian definite generic reading, as it is not allowed in German outside the singular.

GENERICS The various studies into generics have not painted a unified picture of the phenomena.

 GELMAN & RAMAN 2003: 2-year-old children can discriminate between specific and generic readings  PÉREZ-LEROUX, MUNN, SCHMITT & DE IRISH 2004: Monolingual Spanish and English- speaking children ages 4-7 favored generic readings more frequently than adult subjects. But experimental design is critical; there may be inadvertent pragmatic biasing going on.  SERRATRICE ET AL. 2009: English-Italian bilinguals showed influence from English in their willingness to accept ungrammatical bare generics in Italian, but behaved similarly to monolinguals in English. In addition, children showed difficulty integrating semantic cues into their interpretation. Does the acceptances of syntactic violations predict an acceptance of semantic violations? What would occur in a case of semantic similarity and semantic difference?

EXPERIMENT: PARTICIPANTS Child subjects fell into one of three groups:  22 German-Italian bilingual children, mean age 8;3  32 Italian monolingual children, mean age 8;8  26 German monolingual children, mean age 8;0 In addition, there were 2 groups of adult controls:  23 Italian monolingual adults, mean age 21;3  13 German monolingual adults, mean age 25;3

THE TRUTH VALUE JUDGMENT TASK The task was arranged around a series of 16 pictures, which were shown on computer screen. The pictures formed a coherent story about two children and their adventures. Each picture contained at least two anomalous objects or characters (e.g. witches flying on vacuum cleaners, cubical soccer balls), and each picture had an associated context.

Subjects were shown/told the story, and instructed to answer the questions with either a “yes” or “no.”

Batia Snir-Ling190 3

Task Questions The story accompanied a set of 44 questions yes/no questions, balanced to expect an equal number of each answer. Questions were both canonical and noncanonical, were one of five types: 1. Control 1(n=6): Questions with demonstrative DPs, meant to show whether subjects distinguished between definite and demonstrative DPs and check that subjects perceived the anomaly in the picture. 2. Control 2 (n=6): “free questions,” meant to control for subjects’ noticing the anomalies. 3. Control 3 (n=4): Unambiguous DPs  (German only) Questions with bare nouns  (Italian only): Questions with definite DPs combined with semantic cues (qui, “here”) 4. Distractors (n=16) 5. Test (n=12): Questions with subject DPs with definite articles (recall: ambiguous in Italian/specific in German)

FIG. 3 TASK QUESTION SAMPLES German Italian 1 Spucken diese Drachen Feuer? Questi draghi sputano fuoco? “Do these dragons spit fire?” “Do these dragons spit fire?” 2 Kannst Du mir sagen, was hier nicht stimmt? Nell'immagine c'è un errore. Ti va di trovarlo insieme? “Can you tell me what’s strange on this picture?” “There’s a mistake on this picture. Shall we find it together?” 3 Haben Ampeln rotes, grünes und blaues Licht? Qui i semafori hanno la luce blu? “Do traffic lights have red, green and blue lights?” “Here the traffic lights have blue lights?” 4 Muss man stehen bleiben, wenn eine Ampel rot ist? Si può partire quando il semaforo è rosso? “Do you have to stop when the light is red?” “Can you move when the traffic light is red?”

5 Spucken die Drachen Wasser? I draghi sputano fuoco? “Do the dragons spit water?” “Do the dragons spit fire?”

RESULTS BILINGUALS

Batia Snir-Ling190 4

IN GERMAN:  Children showed a strong preference (93%) for the generic reading when presented a bare noun (Control 3).  Children showed a strong preference (80%) for the specific reading when presented a demonstrative (Control 1)  With the definite test case, they were split between generic and specific readings, even though that case is not ambiguous in German!

IN ITALIAN:  Children showed a strong preference (78%) when presented with the semantic cue qui alongside a definite DP (Control 3)  Children showed a strong preference (91%) for the specific reading when presented a demonstrative (Control 1)  With the definite test case, children gave both generic and specific responses, but favored the former to the latter (50% vs. 28%).

COMPARED TO MONOLINGUALS

GERMAN Batia Snir-Ling190 5

 When compared to monolingual German children, a similar pattern emerges with respect to the test questions, with the larger split falling along age lines.

ITALIAN

 In Italian, however, there is a noticeable (and statistically significant) difference between monolingual and bilingual subjects (Remember, both readings are grammatical here)

DISCUSSION

 Bilingual and monolingual children behaved similarly. This supports the idea of language separation.  German bilingual and monolingual children gave a similar amount of generic answers for definite DPs. The superset-subset hypothesis was not supported.  German-dominant children did not seem to have problems with the generic reading. Implications for language-dominance hypothesis inconclusive.