GRS LX 700 Parameters Language Acquisition and • Languages differ in the settings of parameters (as Linguistic Theory well as in the pronunciations of the words, etc.). • To learn a second language is to learn the parameter settings for that language. • Where do you keep the parameters from the Week 10. second, third, etc. language? You don’t have a Parameters, transfer, and functional single parameter set two different ways, do you? categories in L2A • “Parameter resetting” doesn’t mean monkeying with your L1 parameter settings, it means setting your L2 parameter to its appropriate setting. Four views on the role of L1 Some parameters that have been parameters looked at in L2A • UG is still around to constrain L2/IL, parameter • Pro drop (null subject) parameter (whether empty settings of L1 are adopted at first, then parameters subjects are allowed; Spanish yes, English no) are reset to match L2. • Head parameter (where the head is in X-bar • UG does not constrain L2/IL but L1 does, L2 can structure with respect to its complement; Japanese adopt properties of L1 but can’t reset the head-final, English head-initial) parameters (except perhaps in the face of brutally • ECP/that-trace effect (*Who did you say that t left? direct evidence, e.g., headedness). English: yes, Dutch: no). • IL cannot be described in terms of parameter • Subjacency/bounding nodes (English: DP and IP, settings—it is not UG-constrained. Italian/French: DP and CP). • UG works the same in L1A and L2A. L1 shouldn’t have any effect. Null subject parameter Null subject parameter • The best parameters are those which have several • Spanish (+NS) L1 learning English (–NS) different effects. There are a number of things – An error constituting transfer of +NS would be omitting which seem to “cluster” with the availability of a subject in an English sentence, which requires a null subjects (providing clues as to what the actual subject. parameter is). • English (–NS) L1 learning Spanish (+NS) – null subjects are allowed – What would count as an error constituting transfer of – no pleonastic (dummy) pronouns (it’s raining) +NS? Trickier—have to look for context where Spanish would definitely drop the subject, and see if English – rich verbal agreement speakers incorrectly retain the subject. Even then, does – verb can precede subject in declaratives (came John) that mean the Spanish learner doesn’t have the – Embedded subject can be questioned with overt that parameter down, or just hasn’t worked out the pragmatics of where a subject should be dropped? Null subject parameter Null subject parameter White (1985), gramm. judg. task • Percent correct at • White (1985) identifying – 32 Spanish (+NS) Sentence type Spanish French ungrammatical (U) as – 2 Italian (+NS) Subjectless U 61 89 ungrammatical and grammatical (G) as – 37 French (–NS) Subjectful G 90 97 grammatical. – learning English (–NS) • Spanish is +NS, • Testing not only for null subjects but also for VS U 91 96 French is –NS, properties that “cluster” with null subjects (all of SV G 81 85 English –NS which—then—are different between Spanish and • Probable English, but the same between French and that-trace U 23 35 methodological English). problems with VS, other mmts G 79 79 SV, and that-trace sentences. Null subject parameter Null subject parameter White (1985), question formation • So, these +NS Spanish speakers accepted Spanish (+NS) that- other subjectless English sentences around 40% of the correct trace errs learning English (–NS) time (vs. 10% for French speakers), they produced Spanish (n=22) 17 71 12 were more that-trace errors 70% of the time (vs. 40% for likely to make French speakers). French (n=30) 20 42 38 that-trace errors. • There is some effect at least of the ±NS setting of the L1. • Is it transfer of the parameter value? Well, if so, Elizabeth believes that her sister will be late. Who does Elizabeth believe (*that) t will be late? there should be “clustering”—is there? Null subject parameter Null subject parameter Phinney (1987) Phinney (1987) • English->Spanish and Spanish->English ESL1 ESL2 SSL1 SSL2 • Perhaps questionable methodology (written, referential 13 6 83 65 exam in one case, class composition pleonastic 56 76 100 100 assignment in the other, Spanish speakers had English in school—perhaps not entirely • Omission of pleonastic pronoun subjects. learned as an adult, English speakers only – can’t be omitted in English, must be omitted in Spanish. had exposure in college), but… • English->Spanish (SSL) always omitted pleonastic. • Spanish->English (ESL) sometimes omitted pleonastic. – Spanish: Carrying over [+NS] from L1. – English: Not carrying over [–NS] from L1. Null subject parameter Null subject parameter Phinney (1987) Phinney (1987) ESL1 ESL2 SSL1 SSL2 ESL1 ESL2 SSL1 SSL2 referential 13 6 83 65 referential 13 6 83 65 pleonastic 56 76 100 100 pleonastic 56 76 100 100 • Why would [+NS] be transferred and not [–NS]? • If [+NS] is the default, occurrence of over pleonastic • Perhaps there is a default (first setting) of the null subject pronouns could serve as evidence that the language is parameter: [+NS]. [–NS]; the non-default (marked) value can be learned. – Learners of a [–NS] language need to change that parameter. – Learners of a [+NS] language already have it right. • Arguments both for and against this exist… we can keep it in the back of our minds as a concept, though… Word order parameters Word order parameters • Japanese is head-final (SOVIC) • Quick mention of Flynn (1987) via White: –[CP [IP S [VP O V ] I ] C ] • Flynn (1987) was testing not the headedness parameter itself but things which are supposed to • English is head-initial (CSIVO) correlate with it. One such thing has to do with anaphora, and the order in which a pronoun and –[CP C [IP S I [VP V O ] ] its antecedent are preferably found. Further study showed this “correlated property” to be quite • This is a parameter by which languages unreliable, and should probably be considered to differ—but it should be pretty obvious to be its own parameter (at best). the L2 learner. Word order parameters Word order parameters (*UG) Clahsen and Muysken (1986) Clahsen & Muysken • Arguing for a non-UG-based view of L2A. That is, • C&M looked at naturalistic production data. that L1A of German and L2A of German are • They suggest that L2 learners extract the different. “canonical” order (SVO) and stick with that • (L1) kids get SOV order right away. (later learning to move non-finite verbs to • L2 learners coming from Romance use SVO order the end). (not just V2), but this isn’t even transfer, since L2 learners coming from Turkish also use SVO order • White: But how do they arrive at the (not SOV). canonical order? How can they tell that the • To the extent that people learn the SOV German Adv-V-S-O order is non-canonical? order, it’s due to (unnatural) rules transforming underlying SVO structures to the SOV forms. Word order parameters (*UG?) Vainikka & Young-Scholten Clahsen & Muysken • L2 learners do seem to have assumed SVO, producing • Vainikka & Young-Scholten explore the things like Adv-SVO, SV±FinO, … “canonical order”?? development of L2 phrase structure in some • Most languages are uniform with respect to detail—concentrating to some extent on the headedness—but German isn’t. CP is head initial, while VP headedness parameter. is head-final (IP could be either). • They are looking at naturalistic L2A (migrant workers in Germany with different L1 • German has mixed headedness (CSIOV) backgrounds, including Turkish [SOV], Korean –[ C [ S I [ O V ] ] CP IP VP [SOV], Spanish [SVO], and Italian [SVO]). • Learner of German could easily assume German is head- initial—that is, SVO. Vainikka & Young-Scholten Vainikka & Young-Scholten • V&YS propose that phrase structure is built • Vainikka (1993/4) argued for this in L1A of up from just a VP all the way up to a full English. In particular: clause. • Acquisition goes in (syntactically identifiable • Similar to Radford’s L1 proposal except stages). Those stages correspond to ever-greater that there is an order of acquisition even articulation of the tree. past the VP (i.e., IP before CP). Also – VP stage: no NOM subjects, no wh-questions. similar to Rizzi’s L1 “truncation” proposal. – IP stage: NOM subjects except in wh-questions. • V&YS propose that both L1A and L2A – CP stage: NOM subjects and wh-questions. involve this sort of “tree building.” Vainikka & Young-Scholten’s V&YS—headedness transfer primary claims about L2A • Cross-sectional: 6 Korean, 6 Spanish, 11 Turkish. • L2A takes place in stages, grammars which Longitudinal: 1 Spanish, 4 Italian. successively replace each other (perhaps • In the VP stage, speakers seem to produce after a period of competition). sentences in which the headedness matches their • The stages correspond to the “height” of the L1 and not German. clausal structure. • L2 learners do transfer the structure of the L1 L1 head head-final VPs in L2 VP from their first language, but nothing Korean/Turkish final 98 else. Italian/Spanish (I) initial 19 Italian/Spanish (II) initial 64 V&YS—headedness transfer V&YS L2A—VP stage • VP-i: L1 value transferred for head-parameter, trees truncated at VP. stage L1 Aux Mod Default • VP-ii: L2 value adopted for head-parameter, trees still truncated at VP • At the VP stage, we VP Kor 1 1 68 NL VPs V-initial V-final find lack of VP Tur 0 1 75 Bongiovanni I 20 13 (65%) 7 – verb raising (INFL and/or CP) Salvatore I 44 35 (80%) 9 VP-i It 0 0 34 (65) – auxiliaries and Jose S 20 15 (75%) 5 modals (generated in VP-ii It 0 0 29 (63) Rosalinda S 24 24 (100%) 0 INFL) VP-i Sp 8 5 74 Antonio S 68 20 48 (71%) – an agreement paradigm (INFL) VP-ii Sp 1 1 57 Jose S 37 23 14 (38%) – complementizers (CP) All came from Rosalinda (Sp.); three Lina I 24 7 17 (71%) – wh-movement (CP) instances of wolle ‘want’ and five with is(t) Salvatore I 25 6 19 (76%) ‘is’—evidence seems to be that she doesn’t control IP yet.