Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of IowaIowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
2014
Processing long-distance dependencies: Clitic LeftDislocation in L2 SpanishTania Lorena LealUniversity of Iowa
Copyright 2014 Tania L. Leal
This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1353
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of the First and Second Language Acquisition Commons
Recommended CitationLeal, Tania Lorena. "Processing long-distance dependencies: Clitic Left Dislocation in L2 Spanish." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy)thesis, University of Iowa, 2014.http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1353.
1
PROCESSING LONG-DISTANCE DEPENDENCIES: CLITIC LEFT DISLOCATION
IN L2 SPANISH
by
Tania Lorena Leal
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of
Philosophy degree in Second Language Acquisition in the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
August 2014
Thesis Supervisors: Professor Roumyana Slabakova Associate Professor Paula Kempchinsky
2
Copyright by
TANIA LORENA LEAL
2014
All Rights Reserved
Graduate College The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
_______________________
PH.D. THESIS
_______________
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of
Tania Lorena Leal
has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Second Language Acquisition at the August 2014 graduation.
Thesis Committee: ___________________________________ Roumyana Slabakova, Thesis Supervisor
___________________________________ Paula Kempchinsky, Thesis Supervisor
___________________________________ Thomas Farmer
___________________________________ Luis López
___________________________________ Christine Shea
ii
2
To my parents.
iii
3
Puedo desconectar, pero sólo en ciertos estados de ánimo irresponsable o bien mediante un gran esfuerzo, y por eso a veces me alegro de que los murmullos sean de veras
indistinguibles y los susurros imperceptibles, y de que existan tantas lenguas que me son extrañas y no son deducibles, porque así descanso.
Javier Marías Corazón Tan Blanco
iv
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation is the product of the help and support of many people, a few of
whom I will invariably forget to mention—my apologies in advance. Back in 2008, when
I first came to the University of Iowa, I got to meet Roumyana Slabakova in Syntax I. I
probably read more during that semester than I did during the entire final year of my
M.A. studies. I had a lot of catching up to do, but even beyond that I couldn’t help
myself—it is to her credit that I became fascinated with the syntactic side of language,
and it is no exaggeration to say that meeting her changed my life. Roumyana’s mentoring
has never stopped at the classroom door: She has always answered every email and
request, however small, and has managed to keep up with pretty much every aspect of my
academic training. I am forever thankful to her. My other co-director, Paula
Kempchinsky, a.k.a. the most native Spanish near-native I know, is also one of the most
selfless scholars I’ve ever met. Her knowledge of the syntactic literature has been
invaluable in the course of my training and her pithy summative statements (on pretty
much every subject imaginable) have provided me with many moments of spontaneous
laughter. My research (dissertation and beyond) has been greatly improved because of
her insights and her encouragement. Mis más sinceras gracias por todo, incluyendo todas
las tortillas españolas tuyas que me comí durante estos años.
I am also especially thankful to my committee members for their help. I owe the
cheeriest parts of my take on academia to Richard Hurtig. He must be one of the most
well-liked professors I know, and for good reason. His contributions to this dissertation
went well beyond the design but his comments always encouraged me to think about the
fine-grained consequences of any choice in methodology. The second chapter in this
dissertation would have never existed had I not been lucky enough to take his
Psycholinguistics course. Christine Shea was also instrumental in helping me to choose
between the types of methodologies I considered early on in the planning stages of the
v
5
dissertation; she also helped me see the bright side of things when pilot data was, let’s
say, surprising. I am also very thankful to Luis López for having written his book on
Information Structure and even more thankful that he agreed to be on this committee. His
model of syntax-IS interaction has inspired many of the research projects I have
completed.
When I think of my department, I always think of three wonderful women: Judy,
Sue, and Kathy. Judith Liskin-Gasparro, without whom my data collection in the U.S.
would have never happened, changes everything she touches for the better, and I am
beyond lucky to have met her. She is the little voice in my head that tells me to think
beyond my syntax box and get my hands dirty—both when dealing with data and
(especially) when eating grapefruit. When I want to think of something lovely, I think of
giving her a hug under the apple tree in her backyard. I will never think of Iowa City
without thinking of her smile. Sue Otto is my idea of a perfectly balanced human being:
one of the most graceful and yet strong women I know. However hard a day I have had, I
always feel instantly better upon crossing the threshold of her door. She handles every
request, large and small, tech-related or not, with kindness and efficiency. I don’t think I
ever left her office without laughing at least once. I have often thought to myself, in times
of difficulty, “What would Sue say?” and never failed to feel better. I have never stopped
missing Kathy Heilenman. She had the uncanny ability to say the right thing even before
the right time appeared on the horizon. During our first conversation, she gave me the
one piece of advice I kept holding on to after my comprehensive exams. Things will get
rough, she said, but you just keep trying. She taught me how to walk in the snow (I fell
only once!) and provided me with the most impressive example of professionalism by
being absolutely present in class through her painful treatment. Son un ejemplo a seguir,
las tres. Gracias.
I was incredibly lucky to have landed in Thomas Farmer’s seminar right before I
decided on the methodology for the dissertation. Without his insight and dedication, I
vi
6
would never have attempted to place processing at the center of the project. He has
always been willing to help, and he has inspired me to work hard by example—I had all
but forgotten what all-nighters were until I met him. I am especially thankful for his
willingness to engage with second language research (and linguistic terminology) and to
do so with gusto. Grazie. I was also extremely lucky to have met Jason Rothman during
his time at Iowa. I owe much of my linguistic foundation to the many seminars of his that
I attended. Beyond Iowa, Jason was incredibly helpful, a pesar de la distancia y el
charco, during my last semester. He never failed to be supportive throughout, both as a
mentor and as a co-author. My deepest thanks to him. I am also thankful for the
professors of the FLARE, Spanish and Portuguese, Linguistics, and Psychology
departments at the University of Iowa for their help and support.
If my dissertation was only possible because of my mentors, graduate school was
only possible because of my colleagues. Elena Shimanskaya single-handedly made my
data collection at Iowa viable, offering encouragement and bringing (and buying) me
lunch and coffee whenever I forgot to make room between data collection sessions
(which happened often). She has never failed to make me laugh through the most
frustrating parts of the experience, and she even got me to be a regular at the gym at one
point (!). I can’t imagine grad school without her. Jeff Renaud patiently listened to all of
my patoaventuras and always had either the right words or gestures to make me feel
better. He never failed to be helpful in every respect, and my dogs, Chap and Bean, for
whom he cared many times, will miss him dearly. Mike Iverson, who is great at finding
links on Internets, was extremely helpful and patient through all of my questions, stats-
related or not. His Facebook statuses are the reason why I no longer check Facebook
while drinking coffee. Tiffany Judy, Gonzalo Campos, and Marta Tecedor have always
been helpful, encouraging, kind, and just all-around fun. Thank you guys. Brianna
Janssen Sánchez has the best advice about most anything and she has been generous in
every way, both with her help and time. Frau Kley was always willing to lend an ear over
vii
7
a Blue Moon and discuss data with me—Danke. I am also indebted the rest of the
FLAREs gang: Akiko, Anna, Brian, Céline, Chie, Chiemi, Denise, Ella, Elizabeth, Jacee,
Jen (Cabrelli), Jen (Vojtko), Jia, Karen, Lyudmila, Raychel, Olesya, Olga, Rajiv, Takako,
and Yi-Tzu. Gracias chic@s.
I am also extremely thankful to all the faculty and staff (at UI and Middlebury)
that made testing possible: Amber Brian, Denise Filios, Brian Gollnick, Christina
Isabelli, Luis Martín Estudillo, Ana Merino, Mercedes Nino Murcia, Ana Rodriguez,
Fanny Roncal Ramírez, Marda Rose, Jacobo Sefamí, Becky Bohde, Jennifer Crawford,
Greg Johnson, and Audrey LaRock. Thank you for letting me recruit in your classes and
for helping with the details of testing.
I am eternally thankful for my family and friends in Mexico who have always
been willing to help with my recruitment efforts. Erika Méndez Quero is the most
cheerful recruiter and I will be forever thankful for her and her family for their help. Mis
tíos (en orden) Raúl y Antonieta, Jorge y Juanita, y Migue y Analí: Gracias por su ayuda
y su apoyo, tanto incondicional como constante. Dr. Kimberly Davis, thank you for
always treating me like family. You are what I strive to be as a mentor. George and Cathy
Stack are the most supportive in-laws I have ever even heard of. They have traveled
thousands of miles to help at home whenever I have gone to gather data or to present
research. My most sincere thanks. My brother Oscar Leal is the brightest and most hard-
working person I know…also one of the funniest, which is really not fair. He has served
as an informant more times than he wishes to remember. No te escogí como hermano
pero si pudiera, lo haría dos veces. My parents Guillermo and Socorro were incredibly
helpful with the logistics of testing and recruiting. I would have no native data if it
weren’t for their efforts. En verdad que todas las páginas de esta tesis no serían
suficientes para listar todo lo han hecho por mí. Gracias. My husband, Micah Stack, has
sat through every draft of every paper I’ve written (including this dissertation, of course)
and picked up the slack at home whenever I have to leave town and gather (even more)
viii
8
data. He has been selfless and kind in every respect—time and time again he has placed
my research efforts above his own objectives and done so in admirable good humor. My
son Sebastian has provided me with the most joyous reprieves from my work and has
pouted minimally when I’ve had to leave him to do work.
This research was funded by the following grants: Executive Council of Graduate
and Professional Students Research Grant (University of Iowa), Ann Cleary Dissertation
Grant, and a Dissertation Improvement Grant from the National Science Foundation,
Award No. BCS-1323229.
ix
9
ABSTRACT
It has long been theorized that, after the so-called critical period has passed,
acquiring language becomes a more difficult enterprise. While general differences
between adult second language (L2) learners and normally developed child (L1)
acquirers have been more or less empirically established, a strand of recent L2 accounts
have focused on the specific locus of these differences. The main goal of this dissertation
project is to test the predictions of one such account: Clahsen and Felser’s Shallow
Structure Hypothesis (SSH; Clahsen & Felser 2006a, 2006b). The SSH places emphasis
on the empirical testing of native/non-native language processing asymmetries, which are
argued to be due to less detailed L2 grammatical representations. This dissertation tests
the predictions of the SSH using a long-distance dependency: Clitic Left Dislocation
(CLLD) in L2 Spanish. The study includes on-line and an off-line tasks, which were
completed by a control group of native speakers of Spanish and an experimental group
constituted by L2 learners of Spanish whose first language was English.
In view of the well-known fact that L2 learning outcomes vary widely across
individuals, a secondary goal of this dissertation project is to determine whether
variability in individual learning abilities, such as inhibitory control and statistical
learning predicts variability in L2 learning. Part of L2 learning involves detecting the
probabilistic patterns of a language (Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996), such that
individuals who are better pattern learners may be better able to learn the structural
regularities of the L2 input.
Results were analyzed in order to determine whether the predictions of the SSH
could account for the patterns present in the data. These results suggest that although the
acquisition of long-distance dependencies is a protracted process, both intermediate and
advanced L2 learners of Spanish could anticipate (predict) a syntactic element based in
previously occurring cues. Thus, these results fail to support the predictions of the SSH.
x
10
In terms of individual differences, overall, neither statistical learning nor inhibitory
control appear to modulate the on-line processing of this particular long-distance
dependency in Spanish.
xi
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1!1.1 The Research Problem ................................................................................4!1.2 Research Questions .....................................................................................7!1.3 Organization of the Dissertation .................................................................7!
CHAPTER 2 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH ON PROCESSING ..................................................................................................9!2.1 General Introduction to the Chapter ...........................................................9!2.2 On the plurality of SLA frameworks ..........................................................9!2.3 Generative Approaches to SLA ................................................................11!
2.3.1 Main tenets and goals .....................................................................11!2.3.2 Current Research in Generative L2A: Moving beyond the initial state ...............................................................................................14!2.3.3. Generative L2A and Language Processing Research ....................16!2.3.4 The Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH) ......................................17!
2.4 Usage-Based Approaches to SLA ............................................................20!2.4.1. Main tenets ....................................................................................20!
2.5 Statistical Learning and the Richness of the Input ...................................22!2.6 Research on L2 processing .......................................................................32!
2.6.1. Two Approaches to L2 Processing ................................................32!2.7 The Construct of Proficiency in L2 Research and the Relationship between Proficiency and Exposure .................................................................36!
2.7.1 The Relationship between Proficiency and L2 Processing ............39!2.8. The Generation of Predictions and L2 Processing ..................................46!2.9. Summary ..................................................................................................48!
CHAPTER 3 THE SYNTAX OF CLITIC LEFT DISLOCATION IN SPANISH ..........50!3.1 General Introduction to the Chapter .........................................................50!3.2 Properties of CLLD ..................................................................................51!
3.2.1 General structure and availability of CLLD in Romance Languages ................................................................................................51!3.2.2 Structural Properties of Spanish CLLD ..........................................55!
3.2.2.1 Types of phrases that can be (clitic) left dislocated .............55!3.2.2.2 The semantic relationship of the dislocated element and the clitic .....................................................................................58!3.2.2.3 CLLD and a-marking ...........................................................60!3.2.2.4 Iterative CLLD .....................................................................62!3.2.2.5 CLLD in combination with other elements in the left periphery ...........................................................................................64!3.2.2.6 CLLD in embedded clauses .................................................65!
3.2.3 Discourse Properties of Spanish CLLD .........................................67!3.2.3.1 CLLD and the notion of “Topic” .........................................67!
3.2.4 Other Dislocations in Spanish ........................................................68!3.2.4.1 CLLD and Hanging Topic Left Dislocation (HTLD) ..........69!3.2.4.2 CLLD and (Fronted) Focus ..................................................72!
3.3 CLLD “analogues”: English-style topicalization .....................................75!3.4 Syntactic analyses of CLLD .....................................................................77!
3.4.1 Movement vs. Base-Generation approaches ..................................78!3.4.2 The location (or landing site) of the dislocate ................................80!
3.4.2.1 Rizzi’s (1997, 2004) cartographic approach ........................81!3.4.2.2 López’s (2009) approach to Information Structure ..............85!
xii
12
3.5 Summary ...................................................................................................91!CHAPTER 4 METHODS ..................................................................................................92!
4.1 Introduction to the Chapter .......................................................................92!4.2 Participants ...............................................................................................93!
4.2.1. Second language learners ..............................................................93!4.2.1. Native speaker control group .........................................................94!
4.3 Tasks and Materials ..................................................................................95!4.3.1 Off-line Tasks .................................................................................96!
4.3.1.1 Proficiency Test: Materials and Procedures .........................97!4.3.1.2 Clitic Knowledge Test ..........................................................98!4.3.1.3 (English) Vocabulary Knowledge (L1 Verbal Skills) ........100!4.3.1.4 Audio-Visual Rating Task of CLLD ..................................101!4.3.1.5 Statistical Learning Task ....................................................104!4.3.1.6 Language Background Questionnaire ................................105!
4.3.2 On-line Tasks ................................................................................105!4.3.2.1 Self-paced reading task ......................................................106!4.3.2.2 Non-verbal Stroop task .......................................................108!
4.4 Summary .................................................................................................111!CHAPTER 5 RESULTS ..................................................................................................112!
5.1 Introduction to the Chapter .....................................................................112!5.2 Off-line Tasks .........................................................................................113!
5.2.1 Proficiency Test ............................................................................113!5.2.2 Clitic Knowledge Test ..................................................................115!5.2.3 (English) Vocabulary Knowledge (L1 Verbal Skills) ..................116!5.2.4 Audio-Visual Rating Task of CLLD ............................................116!
5.2.4.1 Rating Task: Main Clause CLLD (Group results) .............117!5.2.4.2 Rating Task: Embedded Clause CLLD (Group results) .....119!
5.2.5 Statistical Learning Task ..............................................................126!5.3 Interim Summary: Offline tasks .............................................................128!5.4 On-line Tasks ..........................................................................................129!
5.4.1 Self-paced reading task .................................................................129!5.4.1.1 Accuracy scores on comprehension questions ...................130!5.4.1.2 Reading Times ....................................................................131!
5.4.2 Non-verbal Stroop task .................................................................142!5.5 Inter-correlations between tasks .............................................................145!5.6 Summary .................................................................................................151!
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .....................................................153!6.1 Introduction to the Chapter .....................................................................153!6.2 Summary of Main Findings ....................................................................154!
6.2.1 Research Question 1 .....................................................................154!6.2.2 Research Question 2 .....................................................................158!6.2.3 Research Question 3 .....................................................................165!
6.3 Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research ................173!6.4. Conclusions ............................................................................................175!
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................177
xiii
13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 L2 processing studies using indirect measures of proficiency (no independent proficiency measure). ...........................................................................40!
Table 2-2 L2 processing studies using direct measures of proficiency (independent proficiency measure were used). ..............................................................................44!
Table 3-1 The Spanish clitic paradigm for dative and accusative clitics ...........................56!Table 3-2 Feature combinations and syntax-discourse structures, López (2009) ..............87!Table 4-1 Demographics of the L2 Learner group ............................................................94!Table 4-2 Demographics of the Native Speaker group ......................................................95!Table 4-3 Conditions and sample tokens from the Offline Rating Task .........................10�!Table 4-4 Grammar and items in Gómez’s Language 1 ..................................................105!Table 5-1 Means, standard deviations, and range of scores on the proficiency
measure per group. ..................................................................................................114!Table 5-2 Means, standard deviations, and ranges of the scores of the test of clitic
knowledge per group ..............................................................................................115!Table 5-3 Means, standard deviations, and ranges of the scores on the SILS
Vocabulary test for the L2 groups. .........................................................................116!Table 5-4 Pairwise comparisons (grammaticality*condition*group): Embedded
CLLD (native speakers). Conditions: C—Subjunctive Complements, D—Temporal Adverbials, E—Sentential Subjects. ......................................................124!
Table 5-5 Pairwise comparisons (grammaticality*condition*group): Embedded CLLD (L2 advanced learners) ................................................................................125!
Table 5-6 Pairwise comparisons (grammaticality*condition*group): Embedded CLLD (L2 intermediate learners) ...........................................................................126!
Table 5-7 Mean accuracy rates and standard deviations for the statistical learning task (all groups) ......................................................................................................127!
Table 5-8 Mean overall accuracy rates (fillers included) and standard deviations for the self-paced reading comprehension questions (all groups) ..........................130!
Table 5-9 Mean accuracy rates and standard deviations on the experimental items only (n=24 per list) for the self-paced reading comprehension questions (all groups) ....................................................................................................................131!
Table 5-10 Self-paced reading pairwise comparisons (segment * group): all segments except segment 8 for all participant groups. Superscripts indicate the group with the higher RT mean. .......................................................................137!
xiv
14
Table 5-11 Self-paced reading pairwise comparisons (condition*segment*group): all segments except segment 8 for all participant groups. Superscripts indicate the condition with the higher mean. ........................................................................139!
Table 5-12 Inter-correlation between task measures (significant correlations in shaded cells). ...........................................................................................................147!
xv
15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 López’s model: interaction of syntactic objects with pragmatics ....................86!Figure 4-1 Tasks with approximate durations (L2 group) .................................................96!Figure 4-2 Screenshot from the audio-visual rating task, condition e (temporal
adverbial clauses) ....................................................................................................101!Figure 4-3 Sample stimuli from the non-verbal Stroop task. Panel (a) depicts
congruent stimuli (left and right) and panel (b) depicts incongruent stimuli (left and right). ........................................................................................................110!
Figure 5-1 Mean acceptability rates for Condition A (CLLD + Fronted Focus) and B (CLLD + wh-operator) ........................................................................................118!
Figure 5-2 Mean acceptability rates for Embedded CLLD condition C (Subjunctive Complements) for all groups. .................................................................................120!
Figure 5-3 Mean acceptability rates for Embedded CLLD condition D (Temporal Adverbials) for all groups. ......................................................................................121!
Figure 5-4 Mean acceptability rates for Embedded CLLD condition E (Sentential Subjects) for all groups. ..........................................................................................122!
Figure 5-5 Reading times per region for the early and late completion conditions (error bars +/- 1SE) for the native speaker group (see (5-�)): A1 aquellas2 estudiantes3, la4 linda5 secretaria6 felizmente7 les8 contó9 que10 probablemente11 las12 admitirán13 en14 el_programa15 ............................................133!
Figure 5-6 Reading times per region for the early and late completion conditions (error bars +/- 1SE) for the advanced L2 learner group (see (5-�)): A1�aquellas2 estudiantes3, la4 linda5 secretaria6 felizmente7 les8 contó9 que10 probablemente11 las12 admitirán13 en14 el_programa15 ............................................134!
Figure 5-7 Reading times per region for the early and late completion conditions (error bars +/- 1SE) for the intermediate L2 learner group (see (5-�)): A1�aquellas2 estudiantes3, la4 linda5 secretaria6 felizmente7 les8 contó9 que10 probablemente11 las12 admitirán13 en14 el_programa15 ............................................135!
Figure 5-8 Scatter plot of proficiency test scores and reaction times at segment 9 in the late (expectation violation) and early (expectation met) conditions for the L2 learner group. .....................................................................................................141!
Figure 5-9 Mean accuracy scores and standard errors for the congruent and incongruent trials for the non-verbal Stroop task (all groups). ...............................143!
Figure 5-10 Mean reaction times and standard deviations for the congruent and incongruent trials for the non-verbal Stroop task (all groups). ...............................144!
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The present dissertation examines the acquisition and processing (comprehension)
of a long-distance dependency by learners of Spanish as a second language (L2) in
adulthood, using insights from both Generative and Usage-based approaches to language
acquisition. Although these two approaches have been, at least nominally, incompatible
in many well-documented regards (e.g. views on nativism, innate representational
systems), there are other issues on which the two have developed many common points
of contact, both in terms of assumptions, methodologies, and even the types of inferences
can be drawn from experimental data. These developments are partly due to internal
changes and advances within the Generative Paradigm—changes that have not
necessarily altered the view of generative linguists from an outsider’s perspective.
Marantz (2005) notes that the general (and, he argues, largely mistaken) perception of a
disconnection between linguistic theory and (experimental) data analysis has resulted in
many cognitive researchers basically rejecting the idea that generative linguistics can be a
foundational starting point for the cognitive scientific study of language. In fact, Marantz
notes about this perceived “gap” between generative linguistics and experimental
cognitive researchers, that “generative grammarians perhaps suffer from a public
relations problem” (p. 430). Although several generative linguists (e.g. Jackendoff, 2003;
Marantz, 2005) have attempted to carve a more substantial and broad role for linguistics
in fields such as psycholinguistics and computational neuroscience, this (re) assimilation
is far from being universally accepted or attained.
The developments that have taken place within the Generative paradigm, which
have been admittedly gradual and somewhat localized, have been spurred by several
factors, including conceptual advancements in linguistic theory (e.g. Chomsky, 2001,
2005; Jackendoff, 2003), changes in the kinds of constructs that have been argued to
influence the acquisition process (e.g. in L2 acquisition research, Sorace, 2011 for
2
2
cognitive control; Juffs & Harrington, 2011 for memory; Hawkins, 2011 for statistical
learning abilities), as well as from collective attempts to incorporate findings from other
fields, especially from Usage-based empirical studies within psycholinguistics. It should
be noted that this perceived gap is not exclusively one-sided. Many researchers have
noted that the majority of generative linguists have not wholeheartedly embraced the
adoption of methodologies and constructs from experimental psychology and
psycholinguistics (see Marantz, 2005 for discussion).
The current study focuses on the L2 acquisition/processing of a long-distance
dependency in Spanish (i.e. Clitic Left Dislocation; CLLD) by a group of English-native
speakers learning Spanish as a second language in adulthood. In order to weigh in on
current debates regarding second language acquisition and processing, the study includes
both off-line tasks, which do not necessitate the collection of data that is time-sensitive
and do not place a time constraint on completion, and on-line tasks, where the data
collected is time-sensitive and results from the manipulation of an independent variable
that controls specific linguistic aspects. Given that the goal of these tasks is to measure
the effect of a given linguistic manipulation, usually in terms of differences in reaction or
processing times (see Garrod, 2006 for detailed descriptions of these types of
methodologies), this dissertation includes time-sensitive measures (henceforth on-line) in
order to better understand the process and mechanisms involved in the learning and
comprehension of long-distance dependencies in a second language.
The point of departure of this dissertation, as is the case with most research done
in second language acquisition, is the universally acknowledged fact that the ultimate
outcomes of first (L1) versus L2 language acquisition are remarkably different. These
differences must be accounted for by any theory of second language acquisition,
regardless of the theoretical approach or the methodologies employed. In this respect,
making use of off-line methodologies (e.g. grammaticality judgment tasks, truth-value
judgment tasks) L2 researchers have documented finding differences in the linguistic
3
3
knowledge possessed by L1 vs. L2 speakers, providing evidence for a “lack of
convergence” across multiple linguistic domains including phonology (e.g. Fathman &
Precup, 1983; Munro, Flege & MacKay, 1996) and morpho-syntax (e.g. Hyltestam &
Abrahamsson, 2003; Lardiere, 2009).
However, there is also evidence to the contrary: A significant number of studies
have shown evidence, especially in study of linguistic structures involving the acquisition
of morphosyntax and syntax-semantics, that these across-group differences are not
always insurmountable (e.g. Hopp, 2006; Leal Méndez & Slabakova, 2012; Iverson,
Rothman & Kempchinsky, 2008; Montrul & Slabakova, 2003). The evidence for
“convergence” usually comes in the form of a lack of qualitative differences between the
performances of native speakers and L2 learners.
In the last decade and a half, L2 acquisition researchers have sought alternative
explanations for native vs. L2 ultimate-attainment differences by focusing especially on
L1-L2 processing-based differences. Many studies in this vein have produced evidence
that the moment-by-moment processing of an unfolding linguistic signal is different
between these two groups (e.g. Jiang, 2004; Papadopoulou & Clahsen, 2003), although
other studies show areas of convergence (e.g. Hopp 2006, 2013). Accounts that center on
processing vary from one to another across a wide variety of dimensions. It has been
noted (e.g. in Leal Méndez, Farmer, & Slabakova, in press) that they can be roughly
categorized into two groups, based upon the degree to which they propose that the
processes driving on-line L2 comprehension are the same as, rather than different from,
those responsible for L1 comprehension. In any case, this shift to processing-centric
explanations for L2 acquisition has broadened the research questions that have been
addressed within the generative L2 acquisition paradigm.
4
4
1.1 The Research Problem
The acquisition and comprehension of a language beyond one’s native language is
a difficult endeavor with infamously variable and often imperfect outcomes. A
notoriously protracted process, L2 acquisition is a gradual undertaking in which a learner
must learn an extensive number of arbitrary sound-meaning parings as well as a series of
constraints (i.e. rules) involving a multitude of linguistic levels (e.g. syntax, morphology,
phonology). These levels must be subsequently integrated with social contexts and world
knowledge in order to construct meaning (Kutas, DeLong & Smith, 2011). Thus, L2
comprehension requires that a speaker/comprehender incrementally incorporate these
various linguistic levels in a matter of hundreds of milliseconds in order to form mental
representations (i.e. meaning). These representations have been argued to result from
processes such as the online mapping of lexical items into grammatical categories, the
computation of semantic interpretations, and the interpretation of pragmatic and
communicative intentions (Renaud & Dekydspotter, in press).
Research in L1 sentence processing has presented a wealth of evidence showing
that speakers can anticipate/predict upcoming information at multiple levels, including
morphosyntax, lexicon, or even word-form typicality (e.g., Altmann & Mirkovic, 2009;
Arai & Keller, 2013; Farmer, Christiansen & Monaghan, 2006; Farmer, Brown &
Tanenhaus, 2013; Jaeger & Snider, 2013; Kutas, DeLong & Smith, 2011; Levy, 2008;
MacDonald, 2013; Pickering & Garrod, 2011, 2013; Van Petten & Luka, 2012). The
question of whether L2 learners can predict in their L2, however, has been explored only
recently (e.g. Hopp, 2013). The investigation of L2 predictive processing has yielded
somewhat mixed results, with some studies finding that L2 learners do not predict in a
native-like way while others have found fewer differences (see Kaan, in press for
discussion). Nevertheless, the investigation of prediction should occupy an important
place in L2 acquisition research because it is especially significant in terms of weighing
in on the different accounts that have been proposed for L2 processing.
5
5
One important account of L2 processing is the Shallow Structure Hypothesis
(Clahsen & Felser, 2006 a,b; SSH), which proposes that L2 learners do not process
language in the same way as native speakers of the language due to differences in their
grammatical representations. Moreover, the SSH posits that L1-L2 processing differences
are localized. The processing of long-distance dependencies (e.g. wh-movement) is
argued to lie at the most problematic end of the processing difficulty continuum, while
adjacent dependencies (e.g. morphosyntactic agreement) are argued to posit less
difficulty. In this regard, although the SSH does not explicitly address the generation of
predictions or predictive processing (but see Kaan, in press for discussion), the expected
outcomes are clear: Under the SSH, L2 learners are not expected to predict/anticipate
syntactic information that depends on long-distance syntactic relationships. Instead, L2
learners are expected to succeed only if (and when) they can use heuristics based on
semantic and pragmatic contextual information.
Testing the SSH empirically by investigating the processing of long-distance
dependencies is important from a theoretical point of view because this investigation
advances our knowledge of the underlying mental architecture responsible for L2
learning. By testing the SSH, we can address a long-standing and crucial question in
second language acquisition research: whether differences between native speakers and
L2 learners (including those at the end of the proficiency continuum often referred to as
“near-natives”) are qualitative (e.g. L2 learners have less detailed mental representations
which may lead to inefficient or unavailable predictive processing, as predicted by the
SSH) or quantitative (e.g. the differences can be traced to explanations such as
differences in L2 proficiency or exposure to the L2).
In addition to accounting theoretically for the acquisition of long-distance
dependencies, it is also important to account for how individual differences may or may
not influence L2 acquisition. It is well known that L2 learning outcomes vary widely
across individuals, a fact that is distinct from typical L1 acquisition where the ultimate
6
6
outcomes are much more uniform. Thus, a secondary goal of this dissertation is to
investigate whether variability in individual measures of ability, including non-linguistic
measures of inhibitory control and statistical learning abilities, can predict variability in
L2 learning. Measures of ability on these two different cognitive constructs were used for
this purpose. In addition to these non-linguistic measures, this dissertation also included
linguistic measures such as L1 Vocabulary measures and measures of syntactic
knowledge in L2.
In order to measure inhibitory control, this dissertation includes a classic
inhibitory control measure (Stroop, 1935). The version employed in this study is a (non-
linguistic) version of the Stroop task that has been previously, and successfully, used in
research with bilinguals (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011). This task was used to investigate
the possible contribution of inhibitory control in the acquisition and processing of long-
distance dependences. Although some L2 acquisition theories (e.g. the Interface
Hypothesis, Sorace, 2011; Sorace & Serratrice, 2009) predict that inhibitory control can
modulate L2 acquisition and processing, the SSH does not predict such a relationship. In
fact, the SSH does not predict that processing is affected by individual cognitive
differences (e.g. differences in reading-span measures).
In order to investigate the potential contributions of statistical learning on L2
acquisition and processing, this study used a statistical learning task (Gómez, 2002),
which measured participants’ ability to detect probabilistic regularities in an inherently
noisy input. Part of L2 learning involves learning about the probabilistic patterns of a
language (Saffran, Aslin & Newport, 1996), such that individuals who are better pattern
learners may be better able to learn about structural regularities inherent to the L2 input.
This study aimed to test this hypothesis. Although the study of statistical learning within
L2 research is still burgeoning, there is indication that statistical learning abilities could
be critical for a more detailed understanding of the L2 acquisition process. For instance,
Kaufman, DeYoung, Gray, Jiménez, Brown, & Mackintosh (2010) found that subject-
7
7
based variability in scores on statistical learning tasks significantly predicted variability
on reading and other language-related measures. Based on this research, it would be
logical to predict a positive relationship between statistical learning scores and
knowledge of long-distance dependencies, such as CLLD.
1.2 Research Questions
The goal of the present study is to investigate (adult) second language
development by examining the L2 acquisition and processing of CLLD, a long-distance
dependency in Spanish. In doing so, this study seeks to test the predictions of the Shallow
Structure Hypothesis, which proposes that the processing of long-distance dependencies
in a second language is impeded by L2 grammatical representations that lack detail. A
secondary goal is to investigate the contribution of individual differences in measures of
inhibitory control and statistical learning abilities to the processing of CLLD in L2
Spanish.
In view of the previous discussion, the research questions that guide this study are
the following:
1. Do L2 learners of Spanish, native speakers of English, show off-line knowledge
of the syntactic and pragmatic constraints of CLLD in Spanish?
2. Are long-distance dependencies such as Spanish CLLD especially difficult for L2
learners to process in real time, as predicted by the Shallow Structure Hypothesis?
3. Can individual differences in measures of linguistic- (e.g. L1 vocabulary) and
non-linguistic abilities (e.g. inhibitory control and statistical learning ability)
predict variability in the acquisition and processing of CLLD in L2 Spanish?
1.3 Organization of the Dissertation
The present dissertation is organized into six chapters. Chapter 2 presents the
theoretical frameworks that inform the study, and it explores points of contact and shared
interest between the Generative and Usage-based approaches to L2 acquisition. This
8
8
chapter also includes a selective review of processing studies in L2 from various
approaches. Chapter 3 details the syntactic and discourse properties of CLLD in
Romance languages, with a special emphasis on the properties of Spanish CLLD.
Additionally, it includes two syntactic analyses that intend to account for Romance
CLLD. Chapter 4 presents the methodology used in the empirical study, including the
research populations, tasks, and procedures. Chapter 5 presents the results and statistical
analyses from all experimental tasks. Finally, Chapter 6 presents a discussion of the
findings of the experimental tasks and offers the essential conclusions and interpretations
of the results. This chapter concludes with a brief presentation of the shortcomings of the
experimental study and offers some ideas and potential avenues for future research in L2
processing.
9
CHAPTER 2
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH
ON PROCESSING
2.1 General Introduction to the Chapter
In this chapter, I will present the theoretical backdrop that informs the empirical
study described in Chapter 4. For this purpose, I will focus on two different frameworks
in Second Language Acquisition (Generative approaches to SLA and Usage-based
approaches to SLA) that have historically differed in their departing assumptions, the
types of data that are commonly used as evidence within each, as well as the
interpretations that are drawn from that data. Although these two frameworks have
orthogonal views with regard to a wide range of issues, I will strive to highlight several
commonalities between them with regard to the constructs that are used in this
dissertation (i.e. inhibitory control, statistical learning abilities) as well as in other many
other recent studies. In part, these commonalities constitute the byproduct of both
theoretical and methodological advances (e.g. the increased use of time-sensitive
methodologies) as well as of important empirical findings in language research (e.g.
Saffran, Aslin & Newport, 1996).
Additionally, in this chapter I will present a review of L2 research studies that,
using time-sensitive methodologies, have investigated the moment-to-moment processing
of a linguistic signal, with a special focus on a subset of studies that have taken L2
proficiency as a variable. Finally, this chapter will present the notion of “prediction”
(anticipatory processing) and will spell out how examining predictive processes can be a
good measure of L2 processing development.
2.2 On the plurality of SLA frameworks
SLA is widely considered to be a relatively young field, one that goes back, as an
independent discipline, to the 1960s at the earliest (Gass, 2006; Gass, Fleck, Leder, &
10
10
Svetics, 1998; but see Thomas, 1998, for a different argument). However, talking about
SLA as a unitary discipline would be somewhat misleading and perhaps tendentious.
From its inception, SLA research has been informed by other disciplines (most notably
linguistics, psychology, and pedagogy) and, to this day, there are a multitude of SLA
frameworks and approaches, many of which exist largely without influencing one
another. This should be to some extent unsurprising given the multiple questions and
issues that SLA as a field has sought to address over the years. Thus, the plurality of
frameworks may be a matter of sheer necessity.
R. Ellis (1997), for example, proposes that no single framework, theory, or model
can adequately address the wide array of hypotheses that have been proposed in order to
account for the L2 acquisition process. Although there have been a great number of
fruitful collaborations between SLA frameworks and between SLA and other fields (e.g.
linguistics, psychology, sociology), the plurality of frameworks used in SLA research has
not co-existed peacefully. In fact, the field has seen several debates about the nature of
SLA inquiry and the types of frameworks that should (or should not) be part of the field
(e.g. Firth & Wagner, 1997, 1998; Gregg, 1993; Gregg, Long, Jordan & Berreta, 1997;
Lantolf, 1996; Long, 1997).
With the integration of different approaches and disciplines have come different
research methodologies. As noted by Seliger and Shohamy (1989), choosing an
experimental method over another constitutes an indication of the types of questions that
are essential to the researcher, as well as of her/his assumptions about the subject of
inquiry. Studies in L2 processing (see section 2.6 for details) have their basis in the
psycholinguistic tradition, where the main focus has been on the mechanisms involved in
processing, rather than on the constraints on grammar formation (Mackey & Gass, 2005).
Despite their differences, the two approaches that will be discussed below are generally
considered to be approaches to SLA that focus on quantitative data analysis.
11
11
2.3 Generative Approaches to SLA
2.3.1 Main tenets and goals
Since its inception, the study of generative second language acquisition has had as
a fundamental goal the characterization of the linguistic systems developed by second
language learners—the so-called interlanguage (Selinker, 1972)—as it pertains to the
universal principles that are argued to constrain natural languages in general (e.g.
Chomsky, 1985; White, 2003). In addition to the characterization of second language
learners’ linguistic knowledge, the study of generative second language acquisition has
also striven to account for what is (and, perhaps more crucially, what is not) acquirable in
the L2 (Gass & Selinker, 2008), as well as the ways in which this knowledge is attained
(Gregg, 1993). Although it would be unfair to say that Generative approaches to SLA
have not focused on L2 development, the historical focus of the Generative study of L2A
has usually centered on either the initial state of L2 knowledge (e.g. issues of what type
of knowledge can be transferred from the L1) or the ultimate state of L2 knowledge (also
referred to as “ultimate attainment”).1 These foci have led to a very productive research
program, but it has also neglected some areas of L2 study. I will elaborate on this point
below.
Regarding attainment, the Generative paradigm has historically framed this
question in terms of accessibility to Universal Grammar (UG), where various, often
dichotomous, proposals have been put forward in order to account for the (im)possibility
of native-like convergence. Indeed, the question of accessibility to UG in the
development of interlanguage grammars had been, until very recently, perhaps the central
research topic within the generative study of second language acquisition. Much of this
1 The initial state of L2 acquisition represents the set of initial linguistic circumstances (e.g. L1 background and possible transfer) that constitute the departing point of L2ers when exposed to L2 language data (White, 2003).
12
12
research has addressed the (im)possibility of parameter resetting, especially of L2
acquisition beyond critical (or sensitive) periods (e.g. adult L2 learners).
As is to be expected, some of these original proposals represented antithetical
accounts that posit, on one end of the spectrum, the unequivocal (albeit not inevitable)
possibility of resetting parameters (e.g. Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996) or the categorical
lack of such a possibility (Flynn & Martohardjono, 1994, Epstein, et al., 1996) on the
other end. However, there also exist partial-access accounts, which postulate either local
impairments or qualified possibilities of resetting (e.g. Hawkins & Hattori, 2006; Tsimpli
& Dimitrakopoulou, 2007; Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 1994).
Among these proposals, two have been widely regarded as the main contenders.
On the one hand, proponents of the so-called Representational Deficit Accounts
(Hawkins & Chan, 1997; Hawkins & Hattori, 2006; Tsimpli & Dimitrakopoulou, 2007;
Tsimpli & Mastropavlou, 2008, inter alia) argue for impaired L2 representations due to
partial availability of UG.2 This partial access is argued to affect a subset of features that
are not instantiated in the L1 (i.e. they cannot be transferred). The Interpretability
Hypothesis (Tsimpli & Dimitrakopoulou, 2006), for example, proposes that this subset of
features is constituted of uninterpretable features. Uninterpretable features are, of course,
the opposite of interpretable features, which make an essential contribution to meaning
(e.g. animate, human, tense). Uninterpretable features (e.g. case or agreement), on the
other hand, are necessary only for grammatical reasons and are only relevant to the
morphosyntax.3
2 It is important to note that although these accounts all propose representational deficits of one sort or another, there are important differences among theme. These differences, however, are not crucial for the purposes of the current discussion.
3 Within the Minimalist program (e.g. Chomsky, 1995, 2001), only uninterpretable features trigger the movement of constituents (e.g. wh-movement). Therefore, uninterpretable features are crucial in all transformations within narrow syntax.
13
13
The other hypothesis is the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz &
Sprouse, 1996), which proposes that L2 learners have full accessibility to UG.4 Under
Full Transfer/Full Access, learners are not limited to the representations they transfer
from their native language but are able to restructure their grammar based on the
available L2 input. Crucially, although Full Transfer/Full Access argues that L2 learners
can attain a native-like grammar, convergence with the target grammar is far from being
effortless or guaranteed. Therefore, if a given learner does not find evidence to re-set
her/his grammar, even though she/he may have access to UG, the learner’s grammar
might not converge with the grammar of the target language.
As a matter of illustration, White (2003, p. 64) notes that an English native
speaker learning Mandarin might have problems acquiring long-distance reflexives (e.g.
ziji “self”) because Mandarin makes use of both local (i.e. taziji) and long-distance
reflexives. White notes that this fact could obscure the phenomenon and thus not
motivate grammar restructuring. Both local and long distance antecedents can bind
Mandarin long-distance reflexives, which can be unrestrictedly far from their
antecedents. Thus, White surmises that, given that an English speaker learning Mandarin
can exclusively (and successfully) use local reflexives (as in his/her native language) and
that, moreover, it is unlikely that a problem in interpretation arises in the use of a long-
distance reflexive, this learner might never find instances in the L2 input that would
motivate restructuring.
Hawkins (2011) argues that Full Transfer/Full Access theories have a problem in
terms of accounting for L2 variability (optionality). As is commonly known, L2 learners
have been widely documented to show variability in their use of inflectional
morphology—even if they demonstrate knowledge of inflectional morphology using one
4 Full Transfer refers to the notion that the initial state includes all the abstract representations of a learner’s L1. Full Access refers to the notion of unrestricted accessibility to Universal Grammar.
14
14
measure, they might fail to use it correctly in another context. In order to account for this
variability, Prévost and White (2001) proposed the Missing Surface Inflection
Hypothesis, which proposes that faulty performance is not necessarily indicative of a lack
of functional categories or of features associated with them. Consequently, Prévost and
White argue that the source of the problems such as target-deviant use of morphology is
due to a mapping problem: A disconnect between knowledge of abstract syntactic
features and categories and the (overt) inflectional morphology (features are not always
accessible, although present).5,6
2.3.2 Current Research in Generative L2A: Moving beyond
the initial state
More recently, the generative study of L2A has focused on a much broader set of
issues (see Slabakova, Leal Méndez & Liskin-Gasparro, in review). By way of example,
we can examine the evolution of the “light switch” simile. The original notion of
“instantaneous” parametric acquisition, held currency at one time but it was challenged
early on by empirical L2 data (e.g. White, 1985). Thus, the “light switch” as a simile for
L2 acquisition was mostly abandoned by the early 1990s. Presently, the focus has shifted
from parametric acquisition to the acquisition and re-assembly of features (Lardiere,
2009).7
5 Prévost and White appeal to Halle and Marantz’s Distributed Morphology (1993), which proposes that lexical items can be inserted into a hosting node even if the features do not match exactly. The reader is referred to the original sources for details.
6 Another Generative hypothesis that attempts to account for L2 variability of outcomes is the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis (Goad & White, 2006). This hypothesis, like Full Transfer/Full Access, proposes that all syntactic properties can be acquirable, at least in principle. Goad and White propose that non-nativelike use of inflectional morphology might be explained by (negative) L1 phonological transfer effects.
7 See Yang (2002, 2010) for an updated acquisition model that incorporates parameters and notions such as frequency of use.
15
15
Additionally, advances in linguistic theory, the use of empirical methodologies,
and the increasing reliance on resources such as L1 and L2 corpora have also resulted in
the postulation of new acquisition models and hypotheses (e.g. Lardiere, 2009;
Slabakova, 2008; Yang, 2002, 2010). Although these new models maintain a focus on the
genesis of L2 interlanguage, many of these proposals have capitalized on notions like
linguistic variation and frequency of occurrence—a far cry from the notions informing
early generative L2A studies.
In the last decade, the study of generative L2A has seen a proliferation of studies
focusing on the linguistic interfaces (e.g. syntax–discourse, syntax–phonology, syntax–
semantics).8 Within the study of interfaces, one of the most influential hypotheses has
been the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace & Filiaci, 2006; Sorace & Serratrice, 2009; Sorace,
2011), which proposes a principled distinction between external and internal interfaces.
Internal interfaces (e.g. syntax-semantics, syntax-morphology, phonology-morphology
and syntax-morphology) involve only interactions between language modules, while
external interfaces involve both linguistic and non-linguistic cognitive systems (e.g.
syntax-discourse). According to Sorace and colleagues, external interfaces are argued to
pose a formidable challenge for L2 ultimate native-like attainment. The Interface
Hypothesis has generated an extensive amount of research that, crucially, has engaged a
diversity of learner populations (e.g. child L2 acquisition, adult L2 acquisition, L1
attrition) and has enriched the field because it has encouraged fruitful cross-discipline
collaborations (Rothman & Slabakova, 2011).
8 In a modular view of language (e.g. Fodor, 1983; Jackendoff, 2002; Reinhart, 2006), interfaces embody contact points where modules of language interact with each other or with other cognitive domains.
16
16
2.3.3. Generative L2A and Language Processing Research
A recent development within the generative L2A paradigm is that explanations
for native vs. learner ultimate-attainment differences have focused more prominently on
processing-based differences. This new research focus has produced a spate of
demonstrations that the moment-to-moment processing of an unfolding linguistic signal
can be different for native speakers than it is for L2 learners. Furthermore, it has been
argued that different processing signatures can provide insight into the underlying
systems of native speakers and L2 learners. For instance, the current version of the
Interface Hypothesis (Sorace, 2011) places much of the burden of explanation for
native/L2 learner asymmetries on issues related to language processing.
Drawing on the concept of inhibitory control (Green, 1986), and in light of
research showing that all systems in a bilingual mind are simultaneously activated even
when one is contextually unnecessary (see Bialystok, 2009 for review), Sorace suggests
that there is an inherent cognitive cost to bilingualism because the inhibition of a (first)
language is assumed to be burdensome on the processor. In a series of psycholinguistic
experiments involving diverse methodologies, including eye-tracking and brain-imaging
methodologies, Marian and colleagues (Spivey & Marian, 1999; Marian, Spivey &
Hirsch, 2003) present evidence that dual language activation in bilinguals causes
languages to compete. Even when linguistic input is presented in one language (be it the
L1 or L2), both L1 and L2 show evidence of activation. Increased bilingual experience
(i.e. experience managing the interference caused by the presence of an additional
language), however, has been argued to improve bilinguals’ ability to inhibit one
language (but see Schwartz & Kroll, 2006 for discussion).
Aside from the Interface Hypothesis, another hypothesis that has placed
processing in a central position is the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH, Clahsen &
Felser 2006a, b), which will be presented in the following section.
17
17
2.3.4 The Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH)
The SSH proposes a dual-route processing model with two distinct parsing paths.
The first is a full syntactic path (Full Parsing), which is based on a wholly specified
syntactic description. The second is a “shallow” path, which is based on lexical, thematic,
pragmatic, and contextual information (to the exclusion of syntactic representations).
Shallow representations are argued to display both deficient hierarchical structure and a
lack of “configurationally-determined elements,” (e.g. movement traces), such that this
shallow parsing route is necessarily confined to local domains (e.g. morpho-syntactic
agreement of adjacent dependencies, word segmentation).
The main claim of the SSH is that L2 learners process language differently from
native speakers because L2 learners are restricted to the shallow route. The SSH
explicitly proposes that the fundamental differences between native and non-native
processing are due not to more general processing deficits, per se (contra Sorace, 2011),
but rather to differences in the underlying syntactic representations available to L2
learners. These grammatical representations, unlike those of native speakers, are
hypothesized to be anomalous (i.e. incomplete or deficient). Based on results from
experiments that fail to detect relationships between more general processing abilities,
such as working memory, and patterns of on-line processing for L2ers (Juffs, 2004; Juffs
& Harrigton, 2011), the SSH proposes that differences in L2 processing can be isolated to
L2 reliance on shallow grammatical structures and heuristics.
In support of the SSH, Clahsen and Felser (2006a) cite evidence from several
studies on relative clause attachment (Felser, et al., 2003; Papadopoulou & Clahsen,
2003). These studies involve the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguities such
as the one found the example below.
(2-1) Someone saw the servant of the actress who was on the balcony.
The resolution of these syntactic ambiguities is subject to cross-linguistic
variation (i.e. language vary in terms of preferences for either high- or low-attachment).
18
18
English speakers, for example, have a preference for attaching to the lower NP (NP2
disambiguation; i.e. the servant was on the balcony), whereas Spanish and German
speakers prefer high attachment (NP1 disambiguation; the actress was on the balcony). In
these studies, native speakers were found to attach the relative clauses as predicted in the
linguistic literature (e.g. Carreiras & Clifton, 1999; Cuetos & Mitchell, 1988; Fernández,
2003), but L2 learners, even those of high proficiency, failed to attach these relative
clauses in the same manner as the natives (Dussias, 2003; Felser et al., 2003;
Papadopoulou & Clahsen, 2003). Given that previous research studies have shown that
L2 learners can attach in a native-like manner when they are provided with semantic cues
(e.g. Juffs, 1998), Clahsen and Felser (2006a) argue that the deficits in L2 processing are
localized to deficient phrase-structure-based strategies caused by incomplete L2
grammatical knowledge.
The SSH has inspired a large number of studies, a number of which have also
found counterevidence to the predicted outcomes (e.g. Hopp 2006; Lim & Christianson,
2013; Pliatsikas & Marinis, 2013). An interesting study to consider in this context is
Marinis, Roberts, Felser and Clahsen (2005), because it has been the center of some
controversy. Clahsen and Felser (2006) single out this study as providing evidence
supporting the hypothesis that L2ers process shallowly, while the natives speaker controls
do not. On the other hand, Dekydstpotter, Schwartz, and Sprouse (2006) have criticized
Clahsen and Felser’s interpretations, highlighting what they call a crucial methodological
point (p. 33):
“The mere fact that there is an observed non-isomorphy between natives and L2ers does not entail that the natives and the L2ers deploy fundamentally different mechanisms.”
Marinis et al. (2005) used a self-paced reading task to examine the processing of
sentences involving long-distance wh-dependencies in English L2ers from different L1
backgrounds. Experimental sentences had either an intermediate gap, as in (2-2a), or did
19
19
not (2-2b). The slash (/) indicates a new (self-paced) computer screen, while the bold
numbers in parentheses indicate the segment number.
(2-2) a. (1) The nurse who / (2) the doctor argued / (3) __ that the rude patient / (4) had angered /(5) ____ is refusing to work late. (Intermediate gap)
b. (1) The nurse who / (2) the doctor’s argument / (3) about the rude patient / (4) had angered / (5) ____is refusing to work late. (No intermediate gap)
Participants were asked to read each segment quickly, pressing a button to bring
up the next screen (segment). At the end of the last segment, participants were presented
with a question (e.g. Who angered the nurse?), whereupon they chose one of two options
on the screen.
The results indicated that the learners had no trouble with comprehension, but
their reaction times (RTs) did not pattern exactly with those of the natives speakers.
Specifically, while the natives had longer RTs on segment 3 when processing sentences
like (2-2a) than when processing sentences like (2-2b), the L2 learners displayed no
difference between the two sentences in terms of RTs. Crucially, both groups showed
longer RTs for (2-2a, intermediate gap) than for (2-2b, no intermediate gap) on segment
5. Whereas Marinis et al. concluded that L2 learners did not rely on intermediate traces
and thus processed shallowly, Dekydstpotter et al. (2006) argued that this (segment-to-
segment) comparison was an invalid one. In their reanalysis of Marinis and colleagues’
data, Dekydspotter et al. found that two sub-groups of L2 learners (Japanese-English and
German-English) indeed had longer RTs in the right direction—albeit a segment
afterwards, (i.e. segment 4). Dekydspotter and colleagues thus argued that these results
suggest a similar pattern, albeit a delayed effect.
Dekydspotter and colleagues raise very interesting issues regarding the kinds of
inferences we can draw from data based on time-sensitive measurements. Namely, if, as
they argue, non-isomorphy between native speakers and L2 learners cannot constitute
20
20
grounds for appeal to different mechanisms (e.g. “shallow parsing” in L2), a logical
consequence is that, in turn, isomorphy cannot not necessarily mean that the same
mechanisms used in L2 are those deployed in L1 processing (see Leal Méndez, Farmer,
& Slabakova, in press). Additionally, one important variable that is missing from this
discussion concerns the proficiency of the L2 learners. These issues will be addressed in
more detail in section 2.7.
2.4 Usage-Based Approaches to SLA
2.4.1. Main tenets
The term “Usage-based theories” of language covers a wide spectrum of theories
and approaches that share a number of basic principles (e.g. Bates & MacWhinney, 1987;
Beckner, Ellis, Blythe, Holland, Bybee, Ke, Christiansen, Larsen-Freeman, &
Schoenemann, 2010; Ellis, 2002, 2008, Larsen-Freeman, 2009; MacWhinney, 2005). In
this regard, Bybee (2008) notes that what usage-based approaches all have in common is
that these theories acknowledge the effects of usage on the cognitive representations of
language, connecting frequency of use to structural phenomena. One of the most
important findings from studies made under this paradigm is that language users
remember fine-grained details about their experience with language. This fine-grained
detail has shown to be multi-leveled and to include information about occurrences and
co-occurrences (e.g. transitional probabilities). Thus, every individual language
experience, which is imbued with detail at multiple levels, is gradually gathered and
organized (e.g. categorized) by speakers. When faced with additional evidence (e.g.
differences in use or in frequency of use), these experiences can change over time. This
change can take place both in individuals (development) and in groups of individuals
(language change).
In accordance with this worldview, Usage-based researchers such as Bybee
(2008) consider grammar to be “the cognitive organization of one’s experience with
21
21
language” (p. 216), where abstract representations result from language users’ cumulative
experience with language. Thus, while Generative approaches to L2A view grammar as a
finite set of abstract universal rules (Universal Grammar) that generate those (and only
those) sentences that are acceptable in a given language, Usage-based approaches view
grammar as a network constructed from individual instances of language use/experience
which are categorized into basic units. These basic units are form-meaning pairings that
range from individual lexical items (e.g. words, idioms) all the way up to discourse-level
units. Crucially, Usage-based theories place a significant importance on the
communicative nature of language and highlight the notion that these units are learned
through (interpersonal) communication (Barlow & Kemmer, 2000).
Another important tenet that Usage-based theories share is the rejection of
Chomsky’s (1957) “competence” vs. “performance” dichotomy.9 Broadly, “competence”
is viewed as a given speaker’s abstract grammatical knowledge, while “performance”
refers to the “real-time application of linguistic knowledge/forms” (Rothman, 2007). In
Usage-based theories, both competence and performance are two facets that emerge from
the same (dynamic) system, where competence is argued to be the “integrated sum of
prior usage,” while performance constitutes its “dynamic contextualized activation”
(Ellis, 2008). Within Usage-based approaches, variable performance cannot be
discounted as “noise” that is generated by random performance factors (Ellis & Larsen-
Freeman, 2006). Therefore, while UG-approaches (at least initially) have traditionally
relied on data gathered from tasks that were presented devoid of social context, such as
Grammaticality or Acceptability Judgment Tasks, Usage-based researchers have used a
9 Rothman (2007) argues that this distinction is a necessary one in L2 research in order to explain “how real-time production can undermine the L2 system, which is independently demonstrated via complementary empirical testing (p. 610).”
22
22
wider variety of methodologies and data, including more naturalistic data from variable
spontaneous production in different social contexts.10
Moreover, Usage-based approaches view the notions of language use and
language acquisition as intimately linked. Language acquisition (both L1 and L2
acquisition) is argued to involve the sampling and categorization of a given speaker’s
specific language experiences (e.g. language use in varying social contexts; Beckner et
al., 2010). Categorization and use are simultaneous so that no language user’s experience
can ever be considered to be at an “end-state” or what is commonly referred to as the
stage of “ultimate attainment.” This is because, within this approach, any language user
has the potential to change at any point, with additional experience (e.g. Bybee 2008;
Ellis, 2002; Larsen-Freeman, 2010). In fact, many recent Usage-based (connectivist)
psycholinguistic models suggest that processing and learning are deeply intertwined
(Chang et al., 2006; Christiansen & Chater, 2001; Elman, 1997: Elman et al., 1996;
Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989; McMurray, Horst & Samuelson, 2012), and that
mechanisms such as prediction (anticipatory processing) or inhibition are fundamental
not only for real-time processing, but to the shaping of the representations that are
simultaneously learned through use.
2.5 Statistical Learning and the Richness of the Input
One of the most crucial discoveries in psycholinguistic research in the last decade
or so represents the widespread recognition that humans are unconsciously attuned to
statistical (distributional) probabilities (Saffran, Aslin & Newport, 1996; Saffran,
Johnson, Aslin & Newport, 1999; Werker & Gerken, 2002). Probabilistic information is
10 Note, however, that Generative researchers have used methodologies that extend beyond gathering judgments. In this respect, White (2003) notes that a common misconception regarding the UG-framework (e.g. Carroll & Meisel, 1990; Ellis, 1990) is that grammaticality judgments have a “privileged” status “such that they provide a direct reflection of linguistic competence (p. 17).” White argues that grammaticality judgments constitute “performance” data, just like any data elicited by other behavioral methods.
23
23
present at multiple levels (e.g. linguistic domains), including syntactic dependencies,
word-co-occurrence information, and even the phonotactic probabilities inherent to a
word (Dikker, Rabagliati, Farmer, & Pylkkänen, 2010). Consequently, it appears to be
the case that the input signal, which is rich in probabilistic and distributional information,
can be used to guide the learner through the acquisition process.
The implicit ability to be attuned to and learn about distributional regularities in
the input is usually referred to as statistical learning. Statistical learning has been found to
be associated with multiple aspects of the acquisition process, at least in L1 (e.g. speech
segmentation and auditory processes, Saffran, Aslin & Newport, 1996; Saffran, Johnson,
Aslin & Newport, 1999, phonetic category formation, Werker & Gerken, 2002, higher-
level language comprehension, Misyak & Christiansen, 2012, and L2 literacy (Frost et
al., 2013).
In light of the results from these research studies, it should be easy to conceive
how the inclusion of the findings concerning statistical learning abilities can be
seamlessly woven in a Usage-based language approach. Usage-based approaches view
language learning as a statistical learning problem, where the language user’s task is to
learn the probability distribution of a given form-meaning mapping (Chater & Manning,
2006). Within SLA research, many researchers have used probabilistic and frequency-
based theories that focus on the effects of frequency and repetition in both
comprehension and production (e.g. Bybee & Hopper, 2001, Ellis, 2002; Hoey, 2005;
Jurafsky, 2002). UG-based approaches, on the other hand, have not typically found a
place for statistical learning abilities within their theoretical frameworks (see Hawkins,
2011 for discussion). By and large, UG-based approaches have historically been less
focused on the probabilistic and distributional properties of the linguistic signal.
Although the notion of input in general has always been important for generative
linguists, this interest has not necessarily extended to notions like frequency of
occurrence.
24
24
Under most Generative approaches, the general assumption is that a language
learner has a certain amount of prior knowledge—often argued to be innate knowledge—
that helps to constrain the hypothesis space of said language acquirer. In simple terms,
this means that a child acquiring a language does not consider every single linguistic
possibility available. Under this view, there are a number of language universals
(linguistic principles that are shared by all human languages), which are “given,” so to
speak. In addition to principles, there are also language-specific parameters. Unlike
principles, language-specific parameters require exposure to the input in order to be set
(i.e. learned) according to the specifications of a given language. Phillips summarizes this
state of affairs thus (Phillips, 2012, italics added):
The UG hypothesis is a provocative name for the idea that there are constraints on the hypotheses that learners entertain. It is not a claim that learners do not need to learn. Experience is obviously necessary. However, we still know very little about how much experience is needed for successful learning, and how much variation in experience is needed to yield different learning outcomes.
Some of the issues that Phillips raises are of vital importance—especially the need
for researchers to address the link between amount of exposure and acquisition (i.e. how
much experience is necessary for the successful acquisition/learning of a given
structure?). However, within the UG framework, input-related questions such as these
were, at least initially, somewhat sidestepped by the early-held notion in generative
linguistics that the primary function of input was comparatively more limited: to provide
key data (or even a single datum according to Eubank, 1991) that would “trigger” the
activation of a given pre-existing linguistic category (Hawkins, 2006). Hyams (1991), for
example, explicitly rejects the notion that frequency in the input is of any great
importance:
“[T]he quantity of input required for acquisition says absolutely nothing about the function of the input. The notion of a trigger, in language acquisition as in biology, refers to the relationship
25
25
between the input experience and the behavioral output, not to the quantity of the input in absolute terms. There are, moreover, good empirical reasons for doubting the claim that [L1] acquisition actually requires a vast amount of input” (p.77).
Although the notion of “trigger” has been defined by several researchers, most
notably Fodor (1998), Gibon & Wexler (1994) and Lightfoot (1991), certain aspects of
these definitions have been disputed (e.g. whether triggers could be ambiguous or not). In
general a “trigger” is considered to be the subset of linguistic data that activates a given
property of UG. However, there is no overall consensus on whether a trigger should be
encountered at a certain point or development, or how many times a trigger should appear
before prompting activation. That is not to say that there hadn’t been calls, even early on,
to change this state of affairs. In the early 1990s, Meisel (1991) recognized the
importance of defining the notion of “trigger” and “triggering data”:
[M]uch more information is needed concerning the triggering data for [L2 grammar-] restructuring purposes. As it stands, it is not clear what these data might look like and why they are only available at a specific point of the acquisitional process, although they undoubtedly had been present in the input before.” (p. 238)
Hilles (1991) and Hyams (1991) view the notion of “trigger” as parallel to how it
is viewed in biological systems. Hilles (1991) compares it to the triggering data needed in
vision: for development to proceed properly, the trigger must be encountered in a timely
fashion. Thus, the trigger, which is external to UG, is subject to timing constraints: if a
trigger does not appear within a certain time frame (e.g. developmental stage), linguistic
development will suffer.
Although, as noted in the previous discussion, the importance of input frequency
has not figured centrally in Generative approaches, it is not the case that these approaches
(especially in the last decade) ignore or disregard the importance of frequency altogether
(see Slabakova, 2003, and Slabakova et al., in press, for discussion). Slabakova et al. (in
review) note that generative acquisitions heed O’Grady, Lee and Kwak’s (2009: 72)
recommendation that:
26
26
“[i]n considering the role of input frequency in language acquisition (first or second), it is vital to bear in mind a key point: what counts is not how many times learners hear a particular form—it is how many times they encounter mappings between a form and its meaning.”
One example of a UG-based study focusing on the effect of input on child L1
acquisition is Miller and Schmitt (2010). Miller and Schmitt examine the acquisition of
plural morphology in two different dialects of Spanish: Chilean and Mexican Spanish.
These dialects have different phonological realizations of plural: While Mexican Spanish
consistently realizes plural as [s], the realization of plural in Chilean Spanish is highly
variable and can range from overt realization, to aspiration, or even complete lenition in
some cases. Under Miller and Schmitt’s count, Chilean morphology is present in about
50% of all instances of plural. This asymmetry indicates that Chilean children are
exposed to unreliable input, where the form-meaning mapping (i.e. plural = [s]) is present
only half the time. On the other hand, Mexican children are exposed to extremely reliable
plural morphology markings. Results show that 5-year-old, working-class Chilean
children were significantly less accurate in their comprehension of plural morphology
when compared to their Mexican counterparts, matched for socio-economic status (32%
vs. 65% accurate). Importantly, older Chilean children eventually converge with the adult
grammar. In view of these results, the authors fittingly conclude that higher ambiguity
(unreliability) in the input is crucial in terms of the time course of the acquisition process.
A study by Meisel, Elsig, and Bonnesen (2011) is another example of a study that
explores how differences in frequency of exposure to a certain construction impact its
correct comprehension and usage. Meisel and et al. (2011) study the acquisition of
different French interrogatives that vary in frequency of occurrence depending on
different registers and social contexts. Specifically, interrogatives involving subject–verb
inversion are extremely rare in pre-scholar child-directed speech (based on corpora by
Suppes, Smith & Leveillé (1973) and the DuFDE; German and French — Simultaneous
27
27
Acquisition of two First Languages). Example (2-2) illustrates subject-verb inversion
interrogatives. (2-2) Où travalle ta mère?
where she-works your mother “Where does your mother work?”
This state of affairs changes quickly once these children attend school, where they
get significantly more exposure to standard French and to interrogatives such as (2-2).
Based on the fact that children are exposed to this particular construction later in life,
Meisel et al. (2011) predict that these L1 acquirers may show evidence of the optionality
effects that are so famously pervasive in L2 grammars.11 The results of a grammaticality
judgment task testing knowledge of interrogatives in twenty adult native French speakers
show that, as predicted by the authors, subject-verb inversion interrogatives (which are a
feature of standard but, crucially, not colloquial French) show evidence of optionality. On
the contrary, interrogatives that are present in both colloquial and standard French appear
to be significantly more homogenous and stable. In light of the evidence showing that
frequency of occurrence can shape not only the time course but also the ultimate outcome
of speakers, Meisel and colleagues conclude that even native grammars can contain
“islands of non-native knowledge” (Meisel et al., 2011: 369).
Recently, there have been a number of proposals to accommodate for frequency
effects and statistical learning mechanisms within the Generative framework itself.
Chomsky (2005:6, bold not in the original), for example, proposes that the three
determining factors of language growth (i.e. acquisition) are:
1. A uniform Genetic endowment (UG), which imposes constraints on how the
environment is interpreted as linguistic experience,
11 Sorace (2003) defines optionality as “the existence of two or more variants of a given construction that are identical in meaning and have a clear correspondence in form” (p. 135).
28
28
2. Exposure (i.e. linguistic experience), which is unique to each individual and leads
to “fairly narrow” linguistic variation, and
3. Principles that are outside of the language faculty, including principles of data
analysis that are not exclusive to language and principles of efficient
computation.
The third principle could reasonably be taken to be something akin to pattern-
learning or statistical learning. Although presently Chomsky does not relinquish the idea
of UG playing a role in the acquisition processes, he paves the way for the possibility that
the theory will evolve to the point that UG may be, eventually, subsumed under general
cognitive principles (i.e. not exclusive to language). In Chomsky’s view, these advances
in syntactic theory have helped to overcome:
“a difficult conceptual barrier to shifting the burden of explanation from the first factor, the genetic endowment, to the third factor, language-independent principles of data processing, structural architecture, and computational efficiency. (p. 10)”
Chomsky notes that early on in the UG framework, linguistics principles were
expressed in terms of “grammatical constructions” which could only be viewed as
linguistic in nature (e.g. islands, filters, constraints on operations). In other words, these
notions were considered to be “linguistic” because they could only be found in language,
and thus had no other biological analogues. However, in Principles and Parameters, the
“basic computational ingredients” became increasingly abstract (i.e. recursion, locality,
economy, minimal search). These computational ingredients, as envisioned under
Principles and Parameters, are much more amenable to be viewed as operations that are
available both within and beyond language itself. Although Chomsky stops short of
subsuming the first principle (i.e. the genetic endowment) into the third (i.e. the
29
29
principles of data analysis), the shift from Chomsky’s original position (e.g. Chomsky,
1957) is quite striking.12
Another attempt to account for frequency effects within the UG framework is
Yang’s Variational Learning Model (Yang, 2002, 2004, 2010). Yang’s model (based on
insights by Roeper, 1999) builds on the concept of parameter setting while, crucially, also
appealing to general learning mechanisms and input frequency effects. In this model,
general learning mechanisms keep track of the frequency of parametric evidence
(“unambiguous” evidence, which is a factor in estimating a parameter’s “signature”).
Yang predicts that a parameter that is substantiated by ample evidence (i.e. it is more
frequent) will be acquired earlier than a parameter that is substantiated by sparse
evidence (i.e. it is less frequent). Parameter “signatures” are calculated as the proportion
of the unambiguous evidence out of the overall evidence in the input that is relevant for a
given parameter.
Hawkins (2011) makes specific reference to statistical learning abilities in order
to account for the famous optionality of morphological variants that commonly
characterizes L2 learners. As mentioned earlier (see section 2.2.1.1.), Hawkins subscribes
to a view in which adult L2 learners are subject to representational deficits.
Representational-deficit accounts argue that adult L2 learners, unlike L1 acquirers, do not
have access to UG mechanisms, especially as it pertains to a subset of features, namely
uninterpretable features, such as gender agreement.13 Thus, within Representational-
deficit accounts, the burden of explanation is not on accounting for lack of convergence
(since this could be explained by lack of access to UG) but rather on accounting for: a)
positive development (towards more target-like grammar) and b) native-like
12 For example, Boeckx (2008) argues that Chomsky’s (2005) viewpoint may, eventually, lead to disappearance of parameters. Other researchers (e.g. de Villiers & Roeper, 2011: 3) see that extension as a “highly problematic” logical possibility.
13 As seen in section 2.2.1.1, agreement is argued to involve uninterpretable features.
30
30
performance. Hawkins suggests that the development observed in L2 grammars (i.e.
positive proficiency effects) can be explained through statistical learning abilities.
Hawkins proposes that L2 learners “resort to using statistical information […] to
compensate for the lack of UG-derived categories (p. 72).” Hawkins submits evidence
from a study by Bloom, Polišenská, and Weerman (2008) examining the acquisition of
gender agreement by child and adult L2 learners of Dutch.14
The Dutch gender agreement paradigm is especially apt for testing Hawkins’s
proposal because, in terms of noun-adjective gender concord, it instantiates a relatively
rare situation where a morphologically underspecified form (usually masculine, or
“common” in the case of Dutch) is actually less frequent than the fully specified form
(usually feminine or “neuter,” the latter being the case in Dutch). Hawkin’s reasoning is
as follows: given that L2 learners are not guided by UG principles, they will use the
statistical properties of the input in order to guide their acquisition process.
Although it is very often the case that the statistical properties of the input will
yield an accurate organization of the input, Dutch noun-adjective agreement is an
exception in this regard. If L2 learners are indeed guided by the distributional properties
of noun-adjective agreement, they should be at a disadvantage and, thus, L2 learners
would overgeneralize the specified form (neuter in the case of Dutch) rather than the
common form. Bloom et al.’s (2008) study shows exactly that pattern. While child
acquirers (both L1 and L2 acquirers) overgeneralized the more specified form (which is
also the least frequent), adult L2 learners display the opposite pattern, overgeneralizing
the least specified form (which is also more frequent than its counterpart). Results also
14 In Bloom et al.’s study, the participants included a control group that was comprised by a child L1 learner group and two experimental L2 groups (child and adult). The child L2 group was comprised of speakers of two different L1s: Moroccan Arabic and Berber. Each of these groups was further divided into two subgroups based on proficiency levels. The adult L2 group also included Moroccan Arabic and Berber speakers and was also divided into two proficiency levels.
31
31
show that these overgeneralizations are not insurmountable and can be alleviated with
increased language experience (i.e. proficiency).
Hawkins (2011) is not the only researcher within Generative linguistics who has
tried to weave statistical learning into the existing theory. Within the sentence-processing
literature, there have been several “hybrid” proposals that have attempted to include
aspects of both Generative linguistics and statistical models. One example of a proposal
that attempts to take into consideration the findings from statistical models as well as
(generative) syntactic principles is Townsend and Bever’s (2001) Late Assignment of
Syntax Theory (LAST).15 LAST proposes that the analysis (i.e. processing) of a
sentence, which proceeds in steps, involves both statistical strategies and a grammar. In
LAST, the initial analysis of a sentence is semantic. This semantic analysis is argued to
be sensitive to statistical information and strategies. The initial analysis gives rise to a
preliminary hypothesis that pairs form and meaning and may include procedures such as
theta-role assignment.16 The initial semantic analysis, which is probabilistic, limits the
possibilities entertained by the syntactic parse.
The second step, termed “pseudosyntax,” uses the initial analysis and matches it
onto an array of syntactic structures to form a more detailed “candidate real syntax,”
which will be subsequently checked against the input in the next step. During the second
step, the conceptual structure adds likely information on functional relations (e.g. in
English, agents are usually nominative, patients of verbs and prepositions are usually
accusative, verbs agree with their subjects, etc.). The last step is syntax generation and
matching. In this step, the parser produces: i) a detailed syntactic description, and ii) a
derivational analysis with a complete surface phrase structure (e.g. agreement markers,
15 Townsend and Bever (2001) explicitly propose that their model is “entirely consistent with the minimalist syntactic model” (p. 178).
16 In Generative syntax, theta roles are formal terms that describe the semantic relationship that an argument plays in regard to a given predicate. (Carnie, 2006).
32
32
word order, etc.). If the generated result matches the input, the computation is finalized.
If the result is a mismatch then the computation can restart at particular points (strategies
for recovery). Although LAST has only been proposed for L1 processing, it bears a
striking resemblance to Clahsen and Felser’s proposal for L2 processing albeit one that
Clahsen and Felser mostly reject.
In summary, the Generative framework has evolved considerably in the last
twenty years. A number of these changes have been driven by attempts to incorporate
findings from other language disciplines. Other developments have resulted from
advances in linguistic theory. A third type of development, such as the Feature
Reassembly hypothesis, was theory-internal and in response to masses of findings, right?
We can’t say that generative L2 linguists have only been kicked into change from
outside. Nonetheless, although this progressive evolution has the potential to bring the
field out of its relative isolation, one of the major hurdles to surmount at the moment is
the lack of a coherent narrative that spells out the “new” positions, as it were. Therefore,
the efforts conducted by generative researchers such as Hawkins (2011) and Phillips
(2006) have been instrumental in this regard. As mentioned earlier, one of the shifts
within the generative framework has been the use of time-sensitive methodologies that
can shed light on the moment-by-moment processing of language. In the following
section, I will review a series of studies that focus on L2 processing—both from
Generative and Usage-based approaches.
2.6 Research on L2 processing
2.6.1. Two Approaches to L2 Processing
As mentioned in Chapter 1, it is generally agreed upon that the outcomes of first
versus second language acquisition are remarkably different. On the whole, in early SLA
research, the most common data collecting instruments consisted of off-line tasks (i.e. not
time-sensitive) such as grammaticality/acceptability judgments, magnitude estimation,
33
33
elicited imitation, and a variety of interpretation tasks (e.g. truth-value judgment tasks,
picture-matching tasks). Using these off-line methodologies, there has been a wealth of
empirical evidence supporting the notion of a “lack of convergence” between the
grammar of L1 and L2 speakers, differences that span multiple linguistic domains
including phonology (e.g. Fathman & Precup, 1983; Munro, Flege & MacKay, 1996),
morpho-syntax (e.g. Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003; Lardiere, 1998a,b), and syntax-
pragmatics (Belleti, Bennati, & Sorace, 2007; Sorace, 2003; Sorace & Filiaci, 2006).
Accounts such as the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman, 1990) propose
that this lack of convergence is due to core differences in the grammatical representations
of L1 and L2 speakers.
More recently, explanations for native vs. learner ultimate-attainment differences
have focused more prominently on processing-based differences, producing a series of
demonstrations that the real-time processing of an unfolding linguistic signal differs
between groups of L1 and L2 speakers (e.g. Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Dussias, 2001;
Frenk-Mestre, 2002). Although these processing-centric accounts vary from one to
another across a wide variety of dimensions, Leal Méndez, Farmer & Slabakova (2013)
posit that they can be roughly categorized into two groups, which differ on the degree to
which they propose that the processes driving on-line L2 comprehension are the same as,
rather than different from, those responsible for L1 comprehension.
“Different-system” accounts of L2 processing propose that there is a qualitative
difference between L1 and L2 processing because the latter does not rely on the same
processing systems that are responsible for L1 comprehension. An example of one such
account is the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH; Clahsen & Felser, 2006a, b), which
was discussed in section 2.3.4. As noted earlier, the SSH proposes that L2 learners
process language “shallowly” because of incomplete L2 grammatical representations.
Another instantiation of a different-system account of L2 processing is Ullman’s (2001)
Declarative-Procedural Model.
34
34
The Declarative-Procedural Model (Ullman, 2001) builds on an independent
distinction between procedural and declarative memory, both of which are considered to
be mediated by different neural mechanisms. Declarative memory stores lexical
information about words, sounds, meanings, and other memorized knowledge and
associations. This information is argued to be accessible to various systems rather than
being encapsulated (pace Fodor, 1983), and has been argued to be involved in the
learning/use of world facts and knowledge. Procedural memory, on the other hand, is
related to implicit (unconscious) learning and use of grammar (syntax, semantics,
morphology, phonology). Furthermore, procedural structures have been argued to be
involved in the acquisition articulation of motor and general cognitive skills, especially
those involving sequences (Graybiel, 1995; Willingham, 1998).
The Declarative Procedural Model proposes that in L2 grammatical processing,
there is, at least initially, little involvement of procedural memory, and thus L2 learners
are expected to be dependent upon declarative memory when processing their L2. This
shift in dependence is argued to cause L2 learners to compute the L2 grammar using
memorized lexical items stored in declarative memory. Increased productivity in L2
learners is argued to be due to processes such as associative memorization, generalization
of patterns, and further pattern abstraction. Furthermore, the model posits that at least
some rules can be learned in declarative memory—with the exception of “grammatical”
rules, which supposedly depend on procedural memory and computations. More recently,
however, Ullman (2004) has suggested that L2 learners could, with enough practice,
improve at learning grammatical rules in procedural memory.
On the other hand, Leal Méndez et al. (2013) use the term “same-system”
approaches to describe those approaches that maintain that the systems responsible for
processing an L2 are the same as those responsible for L1 processing (e.g. Dekydtspotter,
Schwartz & Sprouse, 2006). As a whole, same-system approaches typically posit that L1
vs. L2 processing differences do not obtain because of differences in the systems
35
35
themselves but may come about because of factors such as divergences in exposure or
types of exposure (e.g. Leal Méndez et al, 2013; Pliatsikas & Marinis, 2012), or lexical
access routines and differences in the “timing” of computational moments (Dekydtspotter
et al., 2006; Hopp 2013).
Lim and Christianson (2013) also propose that L1 and L2 processing are
qualitatively equivalent, arguing that both L1 and L2 speakers show evidence of “good
enough” processing (GEP). Several studies supporting the GEP have shown evidence that
even native speakers misinterpret linguistic input when the syntactic structure (passive,
for example) is in conflict with world knowledge/plausibility of events (e.g. The man bit
the dog.). To account for these misinterpretations, GEP approaches propose that native
speakers can, as L2 learners have often been found to do, over-rely on lexical-semantic
information under some circumstances (e.g. task demands; Swets, Desmet, Clifton &
Ferreira, 2008). Using self-paced-reading and translation tasks, Lim and Christianson
(2013) found that the patterns of processing of native- and L2 speakers were both
modulated by 1) the goals of the task (reading for comprehension vs. for translation) and
2) proficiency in the target language. Therefore, Lim and Christianson argue that the
differences between the native and learner groups are quantitative (e.g. speed of
processing) rather than qualitative.
As can be observed in the research described above, it is typically the case that the
evidence that is submitted as supporting a “same-system” approach consists of the
observation of similar processing patterns between natives and L2 learners (e.g. Hopp,
2006; Lim & Christianson, 2013). However, as mentioned earlier (see also Leal Méndez
et al., 2013 for discussion), it is unclear whether homogeneous processing patterns—even
with data collected with more sensitive methodologies such as Event-Related Potentials;
ERP—necessarily entail identical processing mechanisms.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, some of these studies have found evidence that the
processing patterns of learners as a group are more variable than those displayed by
36
36
native speaker groups (e.g. Trenkic, 2007). To explain this variability in L2 processing,
some researchers have argued that L2 learners may process language differently because
of differences in their individual learning histories (e.g. age of exposure, L1, individual
abilities) and language experiences (e.g. McDonald, 2006). Indeed, it appears to be the
case that L2 language experience and proficiency are good predictors of increasingly
more native-like processing.
2.7 The Construct of Proficiency in L2 Research and the
Relationship between Proficiency and Exposure
An important number of recent L2 processing studies have found a positive
relationship between L2 proficiency and increasing similarity to native-like processing
patterns (e.g. Hopp, 2006; Hoover & Dwivedi, 1998; Jackson, 2008; Lim & Christianson,
2013). However, this relationship cannot be straightforwardly interpreted in part because
“proficiency” is not a unitary concept (e.g. Cummins, 1980; Hughes, 2007; Hulstijn,
2011). Furthermore, as I will discuss momentarily, there are substantial differences
among studies in the way that proficiency is gauged (i.e. standardized tests, in-house
assessment, c-tests, self-rating, measure of language exposure, language metrics, teacher
judgments, etc.). An additional problem is that even comparable standardized proficiency
tests have not been designed to provide comparable measurements among different
languages.17 In other words, what it means to be “intermediate” in German using a given
measure might not necessarily correspond to “intermediate” in Arabic using a different
measure.18
17 For an attempt at providing such a diagnostic measure for European Languages, see Alderson (2008). In the context of foreign languages in the U.S., see the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) guidelines.
18 Skehan’s Trade-off Hypothesis (2009) emphasizes another important complication when measuring learner performance. Based on the notion that human attentional capacity and working memory are limited (Baddeley, 2007), Skehan argues that when learners direct their attention to one dimension of performance (be it complexity, accuracy, or fluency), they must, necessarily, reduce their attention for other areas. Thus, Skehan suggests that in addition to measuring these
37
37
Previous attempts at gauging language development have used different measures
(i.e. L2 developmental indices) such as standardized proficiency tests, comparative
longitudinal data (Hakuta, 1976), or measurements such as T-Units (Wolfe-Quintero,
Inagaki, & Jim, 1998).19,20 Nevertheless, to date, there is no consensus in the literature
on what constitutes the relevant dimensions of proficiency or how these can be measured
(i.e. how to measure L2 development) (e.g. Benati, 2009; Verhoeven & De Jong, 1992).
Thomas (1994, 2006) conducted two synthetic analyses focusing on the types of
assessments used to measure proficiency in empirical L2 studies. Comparing two
different time frames (1988-1992 and 2000-2004), Thomas found that L2 studies had
progressed from using blanket assessments to measuring proficiency in “finer detail,”
using statistical measures to estimate the validity of their groupings. In addition, more
recent studies have included several measures gauging different dimensions of
proficiency. However, she also noted a trend in the second cohort of studies to downplay
the assessment of proficiency. The authors of some of these studies claim that proficiency
is a dynamic, multi-dimensional, and (crucially), context-dependent phenomenon.
three dimensions of performance, these should be accompanied (i.e. supplemented) by measures of lexical knowledge.
19 A T-unit is a minimal terminal unit that consists of an independent clause, accompanied by any associated dependent (e.g. subordinated) clauses. T-units have been used to measure different aspects of proficiency. In the L2 literature focusing on fluency, T-units are measured for length, accuracy (e.g. number of error-free T-units), and clause length. In terms of accuracy, the most commonly used measures are the number of error-free T-units, proportion of overall error-free T-units, and errors per T-unit; for syntactic complexity, the most commonly used measures are clauses per T-unit, number of dependent clauses per total clauses, or number of dependent clauses per T-unit (Larsen-Freeman, 2009).
20 The types of proficiency tests that are usually employed in SLA testing are “general” proficiency tests, such as the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language, Educational Testing Service) or the Cambridge Certificate in English Examination. In general, these tests are designed to gauge learner’s “ability in a language regardless of any training they may have had in the language. The content of a proficiency test, therefore, is not based on the content or the objectives of language courses […] [but rather] on a specification of what candidates have to be able to do in the language in order to be considered proficient.” (Hughes, 1989).
38
38
Therefore, some authors argue that the (static) measurement of proficiency “seems so
reductionist as to lack all usefulness” (Thomas, 2006:293).
A less contentious notion is that L2 proficiency is likely to emerge gradually—it
is improbable that L2 learners will fully acquire any given grammatical construction at
some discrete point during the learning process. On the contrary, there is evidence that
shows evidence of the progressive accumulation of knowledge over the course of
exposure to the input (DeKeyser, 2005; Ellis, 2002; MacWhinney, 2004). The
relationship between L2 proficiency and exposure, however, has not been a
straightforward one in L2 research. Although prima facie it seems uncontroversial to
assume that proficiency and exposure are positively related, previous research has cast
doubt on this premise. In the realm of L2 speaking, for example, Moyer (1999) reviewed
a series of studies investigating the relationship between exposure (measured by length of
residence) and foreign accents and concluded that the effects of language exposure on L2
learning were “inconsequential” (p. 83).
Flege and Liu (2001), on the other hand, argue that the lack of exposure effects in
these studies is the direct consequence of methodological confounds (e.g. sampling
errors, factors that confounded length of residence with age of acquisition). In their
empirical investigation, Flege and Liu (2001) found that when they statistically controlled
these factors, adult L2 learners’ performance improved over time only when they were
exposed to “the kind of input-rich environment that is typical for children who immigrate
to North America” (p. 547). These results mirror the results obtained from a similar task
with Korean-English bilinguals investigating the development of English morpho-syntax
(Flege, Yeni-Komishian, & Liu, 1999). What these results underscore is that the type of
exposure may play a crucial role in explaining the relationship (or lack thereof) between
L2 proficiency and exposure.
39
39
2.7.1 The Relationship between Proficiency and L2
Processing
As noted in the previous section, “proficiency” in L2 studies is often
operationalized as the numerical outcome of a standardized proficiency test examining
knowledge of specific domains such as grammar and vocabulary. Under this
operationalization, overall, there seems to be a positive relationship between L2
proficiency and length of exposure to the L2—a relationship that seems be a good
predictor of more native-like L2 processing. As noted by Flege and colleagues (Flege &
Liu, 2001; Flege, Yeni-Komishian & Liu, 1999), this relationship has been typically
framed around the age-of-exposure and critical-period debates, where the general finding
is that younger learners (who are also those learners that have been exposed to the
language the longest) display more native-like language outcomes. Although the
investigation of L2 proficiency controlling for age-of-exposure effects has been less
examined, several studies have found that longer exposure translates to higher L2
proficiency/learning outcomes (e.g. Flege & Liu, 2001; Flege, Yeni-Komishian & Liu,
1999; García Mayo & García Lecumberri, 2003).
40
Study Linguistic domain: structure
Method Languages, N, proficiency
Findings Proficiency test
Dussias & Piñar (2010)
Syntax: Long distance wh dependencies (intermediate gaps), manipulating plausibility
Self-paced Reading
L2 English (L1 Chinese; 36) Min TOEFL 550/213 L1 English (34, monolingual)
Proficiency was not a factor but there were effects of reading span NSs: subject extraction sentences posed more difficulties (three word critical region) than object extractions (plausibility information used) High-span L2ers: same pattern Low-span L2ers: effect is driven by implausibility (reverse pattern than NSs)
No independent test—self ratings, years of study, length of stay
Fernández (1998)
Syntax: relative clause attachment manipulating length
Self-paced Reading
? Bilinguals were sensitive to native-like preference according to proficiency. (Self-reported) proficiency was the best prediction for native-like attachment--even more so than age of acquisition.
No independent test—self ratings in multiple skills aimed at determining “dominance”
Hahne (2001) Semantic violations (selectional restrictions of the verb), phrase structure violations (e.g. participle followed by preposition)
ERP L2 German (L1 Russian; 16); L1 German. (16)
Proficiency not a variable, but proficiency effects are suggested (compared to other studies: p. 264) Semantically incorrect L1: N400, pronounced, peaked 200ms earlier than the L2 group L2: N400, less pronounced, later Syntactically incorrect L1: ELAN followed by P600 L2: No ELAN, P600 peaking about 150ms later
No independent test—Self-reported in four skills
Table 2-1 L2 processing studies using indirect measures of proficiency (no independent proficiency measure).
41
Study Linguistic domain: structure
Method Languages, N, proficiency
Findings Proficiency test
Jiang (2004) Morphosyntax: Number subject-verb agreement
Self-paced reading
L2 English (L1 Chinese; 30) L1 English (30) All L2 learners scored 550 or higher in the TOEFL (M=608)
No proficiency effects were found NSs were sensitive to morpho-syntactic “idiosyncracies” (verb subcategorization, grammatical number, etc.) L2ers were not sensitive to number violations as reflected in RTs, although were able to do so offline
No independent test—entrance TOEFL scores were used and all were described as “advanced”
Rossi et al. (2006)
Morphosyntax: word category violations, agreement violations and category + agreement violations
ERP; GJT accuracy
L2 German (L1 It high; 16 and low prof; 19) L2 Italian (high; 16 and low prof; 18) (no control groups)
Proficiency effects found High proficiency learners of German and Italian showed the same ERP components as in the NSs literature: LAN followed by P600 Low proficiency learners failed to show LAN (tendency but did not reach significance)
No independent prof. measure: language-learning history, self-rating, and performance on translation tests
Tanner et al. (2013)
Inflection: Verbal agreement
ERP L2 German (L1 English; 33; 20 novice, 13 3rd year) L1 German (13)
Proficiency effects found NSs: grammatical violations elicited P600 L2 (3rd year): same L1 (1st year): group: bi-phasic response (N4---P600 but correlations showed either N400 or P600)
No independent proficiency test—groups were based on exposure (year)
Tokowicz & MacWhinney (2005)
Morphosyntax (inflection): auxiliary marking (L1|L2 match), number agreement (mismatch), gender agreement (no match)
ERP; GJT accuracy
L2 Spanish (L1 English; 20) No control group, experimental group tested in L1 and L2 (different constructions)
No proficiency effects but scores were proxies (self-report and length of study (exposure). Length of exposure appeared to be was fairly homogeneous Learners: Marginally significant effects for grammaticality, but there was an interaction of language similarity and grammaticality: marginal sensitivity for match, no sensitivity to mismatch, and significant sensitivity for no match
No independent test—self ratings and years of study were used as proxies
Table 2-2 (continued) L2 processing studies using indirect measures of proficiency (no independent proficiency measure).
42
42
In L2 processing research, there are a significant number of studies that either
explicitly address the existence (or non-existence) of proficiency effects or else draw
indirect conclusions about such effects even in the absence of an independent (e.g.
standardized) proficiency test. Table 2-1 presents a list of representative studies in this
vein. This list, although hardly exhaustive, focuses on the acquisition of either syntactic
or morpho-syntactic phenomena. Thus, evidence from single word activation or studies
focused on the L2 lexicon were not included (e.g. Chee, Tanm & Thiel, 1999; Klein,
Milner, Zatorre, Meyer & Evans, 1995). Additionally, for ease of comparison, I focused
on studies using specific time-sensitive methodologies: Self-paced reading, eye tracking,
ERP, and fMRI (e.g. priming studies were not included).21
In light of the findings that greater exposure to the L2 is positively related to
higher L2 learning/proficiency, it would be unreasonable to bypass the findings of those
studies that didn’t measure proficiency using an independent measure. However, it does
make the task of comparing these effects across studies more challenging. This is
especially so because these comparisons usually involve different linguistic structures
and language combinations.
The use of self-assessment data as a proxy for L2 proficiency, however, might
appear potentially more problematic. In this regard, research findings focusing on the
reliability of self-reported proficiency have produced mixed results. Blanche and Merino
(1989), for example, carried out a review of L2 studies using self-assessment. Overall,
they note (p. 315):
21 Other important studies (e.g. Kim, Relkin, Lee, & Hirsch, 1997) were not included because these used such open-ended tasks (“internally expressive linguistic tasks”) that it is difficult to determine which linguistic domain was being tested (most likely, all). In Kim et al. (1997) using fMRI, for example, subjects were asked to imagine describing events in a given language (either L1 or L2), describing those events that happened during the morning, afternoon and night.
43
43
The emerging pattern is one of consistent overall agreement between self-assessments and ratings based on a variety of external criteria. The accuracy of most students’ self-estimates often varies depending on the linguistic skills and materials involved in the evaluations […] but these estimates are generally good or very good.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that there is substantial individual variation
in the accuracy of self-ratings related to factors such as personality, motivation,
and anxiety levels. A study by MacIntyre, Noels and Cléments (1997) found that
a regression analysis between self-assessment and proficiency level
(independently assessed through a proficiency test) showed evidence that student
anxiety played a role in self-assessment. Namely, anxious students showed a
tendency to underestimate their proficiency, while less anxious students tended to
overestimate it. AlFallay (2004) found that students with low self-esteem were the
most accurate in assessing their performance. Additionally, learners with
instrumental (extrinsic) motivation were the least accurate at self-rating their
abilities.
However, even with use of these proxy measures, several studies (e.g. Rossi et al.,
2006; Tanner et al., 2013) have found evidence of proficiency effects. Another study that
has been reported to provide evidence for proficiency effects is Hahne (2001). However,
Hahne’s conclusion stems from comparative evidence—by comparing the results of that
study with other studies using the same testing materials (e.g. Hahne & Friederici, 2001).
Two other studies (Jiang, 2004; Tokowicz & MacWhinney, 2005) failed to find these
effects but, importantly, it seems like their groups were too heterogeneous (too similar in
terms of length of exposure) to make such effects detectable.
44
Authors Linguistic domain /
structure Method Languages, N,
proficiency Findings Proficiency
test
Dallas et al. (2013)
Syntax: Long-distance wh dependencies manipulating plausibility
ERP L2 Eng (L1 Chi; 20) L1 Eng (19) L2ers took either the TOEFL or IELTS
Proficiency effects found L2 speakers as a group not sensitive to plausibility (N400 effect at the embedded verb), correlations indicate that more proficient L2 speakers, like the L1 speakers, are sensitive to plausibility variations while processing filler-gap sentences. Working memory did not play a role.
Composite score: Two vocab tests: SILS and vocab subtest of WAIS, and a lexical decision task
Dussias et al. (2014)
Inflection: encoding gender information in articles (anticipatory processing)
VWP L2 Sp (L1 Eng; 18, high and low prof. and L1 It; 15) L1 Sp (16)
Proficiency effects found NSs exhibited gender-anticipatory effects, as expected. L2 Sp-L1 It showed gender-anticipatory effects but only for feminine. Highly proficiency L2 Sp-L1 Engl showed evidence of using gender information during processing, but low proficiency L2ers did not.
Standardized test (DELE, probably modified, 50 pts; adv: over 40) Self-reported proficiency scores
Hopp (2006) Syntax: German scrambling (SO to OS orders)
Self-paced reading, speeded GJT
(L2 groups: adv & near n) L2 Ger (L1 Eng; 20); -L2 Ger (L1 Dut; 20); L1 Ger (20)
Proficiency effects found Near-native L2ers converge in processing patterns with native speakers—strength of the effect is modulated by the type of syntactic features (like in NSs)
Web-based C-test (timed)
Hopp (2013) Inflection: lexical and syntactic gender (anticipatory) processing
Elicited production, VWP
L2 Ger (L1 Eng; 20-adv. & near n); L1 Ger (20)
Proficiency effects found Target-like performance in a subgroup of learners: those who had consistent target-like overall gender assignment in the elicited production. These learners also had significantly higher proficiency levels.
Goethe Institute Test (30 items)
Table 2-2 L2 processing studies using direct measures of proficiency (independent proficiency measure were used).
45
Authors Linguistic domain / structure
Method Languages,
N, proficiency
Findings Proficiency test
Jackson (2008) Morphosyntax: subject-object temporal ambiguity in wh questions
Self-paced reading
L2 Ger (L1 Eng; 40 adv and int)
Proficiency effects were found (although the advanced did not exactly pattern after NSs). Segment 3 (immediately following manipulation) NSs: Lower comprehension and higher RTs on object-first sentences but no effect of tense Adv L2: longer RTs immediately when case markings disambiguated to a dispreferred object-first (like NSs) but greater difference in past tense vs. present perfect Int L2: did not show sensitivity to case-marking information but there was a difference (in the right direction) on segment 5 (last one)
Goethe Institute Test (30 items)
Lim & Christianson (2013)
Syntax: Subject and object relatives (manipulating plausibility)
Self-paced reading, translation task
L2 Eng (L1 Kor; 36 adv, int) L1 Eng (32)
Proficiency effects found NSs: SRCs were easier to process than ORC; speakers were influence by structural and plausibility information. Learners slowed down but at a later time: they are slower in retrieving syntactic information: reading strategies varied with task and proficiency (accuracy was modulated by proficiency)
Cloze test (Guili Dussias, Penn State, 40 points)
Pliatsikas & Marinis (2013)
Syntax: Long distance wh dependencies (intermediate gaps)
Self-paced reading
L2 Eng (L1 Greek; 26 naturalistic; 30 classroom) L1 Eng (30)
No proficiency effects per se but effects of type of exposure (classroom vs. naturalistic). **Proficiency not treated continuously (all learners where taken to be advanced) NSs: facilitation of the final gap (like NSs) when the intermediate gap was present, higher RTs at the gap in the extraction condition. L2 CE: No facilitation effects or higher RTs at the int gap but did show a spill over effect L2 NE: facilitation of the final gap (like NSs) when the intermediate gap was present but no higher RTs in extraction condition (but extraction x phrase type interaction)
Quick Placement English Test (UCLES, 2001)-20 min testing comprehension and language skills.
Table 2-2 (continued) L2 processing studies using direct measures of proficiency (independent proficiency measure were used).
46
46
Table 2.2 shows another set of representative studies that focused on L2
processing. These studies included proficiency as a variable and tested it so
independently. The majority of these used either standardized proficiency tests or
modified versions of such tests. Others included other types of measures, such as c-tests.
One study (i.e. Dallas et al., 2013) used vocabulary measures that have been shown to
correlate highly with language outcomes. As Table 2.2 shows, the presence of
proficiency effects in L2 processing is pervasive. Overall, these results fit well within
experiential models of language acquisition, although generative models of L2
acquisition and processing can account for these effects as well (Dekydspotter et al.,
2006; Hopp, 2006).
In sum, overall, a considerable amount of literature focusing on L2 processing has
found that L2 Proficiency constitutes a key predictor in more native-like processing. As
was pointed out in the introduction to this paper, one of the goals of this dissertation is to
test the prediction of the SSH. Examining the effects of L2 processing is vital in this
regard because the SSH does not predict L2 effects—in fact, the only development that is
predicted is brought about through the use of semantic and pragmatic cues, but not
syntactic knowledge. Thus, any study intending to test the SSH should include a measure
of proficiency.
2.8. The Generation of Predictions and L2 Processing
In the psycholinguistic L1 processing literature, there have been a significant
number of studies providing evidence that predictive/anticipatory processes can aid
speakers to quickly and accurately interpret an incoming linguistic signal (e.g. Altmann
& Kamide, 1999; DeLong, Urbach, & Kutas, 2005; Dikker, Rabagliati, Farmer, &
Pylkkänen, 2010; Farmer, Brown, & Tanenhaus, 2013; Fine, Jaeger, Farmer, & Qian,
2013). These anticipatory processes (i.e. predictions) seem to be multi-leveled and fine-
47
47
grained, and include many different aspects of the incoming linguistic input ranging from
grammatical properties of the signal (e.g. verb sub-categorization preferences, Arai &
Keller, 2013) to semantic properties of a word (e.g. DeLong, Urbach, & Kutas, 2005;
Kamide, Altman, & Haywood, 2003), or even the form-based perceptual properties of the
physical input (Dikker, Rabagliati, Farmer, & Pylkkänen, 2010; Farmer, Christiansen, &
Monaghan, 2006; Gow & McMurray, 2007).
Predictions aid the quick and accurate interpretation of an unfolding linguistic
signal. It has been argued that predictions might play a role in development: When
predictions are violated by a given property of the input, an error-signal is created. This
error signal has been proposed to be an element that can drive learning (Clark, 2013;
Elman, 1991; Elman et al., 1996). Language is imbued with probabilistic regularities (e.g.
long-distance dependencies), and the progressive learning of those regularities over
exposure is likely to drive a progressive ability to predict downstream linguistic units
from previously encountered information in the signal. The role of predictive processing
in L2, however, is still unclear.
To date, there exists a relatively small body of research work concerning whether
or not L2 learners actively predict upcoming linguistic material (but see Hopp, 2013;
Kaan, in press). In the present experimental study, the goal is to examine the
learning/processing of a long-distance dependency in L2 Spanish with a special focus on
whether learners develop an emerging sensitivity to the violation of expectations
(predictions) during on-line processing. In order to find evidence for predictive processes,
the data would need to demonstrate that when a prediction is violated (not completed
where expected), there would be an increase in RTs (assuming that increased RTs are
indicative of processing difficulties). In order to determine any effects of proficiency and
experience, the experimental study samples learners from broad swaths of the proficiency
spectrum and collects their language learning histories.
48
48
Investigating predictive processes in L2 can be particularly useful because it may
provide a suitable index of development in L2 processing. In other words, if there is
indication that learners of higher proficiency develop a higher sensitivity to the violation
of expectations, we could, at least in principle, use the estimated magnitude of the
expectation violation as an index of a given learner’s L2 processing development. As
mentioned earlier, there is evidence that language users can learn about regularities
inherent to the input using statistical probabilities (e.g. Gómez, 2002; Newport & Aslin,
2004). Furthermore, there is also evidence (e.g. Ellis, 2002) that L2 learners are
unconsciously attuned to statistical regularities of the input (e.g. frequency). Thus, it
would stand to reason that these abilities can be useful in an L2 learner’s development—
in other words, it can help her/him to better predict in an L2.
In fact, there is some very recent evidence suggesting that individual differences
in the ability to learn about probabilistic statistical regularities in structured input (i.e.
statistical learning ability) predict some variability in L2 learning outcomes (Frost,
Siegelman, Narkiss, & Afek, 2013; Kaufman, DeYoung, Gray, Jiménez, Brown, &
Mackintosh, 2010). In the present empirical study, I include a measure of statistical
learning abilities (Gómez, 2002) in order to determine whether differences in statistical
learning ability have a positive relationship with the development of L2 predictive
processes.
2.9. Summary
This chapter introduced the theoretical backdrop that informs this work, focusing
on both Generative and Usage-based approaches to SLA. Additionally, I have outlined
how these approaches have incorporated (albeit to different degrees) the evidence
concerning statistical learning abilities. I have also presented a selective review of L2
research studies focusing on processing with a special focus on those studies that have
actively attempted to investigate the existence of proficiency effects. As a corollary, I
49
49
also introduced the notion of “prediction,” arguing that the investigation of predictive
abilities can provide a suitable developmental index for L2 processing.
50
CHAPTER 3
THE SYNTAX OF CLITIC LEFT DISLOCATION IN SPANISH
3.1 General Introduction to the Chapter
The purpose of this chapter is to present a brief overview of the basic properties
and general structure of the long-distance dependency under study: Clitic Left
Dislocation (CLLD) in Spanish. Although some cross-linguistic comparisons with other
Romance languages will be made where necessary, the focus will be mostly on Spanish
CLLD. CLLD has been extensively discussed, both in the formal literature (e.g. Arregui,
2003; Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010; Cinque, 1990; Casielles-Suárez, 2003, 2004;
Kempchinsky, 2013; López, 2009; Suñer, 2006; Zubizarreta, 1998, to name a few) and in
empirical generative studies (e.g. Donaldson, 2011; Ivanov, 2012; Leal Méndez,
Rothman & Slabakova, 2014, in press; Pablos, 2006, 2008; Valenzuela, 2006). For this
reason, only those properties and issues that are most relevant to the empirical study will
be described in any detail.
Additionally, this chapter will also present the discourse properties of CLLD,
introducing key Information Structure terms such as “topic” and “focus.”22These notions
form the information structure of a sentence (Birner & Ward, 1998; Gundel, 1988;
Halliday, 1967; Lambrecht, 1994; Ward, 1988). Topic is intimately related to CLLD,
which is generally considered to be an instantiation of topicalization in Spanish (and in
Romance in general). For the purposes of comparison, this chapter will also review the
properties of two other left dislocations in Spanish, Hanging Topic Left Dislocation
22 A commonly used definition of information structure, albeit not necessarily a universally accepted one (see, for example, López, 2009 for an alternative), is the following: “[Information structure is the] component of sentence grammar in which propositions as conceptual representations of states of affairs are paired with lexicogrammatical structures in accordance with the mental states of interlocutors who use and interpret these structures as units of information in given discourse contents” (Lambrecht, 1994:5).
51
51
(HTLD) and Fronted Focus, in view of the fact that these structures share many surface
characteristics with CLLD.
Furthermore, in order to delineate the learning tasks for the group of L2 learners
of Spanish, whose L1 is English (see Chapter 4 for details on the participant groups), this
chapter will briefly outline the general syntactic and discourse properties of English-style
topicalization. Although a detailed syntactic analysis for this structure is outside of the
scope of the present work, I will draw some comparisons between the English and
Spanish topicalization in order to better to establish learnability issues for the L2 learners.
The last part of the chapter presents two competing syntactic analyses that aim to account
for the syntactic and pragmatic properties of CLLD as well as for other Romance
dislocations (López, 2009; Rizzi, 1997, 2001).
3.2 Properties of CLLD
3.2.1 General structure and availability of CLLD in
Romance Languages
In Romance languages, CLLD is a frequently employed marking of topicalization,
where a phrase that has been previously mentioned, or is otherwise sufficiently salient in
the discourse (i.e. a topic), is re-introduced into the discourse by virtue of being set apart
(i.e. left-dislocated). 23,24 CLLD is an example of a natural long-distance syntactic
23A note on translation: When translating CLLD into English, the closest analogue (in syntactic and informational structure terms) would be English-style Topicalization (e.g. Al presidente de la asociación realmente lo admirarías, “The president of the association, you would really admire”). However, CLLD is also often translated into English using the passive voice (Al ladrón lo agarraron con las manos en la masa, “The thief was caught red handed”). These two translations are quite valid and highlight different aspects of its relationship with Spanish CLLD. In fact, these different translations might be somewhat systematically linked to discourse notions thus might be illuminating in regards to different types of CLLD (see Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010 for a detailed classification). Kempchinsky (p.c.) notes that it seems to be the case that when CLLD is translated into English, Identity-CLLD represents topic continuation—these would be the cases where CLLD is translated into English as passive. Other cases are representative of what Arregi (2003) calls ‘contrastive topicalization’, and would translate into English as topicalization. I agree that this observation accurately captures these preferences. However, throughout this chapter, however, I forgo these two possibilities because, at least in the case of
52
52
dependency, where a topicalized phrase is connected to the comment via a clitic.
Syntactically, the general structure of CLLD is as follows (from Kempchinsky, 2008):
(3.1) General (underlying) structure: [LP … XPi … [TP … Cli-V … ]]
where:
LP = ‘left periphery’
XP = the CLLD dislocate
English-style topicalization, some of these translations seem to be somewhat marked (see Slabakova, 2013 for a comparison of the acceptability of Spanish CLLD by Spanish native speakers and English-style topicalization by English native speakers). Although I am aware that the translation I use throughout the chapter may not necessarily reflect the same information structure status as in the original, I believe that it captures the unmarked status of CLLD in both spoken and written Spanish. It is my hope that the information status will be abundantly clear from both the transliteration and the preceding discussion. Thus, when I use data from other authors I use their transliteration but use the unmarked English order in the translation for most examples.
24Although the term CLLD was first coined in the early eighties (van Haaften, Smits, & Vat, 1983) Cinque’s work on A-bar dependencies in the early nineties (Cinque, 1990) constituted the most comprehensive early attempt to provide a syntactic analysis of these constructions.
53
53
As is evident from the co-indexation in (3.1), the clitic and the left-dislocated
phrase must agree. In Spanish, the dislocated phrase and the clitic agree in person,
number, and occasionally gender, as is evident in (3.2).
(3.2) CONTEXT: Are you not going to the party with Elena?
[A Elena]i sí *(lai)invitaron, pero a mí no. to Elena (fem.sg) indeed cl.ACC.3f.sg invited.PAST.3rd.PL but to me NEG “Well, Elena was indeed invited, but I wasn’t.”
Once the topicalized phrase (a Elena: feminine, singular) has been introduced, an
agreeing clitic (la: feminine, singular) must subsequently appear in order for the sentence
to be grammatical, as indicated by the asterisk in (3.2).25 Romance clitics appear before
finite verbs such that with these verbs, speakers would expect the clitic to appear pre-
verbally.
CLLD has been extensively documented and is instantiated in virtually all of the
Romance languages. Before presenting cross-linguistic CLLD examples, I would like to
address an issue regarding notation. Namely, there are some inconsistencies in terms of
how CLLD is notated by different authors. These inconsistencies reflect differences in
opinion regarding whether a comma (marking a boundary realization) should follow the
dislocated element or not. While some authors note that CLLD is not necessarily (but
rather optionally) followed by a pause (e.g. Kempchinsky, 2013), others find the pause to
be necessary.
In one of the very few empirical investigations on the prosodic aspects of CLLD,
Feldhausen (2014) examined the production of a homogeneous group of four native
speakers of Peninsular Spanish reading scripted (embedded and non-embedded) CLLD
25There is a construction in Spanish (Fronted Focus) that involves the dislocation of a phrase that is not doubled by an agreeing clitic. This construction, which must be accompanied by a specific intonation and has different interpretative properties, will be described in detail in section 3.2.4.2.
54
54
sentences. Feldhausen found that, in this very homogeneous group, the data showed an
obligatory right boundary. Nevertheless, given the lack of consensus in this matter, I use
the notation as presented by the original sources throughout this chapter. In my own
examples, I forgo the use of a comma, based on my own intuitions. Examples from
Spanish, Italian, Catalan, European Portuguese, French, and Romanian can be found in
(3.3a-f) below.
(3.3) a. [A Juan]i loi vi en el parque hoy.
to Juan CL.ACC.M.SG I-saw in the park today “I saw Juan in the park today.”
Spanish
b. Giannii, io loi odio. Gianni I Cl.ACC.M.SG I-hate “I hate Gianni.”
Italian (Cecchetto, 1999)
c. [Les taules]i lesi vaig portar al matí. the tables Cl.ACC PAST.SG bring in-the morning “I brought the tables in the morning.”
Catalan (López, 2003)
d. [Este livro]i, só oi encontrei na FNAC this book only Cl.ACC.3.SG found in-the FNAC “This book, I only found it at FNAC.”
European Port. (Kato & Raposo, 2007)
e. [Les malotrus]i, on ne lesi invite pas. the louts one NEG them.ACC invites not “We don’t invite louts.”
French (De Cat, 2007)
f. (Pe) Ionili-am întîlnit anul trecut. (on) John him-I met year last ‘I met John last year.’
Romanian (Dobrovie-Sorin, 1990)
An interesting exception appears to be Brazilian Portuguese. The clitic paradigm
of spoken Brazilian Portuguese (when compared to European Portuguese) is deficient in
that it lacks 3rd person clitics. In Brazilian Portuguese, nominative forms are used for both
direct and indirect objects. This characteristic stands in contrast to European Portuguese,
which instantiates object clitics for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd persons (Kato, 1993; Kato & Raposo,
55
55
2007). The differences between European and Brazilian Portuguese are evident upon
comparing (3.3d) with (3.4) below (from Kato & Raposo, 2007:206). In these examples,
the nominative form is in bold letters.
(3.4) [Este livro]i, só encontreiele na FNAC
this book only I-found it in-the FNAC “This book, I only found it at FNAC.”
(Kato & Raposo, 2007)
Based on these differences, Kato and Raposo (2007) argue that CLLD is a
phenomenon that is only instantiated in European, not Brazilian, Portuguese.
3.2.2 Structural Properties of Spanish CLLD
3.2.2.1 Types of phrases that can be (clitic) left dislocated
As illustrated in the examples (3.3a-f), Romance CLLD allows for an accusative
noun phrase to be left dislocated.26 In Spanish, as in many other Romance languages, a
dative NPs can also be left dislocated, as exemplified in (3.527).
(3.5) CONTEXT: Did you tell Elena what happened at the party?
26I use “noun phrase” here for ease of exposition, and it is therefore not an indication of any theoretical underpinning. The most accurate term would be Determiner Phrase (DP), but nothing hinges on this distinction for the purposes of the present discussion.
27 An additional requirement for Spanish CLLD is related to specificity. When left-dislocating an element, it must be doubled with a clitic only if it is specific. If the element is non-specific, it cannot be doubled by a clitic (Contreras 1976; Arregi 2003) The examples below are from Valenzuela, 2005).
(a) Este libro, *(lo) he leído muchas veces. this book, *(CL) I-have read many times “I have read this book many times.’
(b) Revistas, (*las) leo a menudo. Magazines, (*CL) I-read often ‘I often read magazines.’
56
56
No. [A Elena]i no lei dije nada. no to Elena (fem.SG)NEG cl.DAT.3.SG tell.PAST.1st.sg nothing “I didn’t tell Elena anything.”
The Spanish clitic paradigm has distinct forms for 3rd person accusative and
dative clitics, while 1st and 2nd person accusative and dative forms are virtually
homophonous (see ft. 28) . Table 3-1 illustrates the Spanish clitic paradigm of accusative
and dative clitics. Note that the accusative clitic in (3.2) agrees in gender (feminine),
person (3rd person) and number (singular), while the dative clitic in (3.5) agrees in person
(3rd) and number (singular) only.
Accusative clitics Dative Clitics
Person 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd fem. masc.
Singular me te la lo me te le
Plural nos os/los28 las los nos os/les les
Gender agreement no yes no no
Table 3-1 The Spanish clitic paradigm for dative and accusative clitics
In addition to dislocating noun phrases, Spanish CLLD allows for the dislocation
of a variety of phrases. These include prepositional phrases (PPs), adjective phrases,
quantifier phrases, bare nominals, or even whole clauses (Arregi, 2003; Casiellez-Suárez,
28 Morphologically, the accusative second person plural clitic is “os,” which is mostly used in Peninsular Spanish varieties. However, in most Latin American countries, the third person accusative plural is used instead (“los”). This dialectal difference does not affect the central CLLD tests (rating task and self-paced reading task). However, in view of the fact that the native Spanish speaker participants were recruited in Mexico, the clitic test included “los” instead of “os.”
57
57
2003; Pablos, 2006).29 The examples provided below (3.6a-d) illustrate CLLD with
predicative adjectives, quantifier phrases, whole clauses, propositional phrases, and bare
nouns.
(3.6) a.
Listo no lo parece ser. clever NEG Cl.neut he-seems be “He doesn’t seem to be clever.”
Predicative adjective (Casielles-Suárez, 2003)
b. Algunos libros, Juan los leyó ayer. some books Juan Cl.ACC.3m.pl read yesterday “Juan read some books yesterday.”
QP (Arregi, 2003)
c. Que fumas lo sabemos todos. that you-smoke CL.neut we-know all “We all know that you smoke.”
Clause Casielles-Suárez, 2003)
d. Sobre la mesa no puse nada. on the table NEG I-put anything “I didn’t put anything on the table.”
Prepositional Phrase
e. Manzanas, dicen que no ha cogido. apples they-say that NEG has gotten “They say that they didn’t get apples.”
Bare noun (Pablos, 2006)
Spanish, unlike other Romance languages such as Catalan, French, and Italian,
lacks a full paradigm of clitics (e.g. partitive and locative resumptive clitics do not exist
in Modern Spanish, which only instantiates accusative and dative structural case).
29Arregi (2003) notes that there are some restrictions on QPs in Spanish CLLD. Contrast the grammaticality of (3.6b) with the ungrammaticality of the example below.
*Algo, Juan lo leyó ayer. something Juan Cl.ACC.3M.SG read yesterday “Juan read something yesterday.' The example above shows that while definite descriptions and indefinites can be dislocated and clitic-doubled, some indefinites cannot. Arregi argues that this data is evidence that CLLD is interpreted as contrastive and, moreover, evidence that the clitic is interpreted as a variable that ranges over individuals.
58
58
Consequently, in (3.6d), where a prepositional phrase has been left dislocated, we can
observe that there is no (overt) locative clitic that can agree with the dislocated phrase
(sobre la mesa, “on the table”). Similarly, in (3.6e), there is no partitive clitic that can
agree with the dislocated bare noun (manzanas, “apples”). In fact, many researchers have
proposed that these structures are instantiations of CLLD that differ only in that they are
doubled by a phonetically null clitic (Casielles-Suárez, 2003; López, 2009; Zagona,
2002). Therefore, although these dislocations are generally argued to constitute examples
of CLLD and not of other types of dislocation, the present experimental study (see
Chapter 4) only included unambiguous cases where a clitic (either accusative or dative)
was overt.
3.2.2.2 The semantic relationship of the dislocated element
and the clitic
CLLD can display a variety of semantic relationships between the dislocated
constituent and its antecedent. This relationship can be one of semantic identity, set-
subset, set-set member, or part/whole. Examples (slightly modified from López, 2009) of
these relationships are found below.
(3.7) a. CONTEXT: What did you do with the furniture?
Las mesas las traje en la mañana… the tables CL.ACC.3F.PL I-brought in the morning “The tables, I brought in the morning…”
Set-Subset
b. CONTEXT: What did you do with the tables? Las mesas las traje en la mañana…
Identity
c. CONTEXT: What did you do with the tables? La mesa blanca la puse adentro… the table white CL.ACC.3F.SG put.PAST.1SG inside “I put the white one inside…”
Set-membership
59
59
d. CONTEXT: What shall we do with the table? It is too big! Mira, las patas, las doblas así.... Look the legs CL.ACC.3F.PL fold.PRES.2sg this-way. “Look, you can fold the legs like this…”
Part/whole
As the examples above demonstrate, all of these four types of semantic
relationships between the dislocated element and its discourse antecedent are felicitous.
Although all of these options are grammatical, there exist no corpus studies that can give
us an indication of whether these types of semantic relationships are in a preferential
hierarchy (e.g. one type of semantic relationship is preferred to another) or if one is more
frequent than another in real discourse. A previous investigation (Leal Méndez, Rothman
& Slabakova, 2014) suggests that there might be some (arguably subtle) distinctions
among these different semantic relationships.
Leal Méndez and colleagues (2014) tested CLLD judgments on four groups of
Spanish speakers: Spanish monolinguals (tested in their country of residence, Mexico),
Spanish-English bilinguals with more than seven years residence in an English-speaking
country, and two groups of Heritage Spanish speakers (divided into two groups of
intermediate and advanced proficiency). CLLD stimuli included only two types of
semantic relations: Identity (3.7b) and set-subset (3.7a). Although the overall findings
suggested that all groups were able to accurately judge the felicity of the CLLD stimuli,
there was evidence of a small performance difference among the groups. The
unacceptable sentences in both the Identity and the Set-Subset conditions were uniformly
rejected, with no differences between the participant groups. However, with regard to the
acceptable sentences, the rate of acceptance between the two types of CLLD was
different in the monolingual group. The monolingual native speakers rated Identity
CLLD higher than Set-Subset CLLD. None of the other groups differentiated between the
two acceptable types of sentence. The authors argued that this difference could reflect
differences in the frequency of occurrence between the two types. In light of this possible
60
60
evidence, the stimuli in the present experimental study only included the type of
relationship between the dislocated element and the discourse antecedent that was rated
the highest: Identity.
3.2.2.3 CLLD and a-marking
Note that the NPs in (3.2) and (3.5) are preceded by a preposition, a phenomenon
that is also referred to as “a-marking.” In Spanish, dative objects are case marked with
the preposition a (“to”). Dative objects are often doubled by a clitic, as shown in (3.8),
which is the non-dislocated version of (3.5). Unlike its CLLD analogue, (3-8) does not
require a previous context, and can be uttered out of the blue.
(3.8) Yo no lei dije nada a Elena.
no NEG cl.DAT.3.SG tell.PAST.1st.SG nothing to Elena “I didn’t tell Elena anything.”
Additionally, Spanish a-marks a subset of accusative objects in a phenomenon
that is often referred to as “differential object marking” (DOM). To date, there is
considerable debate surrounding what defines DOM and DOM objects (e.g. Aissen,
2003; Leonetti, 2004; Torrego, 1998), with notions like specificity and animacy being
frequently invoked. Notoriously complex to define, DOM employs dative case markings
on some (but not other) direct objects, where these a-marked objects are argued to be
semantically and pragmatically more salient. According to Torrego (1998), DOM
involves both structural and inherent case.
In Spanish, animate, specific accusative objects are typically a-marked, while
inanimate, specific objects are unmarked. This contrast is exemplified in the minimal pair
(3.9) and (3.10).
61
61
(3.9) Luisa trajo *(a)la niña a la escuela. Luisa brought DOM the girl to the school “Luisa brought the girl to school.”
(3.10) Luisa trajo (*a) la mochila a la escuela. Luisa brought DOM the schoolbag to the school “Luisa brought the schoolbag to school.”
Nonetheless, animacy is not the only crucial notion in Spanish DOM. Importantly,
the lack of a-marking with animate objects does not necessarily result in
ungrammaticality. In fact, for certain animate objects that lack DOM, a special meaning
may arise (i.e. non-specificity). This effect is illustrated in the minimal pairs below.
(3.11) Necesitamos a una enfermera. [+ animate, + specific] we-need DOM a nurse “We need a nurse” (a particular one).
(3.12) Necesitamos una enfermera [+ animate, - specific] “We need a nurse” (any nurse).
Apart from the notions of specificity and animacy, DOM is often associated with
certain polarity items. Negative polarity words that encode animacy (e.g. nadie “no one”)
are [-specific], and yet these are obligatorily a-marked. Note the examples below.
(3.13) No llamé a nadie. NEG called-1st.sg DOM no one “I didn’t call anyone.”
(3.14) *No llamé nadie.
In addition to the aforementioned considerations, DOM has been argued to be
sensitive to personifications, topicality, and the degree of eventiveness of the verb
(Montrul & Bowles, 2009; Torrego, 1998).
62
62
With regard to information structure, it has been noted (Laca, 1987; Leonetti,
2004; Melis, 1995) that DOM is habitually present in topicalization structures (i.e.
CLLD). This is especially interesting because CLLD requires that some dislocates be a-
marked even though the non-dislocated form may not require such marking. Pablos
(2008) has noted that this is related to CLLD’s required grammatical and selectional
connectivity between the dislocated phrase and the agreeing clitic30. The examples below
are slightly modified from Leonetti (2004:86).
(3.15) Ya conocía (a) muchos estudiantes. already I-met to many students “I had already met many students.”
(3.16) *(A) muchos estudiantes, ya los conocía. to many students already Cl.ACC.3sg I-met “I had already met many students.”
Leonetti (2004) argues that the ungrammaticality in (3.16) arises as a consequence
of CLLD imposing certain interpretations on the dislocated DPs—interpretations that are
typically associated with a-marking. Given that DOM is strongly linked to CLLD in
Spanish, the present experimental study only included topicalizations that were a-marked
and were both [+animate] and [+specific].
3.2.2.4 Iterative CLLD
Spanish allows for multiple CLLD elements to be left dislocated. These
dislocations can combine different types of phrases (as in 3.17), or appear in any order
(compare 3.18 and 3.19) without affecting grammaticality. This is the case with full NPs
30 The term connectivity was coined by Cinque (1990), who viewed it as a property of chains (irrespective of movement). In general, it could represent any grammatically encoded relationships between two elements, including agreement and binding.
63
63
or with bare nouns as well (compare 3.20, and 3.21). Furthermore, as illustrated in (3.22),
there appears to be no limit to the number of CLLD elements that can be preposed
(examples from Casielles-Suárez, 2003:328; 335).
(3.17) A mí listo no me lo parece. to me smart NEG CL.1sg CL.ACC.3m.sg seems “He doesn’t seem smart to me.”
(3.18) El regalo a mi madre no se lo he the gift to my mother NEG CL.DAT.3rd CL.ACC.3m.sg have dado todavía given yet “I haven’t given the gift to my mother yet.”
(3.19) A mi madre el regalo no se lo he dado todavía. “I haven’t given the gift to my mother yet.”
(3.20) A mí dinero Juan nunca me deja. to me money Juan never CL.ACC.1.SG leaves “Juan never leaves me any money.”
(3.21) Dinero a mi Juan nunca me deja. / Juan dinero a mi nunca me deja. “Juan never leaves me any money.
(3.22) Un libro a mí Juan en Navidad nunca me lo a book to me Juan in Christmas never CL.1SG CL.ACC.3.M.SG ha regalado has gifted “Juan has never given me a book for Christmas.”
As mentioned earlier, the order in which these CLLD elements appear does not
affect grammaticality. It is less clear, however, whether there exist interpretive effects
that are associated with these different orders. In terms of other restrictions for iteration,
Frascarelli and Hinterhötlz (2004) have proposed, using data from Italian CLLD, a
typology of topics that discriminates between aboutness topics, contrastive topics, and
64
64
familiarity topics. With regard to iterative CLLD in Italian, Frascarelli and Hinterhöltz
propose that only one type, namely familiarity topics, can be iterative (see also Bianchi &
Frascarelli, 2010).
3.2.2.5 CLLD in combination with other elements in the
left periphery
In Spanish, and Romance in general, CLLD can also appear in combination with
other elements in the left periphery such as Fronted Focus and wh-elements.31 When
these different left-periphery elements combine, unlike with iterative CLLD, there are
important ordering restrictions affecting grammaticality. In terms of wh-elements, it has
been observed that, in Romance languages, question operators must follow topics. This is
evident when comparing the grammaticality of (3.23; CLLD > wh operator) with the
ungrammaticality of (3.24; * wh operator > CLLD). The examples below (based on
original data in Italian) are modified from Barbosa (2001:25).
(3.23) El premio Nobel, a quién se lo dieron?32 the prize Nobel to who CL.DAT.3rd CL.ACC.3M.SG they-give.PAST “To whom did they give the Nobel prize?”
(3.24) *A quién el premio Nobel se lo dieron?
31Fronted Focus will be discussed in detail in section 3.2.4.2.
32As is customary, questions in Spanish are presented without the initial question mark (¿), in order to avoid any potential confusion with regard to the grammaticality status of the sentence or segment.
65
65
The combination of Fronted Focus and CLLD is also sensitive to ordering
restrictions that determine grammaticality. In the case of Fronted Focus, we can verify
this generalization when comparing the grammaticality of (3.25a-b; CLLD > Fronted
Focus) with the ungrammaticality of (3.25c-d; * Fronted Focus > CLLD). Examples
below are modified from Casielles-Suárez (2003:334).
(3.25) a. A sus padres MENTIRAS les cuenta siempre. to his parents lies CL.DAT.3pl tell.3sg always “S/he always tells lies to her/his parents.”
b. Mentiras A SUS PADRES les cuenta siempre.c. *A SUS PADRES mentiras les cuenta siempre.
d. *ESE DINERO a Juan no le voy a dar nunca.
Thus, the ordering of these types of elements has been noted as the generalization
that topic precedes focus as well as question operators (Campos & Zampini, 1990). When
these left periphery operations are combined, the only possible order is CLLD > {FF,
wh} or, more generally, Topic > Focus.
3.2.2.6 CLLD in embedded clauses
CLLD has been argued to be acceptable in both root and subordinate clauses (e.g.
Anagnostopoulou, 1997; Cinque, 1990; Haegeman, 2006; Valenzuela, 2006; but see
Escobar, 1997 for an argument that CLLD is a root phenomenon). The example in (3.26)
shows that multiple CLLD elements can occur in embedded environments (example from
Valenzuela, 2006:3).
(3.26) Me pregunto que, a María, el libro, quién se me I-ask that to María the book who CL.DAT.3rd lo dio CL.ACC.3M.SG gave “I wonder who gave the book to Maria.”
66
66
Haegeman’s (e.g. 2006, 2012) work has examined the distribution of CLLD in
root and subordinate environments. Haegeman has noted that Romance CLLD is not
confined to root or root-like contexts and can thus appear in subordinate argument
clauses, sentential subjects, and adverbial clauses, among others. The examples below,
slightly modified from Haegeman (2006), illustrate examples of CLLD in central
adverbials (3.27), temporal adverbial clauses (3.28), and sentential subjects (3.29).
(3.27) Si este examen no lo apruebas con un cinco, perderás if this exam NEG CL.ACC.3m.sg pass-2sgwith a five lose-FUT-2SG el curso entero. the course whole “If you don’t pass this exam with a five, you’ll fail the whole course.”
(3.28) Mientras la cena la preparaba Pedro, Miguel barría el patio while the dinner CL.ACC.3f.sg prepared Pedro Miguel swept the patio “While Pedro prepared dinner, Miguel was sweeping the patio.”
(3.29) Que este problema no lo hayan podido resolver me that this problem NEG CL.ACC.3m.sg have-3pl can solve me parece inacceptable. seems unacceptable “That they were not able to solve the problem seems unacceptable to me.”
In fact, Haegeman notes that (3.29) is less acceptable in Spanish than in other
Romance languages. However, as the results of the empirical investigation will show,
sentential subjects were as acceptable as other embedded constructions for a group of
native speakers of Spanish.
67
67
3.2.3 Discourse Properties of Spanish CLLD
3.2.3.1 CLLD and the notion of “Topic”
As mentioned earlier, CLLD is an expression of topicalization in Spanish.33
Although this much is generally uncontroversial, the definition of “Topic” is not
universally agreed upon. In fact, definitions of topic abound. Notions such as
“aboutness,” “old knowledge,” “discourse referent,” “discourse oldness,” “context-
boundness,” “shared knowledge,” or “discourse salience” are often invoked in these
definitions. This is not to say, however, that because there is no all-encompassing
definition that accounts for all topics, everything is in dispute. Casielles-Suárez (2004)
considers the following generalization as prompting minimal disagreement in the
literature:
“A topic tends to be what the sentence is about; what the speaker takes as the point of departure for the sentence; that which is not part of the focus; placed towards the beginning of the sentence; often a subject; often active or salient in the discourse; and often expressed by pronominal or unaccented lexical phrases.” (p. 22)
The expression of topic varies widely among languages, which can mark topic
lexically, phonologically, morphologically, and, as is the case in Spanish CLLD,
syntactically. This variation has been argued to be at the core of the difficulty of defining
the concept. In fact, Casielles-Suárez (2004) suggests that a unitary (i.e. cross-linguistic)
definition of topics does not exist, as the characterization of topic in one language might
be inadequate to define the same notion in another language.
33It should be noted that although CLLD is a very frequent topicalization strategy in Spanish, it is not the only one. Other structures, such as p-movement (Zubizarreta, 1998) and Clitic Right Dislocation also involve topicalization.
68
68
3.2.4 Other Dislocations in Spanish
Since the earliest work on Romance dislocations (Cinque, 1977, 1990), many
researchers have devoted considerable attention to the classification of different types of
dislocations through diagnostic tests.34 In terms of similarity and possible overlap, the
two constructions that are most frequently discussed are Hanging Topic Left Dislocations
(HTLD) and Fronted Focus (also called “Contrastive Left Dislocation” or even
“Contrastive Focus”). Although the goal of this section is not to exhaustively describe
these three structures, I will present some relevant differences between them, as they are
relevant to the empirical study. First, we will compare CLLD to HTLD, and then CLLD
to Focus Fronting.
34There is another type of dislocation that exhibits a great deal of overlap with Spanish CLLD: Verum Focus Fronting (VFF; Leonetti & Escandell-Vidal, 2009). An example of VFF can be found below:
Nada tengo que añadir. Nothing I-have to add “I have nothing to add.”
According to Leonetti and colleagues (Leonetti & Escandell-Vidal, 2009) dislocated elements that are VF-fronted are usually limited to a relatively small set: Indefinite quantifiers (e.g. nada, see X above), fronted lexical definites (Al presidente conocí, “I met the president”), quantified NPs (A pocos colegas ha invitado, “S/he has invited few colleagues.”), adverbials (Pronto te has cansado, “You have tired quickly”), adjective phrases (Sevillano soy, sí señor, “I am indeed from Seville”), and PPs (Con la iglesia hemos topado, “We have stopped at the church.”). However, given that VFF is not a part of the present empirical study, I will not discuss VFF in any detail. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that CLLD and VFF can indeed combine (Leonetti, 2009) and, furthermore, there appear to be similar ordering restrictions as in the case of CLLD and Fronted Focus and wh-elements (Namely, CLLD must precede these three dislocations, when combined). The examples below are from Kempchinsky, 2013.
A Pedro nada le tengo que decir sobre el asunto. to Pedro nothing CL.DAT.3.sg have to say on the matter.
“I have nothing to say to Pedro in regards to this matter.”
b. *Nada a Pedro le tengo que decir sobre el asunto.
69
69
3.2.4.1 CLLD and Hanging Topic Left Dislocation (HTLD)
A minimal pair comparing CLLD and HTLD can be found in (3.33a) and (3.33b).
Examples are from López (2009: 3-4).
(3.33) a.
A María hace tiempo que no la veo. to Maria does time that NEG CL.ACC.3f.sg I-see. “I haven’t seen Maria in a long time.”
CLLD
b. María, hace tiempo que no la veo. HTLD
A cursory comparison of the pair above will reveal one important difference. In
(3.33a), the CLLD example, the dislocated NP, which is a CLLD element that is also
[+animate] and [+specific], is a-marked, while the HTLD example in (3.33b) is not. As
noted earlier, in addition to being argued to be a topic marker (Leonetti, 2004), the a-
marking has been taken to realize the grammatical and selectional connectivity between
the dislocated element and the resumptive clitic (Pablos, 2008). As is evident in (3.33b),
HTLD does not require such connectivity. Further evidence of this lack of connectivity is
illustrated in (3.34) and (3.35a-b).
(3.34) Nosotros,, nadie nos ha visto.35 We.NOM nobody CL.ACC.1.pl has seen
HTLD (Zagona, 2002)
(3.35) a.
A mi, me has dicho la verdad. to me.ACC you-have said the truth “You have told me the truth.”
CLLD
b. *Yo, me has dicho la verdad CLLD (Valenzuela, 2006)
35 The double comma notation (,,) indicates a longer pause (what Anagnostopoulou (1997:301) calls a “sharp intonational break” between the dislocated element and the rest of the sentence), which is a characteristic of HTLD but not of CLLD.
70
70
In (3.34), we can verify that HTLD does not require that case be uniform between
the dislocated element and the resumptive element (i.e. the dislocated element is
nominative whereas the clitic is accusative). However, the ungrammaticality of (3.35b)
shows that connectivity is required in CLLD (i.e. fact that the dislocated element is
nominative and clitic is accusative causes ungrammaticality).
Cinque (1990) points out an additional difference between HTLD and CLLD,
which involves the resumptive element. Although the examples of HTLD we have
encountered so far have been clitics, HTLD can also be resumed by other elements (see
Villalba, 2000, for review), including epithets (see example 3.35a-b) or strong pronouns
(see example 3.36a-b).
(3.35)a. *A María hace tiempo que no la veo to Maria does time that NEG CL.ACC.3f.sg I-see a esa sinvergüenza. to that scoundrel
CLLD López (2009)
b. María,, hace tiempo que no la veo a esa sinvergüenza.“I haven’t seen that scoundrel Maria in a long time.”
HTLD
(3.36)a. A Julia no la pude encontrar (*a ella). to Julia NEG CL.ACC.3f.sg I-could find to her
CLLD Casielles-S (2003)
b. Julia,, no la pude encontrar a ella“Julia, I couldn’t find her.”
HTLD
These examples show that doubling the dislocated phrase with a resumptive
element that is either an epithet (esa sinvergüenza “that scoundrel”) or a strong pronoun
(ella “she”) causes ungrammaticality in CLLD but not in HTLD. In the case of CLLD,
the dislocated phrase can only be doubled by a resumptive clitic.
71
71
In addition to the aforementioned differences, HTLD and CLLD have been
argued to differ in their sensitivity to island constraints (HTLD is not sensitive, while
CLLD is sensitive to strong islands; 3.37a-b),36 their availability in embedded clauses
(HTLD is not; 3.38a-b), and the type of constituent that can be dislocated (HTLD only
allows for specific indefinite or referential definite DPs, while CLLD allows for a variety
of phrases to be dislocated; 3.39a-b). Additionally, while HTLD allows a topicalizing
expression to precede it, CLLD does not (3.40a-b). Examples (3.37)-(3.40) illustrate
these differences.
(3.37)a. *A Juan me enojé porque lo desaprobaron. to Juan me angered because CL.ACC.3m.sg failed “I got angry because they failed Juan.”
CLLD: Adjunct island Saab (2010)
b. Juan,, me enojé porque lo desaprobaron. HTLD: Adjunct island
(3.38)a. Creo que a Elena la ayudará su tía. I-believe that to Elena CL.ACC.3f.sg help.FUT.3sg her aunt “I believe that Elena’s aunt will help her.”
Embedded CLLD
b. *Creo que, Elena,,la ayudará su tía. Embedded HTLD
(3.39)a. De Lucas, he oído hablar mucho. of Lucas I-have heard talk much “I’ve heard a lot about Lucas.”
CLLD: PP (Valenzuela, 2006)
b. *De Lucas,, he oído hablar mucho de él. of Lucas I-have heard talk much of he.NOM
HTLD: PP
36 López (2009) argues that CLLD is also subject to weak island effect. This issue will be discussed further in section 3.4.
72
72
(3.40)a. ?Hablando de Pepe, lo vi ayer. talking of Pepe CL.ACC.3m.sg I-saw yesterday “Speaking of Pepe, I saw him yesterday.”
CLLD
b. Hablando de Pepe,, vi a ese mentiroso ayer. talking of Pepe I-saw to that liar yesterday “Speaking of Pepe, I saw that liar yesterday.”
HTLD (Valenzuela, 2006)
In terms of their syntactic analysis, HTLD and CLLD have been argued to differ
in the way in which the structures are derived. In this regard, however, there is no overall
consensus. HTLD has been argued to be base generated in the left periphery although
other researchers have also argued that HTLD involves movement (e.g. Boeckx, 2003).
As far as CLLD is concerned, while some researchers have argued that it is generated by
movement to the left periphery (López, 2009; Pablos, 2008; Rizzi, 2004), other
researchers have proposed that CLLD is not generated by such movement
(Anagnostopoulou, 1997; Cinque, 1990; Suñer, 2006). This issue will be further
discussed in section 3.4.
3.2.4.2 CLLD and (Fronted) Focus
Another structure that bears a high degree of resemblance to CLLD is Fronted
Focus. In terms of information structure, the main difference between these two
structures is that CLLD is an expression of topicalization in Spanish, whereas Fronted
Focus, as evident from its name, is a focalization strategy (Campos & Zampini, 1990).
Vallduví & Engdahl (1996) describe focus as the part of the sentence that is “the
informative, newsy, dominant, or contrary-to-expectation part” (p. 462). López (2009)
claims that the least controversial definition of focus is one proposed by Jackendoff
(1972): Focus is that which resolves a variable left open in the discourse. In the example
below, that information which resolves the open variable opened by the wh-element is
focus—informational Focus in this case.
73
73
(3.41) What did Lena buy? [x | Lena bought x]
Lena bought beer.37 [x= the beer; “the beer” is focus]
Much like in the case of Topic, although perhaps slightly less contentiously, it has
been noted that the concept of Focus is not unitary. The literature on information
structure (e.g. Gundel, 1998; Kiss, 1998) discriminates between two types of Foci:
presentational (i.e. informational focus, the new information predicated about the topic)
and contrastive focus (information that is placed in a position of prominence for the
purposes of contrast or correction).38 Example () above is an example of Informational
focus. In this case, the focus (“beer”) resolves a variable that is opened by the wh-
question (“what”).
Fronted Focus is an example of the second type of focus (i.e. contrastive).
Contrastive foci, like presentational foci, also resolve a variable. The crucial distinction
between the two is that while presentational foci resolve a variable that was opened by
the previous discourse context (e.g. by a wh-operator), contrastive foci both open and
close a variable simultaneously (López, 2009). Thus, what Informational and Contrastive
foci have in common is that they both involve a presupposition. In Example (3.41), for
instance, what is presupposed is that Lena bought something. ([Lena bought] [x], = { x |
Lena bought x}, x = beer}). As we will see, in example 3.42 below, this presupposition is
also operant in Fronted Focus, so that what is presupposed is that They invited someone
37In English, as shown in (3.41), foci are prosodically prominent (underlining denotes prosodic prominence). Languages like Spanish tend to mark focus in different ways (e.g. using word order rather than prosody; Zubizarreta, 1998). Crucially, within a single language, there can be multiple structures that can express these notions. However, the common test for identifying foci (question/answer pairs: “Who came to the party last night?” “JOHN did”) is valid for both English and Spanish.
38It should be noted that within the functional descriptive literature (e.g. Dik, 1997), these two functions are not syncretic; corrective focus and contrastive focus are themselves distinct types (or alternatives) of focus. The terminology in the information structure literature is notorious for the lack of consistency with which these terms are used.
74
74
([They invited] [x], = { x | They invited x}, x = Juan}). The difference is that, in the later
case, this instance of Focus is corrective in nature.
Fronted Focus and CLLD display many superficial resemblances. The pairs in
(3.42a) and (3.42b) illustrate CLLD and Fronted Focus in Spanish.
(3.42) a.
CONTEXT: Do you know what happened to Juan? A Juan lo invitaron a la cena. to Juan CL.ACC.3f.sg they-invited to the dinner “Juan was invited to the dinner.”
CLLD
b. CONTEXT: Pedro was invited to the dinner.A JUAN invitaron a la cena (no a Pedro).to Juan they-invited to the dinner NEG to Pedro“It was Juan who was invited to dinner (not Pedro).”
Fronted Focus
Fronted Focus is similar to CLLD in that it also involves the left dislocation of an
element that is not necessarily restricted to a noun phrase. Crucially, however, it is not
doubled by a resumptive clitic, and it has a distinctive intonation—a “prominent pitch
accent” (Gundel, 1999: 298), as indicated by the caps in (3.42b). The example also
illustrates the fact that CLLD and Fronted Focus occur in different discourse contexts.
While in (3.42a) CLLD requires that the dislocated element be previously mentioned or
else be retrievable from the discourse context (i.e. it requires a discourse anaphor),
Fronted Focus does not (i.e. Juan was not previously mentioned). It is important to note
that Fronted Focus does not require for the dislocated element to be discourse new. In
fact, the element can be either discourse-old or discourse salient. The difference, thus is
that Fronted Focus allows for the dislocated element to be either discourse-old or
discourse-new whereas the dislocated element in CLLD can only be discourse-old (or
else discourse-salient).
75
75
3.3 CLLD “analogues”: English-style topicalization
English, like most Romance languages, also has a linguistic mechanism to
(syntactically) mark a topic: (English-style) Topicalization, which is CLLD’s
“functional” but not morpho-phonological equivalent (Slabakova, 2013). This structure
also involves a topicalized phrase that is moved to the left periphery. Example (3.43),
which appeared in the New York Times, illustrates such a property. The article covers the
trial of an embattled former editor of a series of British tabloids as the prosecutor is
interrogating her. In the immediately preceding context, the prosecutor asked the editor,
Rebecca Brooks, if she had given her employees the specific instruction ‘Do not hack
phones,’ to which she responded:
(3.43) No, that phrase I did not use. (New York Times, 3/5/2014)
As in the case of CLLD, a topicalized element (“that phrase”) moved out of the
unmarked SVO order. Unlike CLLD, however, there is no clitic to resume the dislocated
phrase. In fact, English does not allow for any other resumptive element to double the
dislocated phrase. This is illustrated in (3.44).
(3.44) *No, that phrase I did not use it.
When comparing (3.43) and (3.44), we can see that English topicalization does
not allow for the doubling of the dislocated phrase with a strong pronoun (it), which
causes ungrammaticality. Another important difference between CLLD and English-
style Topicalization is that while CLLD allows for multiple topics to be dislocated (see
example 3.45), only one topicalization is allowed in English (example 3.46).
Furthermore, English-style topicalization cannot combine with other constructions in the
left periphery (see section 3.4 for details).
76
76
(3.45) [A mí][dinero][Juan] nunca me deja. to me money Juan never CL.ACC.1.sg leaves “Juan never leaves me any money.”
Multiple CLLD (Casielles-Suárez, 2003)
(3.46) *[The whole weekend] [that stupid campaign] Mary spent on.
E-Topicalization (Emonds, 2004)
There is a rich tradition of the work investigating English-style topicalization that
has been done outside Generative linguistics. Within this tradition, Ward (1988) has
argued that movement to the left periphery in English could be an instantiation of two
different strategies. One is what Ward terms “focus preposing” while the second one is
topicalization. These two strategies are not argued to be distinct based on syntactic
differences, but rather on the basis of the discourse environment in which they appear as
well as by the intonational contours of the sentence. Upon a perusal of the illustrative
examples provided by Ward (1988), Slabakova, Rothman, and Kempchinsky (2012)
uncovered a similarity between those examples that were illustrative of “focus preposing”
and those examples that Arregi (2003) classifies as “contrastive topicalization.”
Arregi (2003) proposes that contrastive topicalization does not involve the
correction of an utterance but involves instead choosing an alternative from a set that is
contextually salient. Although in Spanish there are diagnostic tests (see section 3.2.4.2)
that help distinguish Fronted Focus from CLLD, Slabakova and colleagues note that there
are no analogous syntactic diagnostics in English to distinguish “topicalization” from
“focus preposing.” Thus, minimally, a native speaker of English learning Spanish as an
L2 could (positively) transfer the topicalization strategy. However, the transfer would not
be straightforward, as this hypothetical learner would have to realize that the English
preposing strategy could potentially map to two different structures: CLLD and Fronted
77
77
Focus. In view of the fact that English lacks a clitic system, however, a prerequisite for
the acquisition and processing of CLLD is the acquisition of the syntactic properties of
clitics. This issue will be further discussed briefly in section 3.4.1.
3.4 Syntactic analyses of CLLD
As mentioned at the outset of the chapter, a considerable amount of literature has
been published on the syntactic analysis of CLLD (e.g. Arregui, 2003; Bianchi &
Frascarelli, 2010; Cinque, 1990; Contreras, 1976; Casielles-Suárez, 2003, 2004;
Kempchinsky, 2013; López, 2009; Suñer, 2006; Zubizarreta, 1998). As far as the
syntactic analysis of CLLD is concerned, there have been several questions that have
dominated this area of inquiry. In the sections that follow, I will focus on two of the most
important questions that have been addressed.
The first question, which I will address only briefly, regards the manner in which
CLLD is generated. Overall, the two main positions are that CLLD is either: a) base-
generated (i.e. initially merged) to later establish a relationship with the clitic, or b)
generated by movement to the left periphery.39, 40 I will argue that the analyses that
assume movement can most effectively account for the data. The second question regards
the position of the dislocated element, and whether this position is exclusive to CLLD. In
this regard, I will argue that López’s analysis, which proposes a simplified left periphery
with only two heads, is preferable.
39 Researchers such as Aoun and Benmanoun (1998) opt for a different explanation, in which CLLD can be generated by movement or by base-generation but that movement is not available in some environments (i.e. island contexts).
40 Within the movement approaches, several researchers have proposed that the type of movement may involve A-bar movement or a combination of A-movement and A-bar movement. These distinctions are related to a researcher’s syntactic assumptions on the place where the clitic is initially merged.
78
78
3.4.1 Movement vs. Base-Generation approaches
Overall, the approaches that propose that CLLD is generated (or not) through
movement have used evidence from diagnostic tests for A-bar movement, which is
argued to proceed in steps. As point of reference, the prototypical illustration of A-bar
long distance movement is wh-movement. These (short) movement steps have been
argued to take place in order to satisfy locality requirements (Boeckx, 2001; Bošković,
2001). In the literature on A-bar movement, it has been well demonstrated that this type
of movement (i.e. long-distance (cyclic) movement) is subject to strong islands (i.e. wh-
elements cannot be extracted from strong islands). Example (3.47) below illustrates this
fact for Spanish (complex NP island).
(3.47) *[A quién] es sorprendente [el hecho de [que Juan ame [e]]? to whom is surprising the fact that Juan loves “It is surprising that Juan loves who?”
Cinque (1977, 1990) noted that CLLD is also sensitive to (strong) islands. An
illustration of Spanish CLLD (complex NP island) can be found in example (3.48), which
is analogous to example (3.47).
(3.48) *[A María] es sorprendente [el hecho de [que Juan la ame [e]]. to María is surprising the fact that Juan her loves “The fact that Juan loves Maria is surprising.”
Although it has been well established that CLLD is subject to strong island
effects, CLLD has been argued not to be sensitive to weak island effects (e.g. Cinque,
1990). This situation is illustrated in example (3.49). Among those researchers that have
proposed non-movement approaches, the lack of weak island effects is routinely taken as
evidence for base generation.
(3.49) A ese hombre me averguenzo de haberlo amado. to that man me shame.1.SG of have.INF-CL.3rd.ACC.SG loved “I am ashamed to have loved that man.”
79
79
López (2009) notes that although these examples have been routinely accepted
ever since Cinque’s (1990) analysis of CLLD, there is reason to examine them more
closely. Specifically, López proposes that the lack of weak-island effects is a byproduct
of using only definite object DPs as dislocates. López argues that DP objects can be
easily extracted, both from CLLD from a wh-phrase. Indeed, example (3.50) shows this
lack of effect for wh-movement. (3.50) A qué hombre te averguenzas de haber amado? to what man CL.2.SG shame.2.SG of have.INF.ACC.SG loved “What man are you ashamed to have loved?”
As mentioned earlier, CLLD in Spanish can only be doubled by accusative and
dative clitics because of the incomplete clitic paradigm of Spanish (e.g. no partitive
clitics). Catalan, however, does not have this restriction. As part of his argument that
CLLD does not show weak island effects, López provides a Catalan example of a
dislocated phrase that is not a definite DP (in this case, it is an indefinite DP). (5.51) ?? D’històries, m’ avergonyeixo d’haver-ne explicat diumenge.
of stories CL.DAT shame.1.SG of’have.INF-CL.PART told Sunday “I’m ashamed to have told stories on Sunday.”
I believe that these arguments are indeed indicative that CLLD generates though
movement. An additional argument made against the movement accounts involves
parasitic-gap licensing (Cinque, 1990). The examples below illustrate that clitics are not
able to license parasitic gaps in Spanish. (5.52) A María la despidieron sin avisarle [e]. to Maria CL.ACC.3rd.F.SG they-fired without notice-CL.DAT.3rd.SG “They fired Maria without notifying her.” (5.53) *A María la despidieron sin avisar [e].
80
80
However, Pablos (2006) notes that some clitics appear to license parasitic gaps—
specifically those that double inanimate CLLD. The examples (5.54) and (5.55) below
(examples from Pablos, 2006: 53) illustrate this fact. In view of this evidence, Pablos
argues that the parasitic-gap test is not strong evidence against movement.
(5.54) ?El libro, lo ha vendido sin leer [e]. The book, CL.ACC.3rd.M.SG has sold without reading “He has sold the book without reading it.”
(5.55) El libro, lo ha vendido sin leerlo.
Although there are additional arguments in favor and against movement-
generation in CLLD, I believe that the data put forth by López (2009) and Pablos (2006)
are strong evidence for movement in terms of the generation of CLLD.41 If this approach
is on the right path, then this would entail that those L2 learners whose first language is
English could transfer, in principle, the movement strategy.
3.4.2 The location (or landing site) of the dislocate
In structural terms, another aspect that has been frequently discussed in the CLLD
literature is the location of the dislocated element—or the landing site, if one espouses a
movement approach. In this respect, I will present two current proposals that detail the
location of the dislocated element. Although the second proposal (López, 2009)
necessarily requires that CLLD must be generated through movement, the first (Rizzi,
1997, 2004) is, in principle, compatible with both movement and base-generation
approaches.
41 For example, another argument in favor of movement involves reconstruction effects (see Zubizarreta, 1998). The evidence that Zubizarreta has advanced highlights the fact that reconstruction effects in Spanish CLLD can be localized in a position that is higher than the subject. The reader is referred to López (2009) and Zubizarreta (1998) for further discussion.
81
81
3.4.2.1 Rizzi’s (1997, 2004) cartographic approach
3.4.2.1.1 Main Tenets
Rizzi (1997) argues for the articulation of multiple functional projections within
the complementizer phrase (CP) layer. In Rizzi’s view, this proposal is a necessary
parallel to what has been proposed in terms of the articulation of verb phrase (VP) and
tense phrase (TP), the other two main layers in the structural representation of the clause.
Rizzi proposes that the expanded left periphery constitutes an intermediary (i.e. interface)
layer between the propositional content expressed by TP and the superordinate structure.
This superordinate structure, which is expressed in Rizzi’s proposal to expand the CP
field, is argued to consist of a “higher clause or, possibly, the articulation of discourse”
(p. 283).
Therefore, Rizzi proposes that the C system must accommodate for the expression
of two different types of information. The first type of information faces inward (towards
the embedded TP under it), while the second one faces outward (toward discourse or the
matrix clause, in the case of embedded clauses). The first type of information
(propositional layer) includes agreement rules between C and T and the expression of
Finiteness, while the second type (superordinate layer) includes, among other things, the
specification of (illocutionary) Force (Chomsky, 1995). The articulated structure
proposed by Rizzi is found in example (3.56), where ForceP specifies clause type, Topic
Phrase (TopP) hosts topics, Focus Phrase (FocP) hosts foci (such as Fronted Focus and
wh-phrases), and ForceP marks finiteness. Thus, under Rizzi’s proposal, CLLD is
equivalent to English-style topicalization, because they both structures occupy the
specifier position in TopP. Importantly, although Rizzi’s articulated left periphery is in
principle compatible with movement generation, his proposal remains agnostic on the
issue of whether movement is necessary for the extended left periphery.
82
82
(3.56)
In order to account for a known asymmetry between TopP and FocP, namely, the
fact that numerous languages allow for multiple topics whereas only one focus per
sentence is sanctioned, Rizzi proposes that TopP is recursive (marked with an asterisk in
(3.56)), while FocP is not. The example below (Rizzi, 1997:295) illustrates this
asymmetry with data from Italian.
(3.57) Credo que a Gianni, QUESTO, domani, gli doveremo dire. I-believe that to Gianni this tomorrow to-him we-should say “I believe that tomorrow we should tell this to Gianni.”
Rizzi proposes that the Topic-Focus system is available on an “as-needed” basis
(i.e. the periphery only expands when a certain element needs to be accommodated),
sanctioned by “activation.” This operation entails the presence of a feature (e.g. topic or
focus) under a Spec-Head relationship, which is essentially present to satisfy a structural
principle. Rizzi argues that these features ([+Topic], [+Focus]) can be phonetically null,
as in Italian or Spanish, or phonetically realized, as in Gunghe (Aboh, 1995), cited in
Rizzi, 1997). In the case of the former languages, Rizzi’s analysis assumes that a
83
83
topicalized element will be in Spec, TopP, while the null anaphoric operator will be in the
(immediately lower) specifier.
3.4.2.1.2. Issues with Cartographic Approaches
Although this seminal analysis has been immensely influential, Rizzi’s
cartographic approach has been subject to much criticism (Casielles-Suárez, 2004;
Edmonds, 2004; Kempchinsky, 2013; López, 2009), especially in the view of the tenets
of Minimalism. One such criticism is that this analysis lends itself to a proliferation of
layers far beyond those noted in (3.56) above. Kempchinsky (2013) notes that Bernicà
and Poletto (2004), for example, carve a space within Rizzi’s cartography for categories
such as scene-setting adverbials (e.g. duman in the V2 Rhaeto-Romance variety spoken
in southern Italy, “tomorrow”). Not surprisingly, there has been considerable pushback
from some researchers, like Edmonds (2004), who notes that a negative consequence of
this proliferation of layers. One of these negative consequences involves what he believes
are the ad-hoc propositions that criterial heads are the heads of phrases (e.g. TopP, FocP),
as well as the proposed orderings.
Kempchinsky (2013) notes that the main problem with this approach is a
conceptual one. By having these (discourse) features checked against a head, the
approach “puts into the syntactic component notions that are in fact discourse notions (p.
312).” Additionally, she notes that English, unlike Spanish, allows for only one head to
be active in the Left Periphery. This is true in the case of two topics (see 3.56 above) but
also when two different structures combine. Examples (3.58a-b) and (3.59) depicts the
combination of English Topicalization and Focal Preposing in English and Spanish,
respectively.42
42English Focal Preposing (Ward’s 1998 term) and Spanish Focus Fronting are essentially equivalent in discourse and syntactic terms. An example of Focal Preposing is found below (Example from Prince, 1981:259).
FIDO, they named their dog.
84
84
(3.58) a. *The dog FIDO they named (not Rex). (Kempchinsky, 2013)
b. *FIDO the dog they named (not Rex).
(3.59) Al niño PEPE lo llamaron (no Pablo). to-the boy Pepe CL.ACC.3m.sg they-called “PEPE they named the kid (not Pablo).”
CLLD + Fronted Focus
However, given that languages like Spanish allow for those positions to be active
simultaneously (c.f. 3.59 above), Kempchinsky notes that there is no principled
explanation for this asymmetry within this approach. Examples (3.60a and 3.60b) below
are the schematic representations of English Topicalization and Focus Preposing,
respectively, while example (3.60c) is the representation of CLLD + Fronted Focus in
Spanish (see 3.59 above).
Emonds (2004) also notes that these two structures are limited to root clauses and to “root-like indirect discourse embedding” contexts (Emonds, 2004), which, as we saw earlier, is quite distinct from the distribution of CLLD.
85
85
In view of this lack of specification, Kempchinsky further argues that the
cartographic approach “overdetermines” the discourse functions of constituents without
really providing an explanation that accounts for the discourse properties of dislocated
elements. Therefore, she argues that a more conceptually appealing solution would be to
“put some of the burden of [interpreting]” a constituent as either topic or focus beyond
the syntax, in the discourse component. The approach described below is an example of
an analysis that attempts to account for the data by distributing the burden between
syntax and pragmatics.
3.4.2.2 López’s (2009) approach to Information Structure
Firmly grounded in Minimalist principles, López argues for a modular approach
in which the pragmatic module is independent from the Computational System (c.f.,
Erteschik-Shir, 1997; Lambrecht, 1994; Vallduví, 1990).43 In López’s view, discourse is
a computational module that assembles sentences into Discourse Representation
43For an example of a different, non-modular approach, see Büring (2007), who argues that information structure is actually an aspect of syntactic representations.
(3.60)
86
86
Structures, while pragmatics (a distinct module) assigns (pragmatic) features to the
syntactic object. Hence, the information structure of a given syntactic object ∑ is ∑[p],
which is the original syntactic object augmented with the relevant pragmatic features.
This object ∑[p] then maps onto discourse. A critical point for López’s approach is the
place in the derivation where the pragmatic module intervenes, assigning its features to
the syntactic object. Following phase theory (Chomsky, 2001), López proposes that the
points of contact (between syntax and pragmatics) are precisely the edges of phases (vP
and CP). His interaction model is reproduced in Figure 3.1 below.
Figure 3-1 López’s model: interaction of syntactic objects with pragmatics
Rejecting the traditional notions of topic and focus (as in Reinhart, 2006; Rizzi,
1997, inter alia) as inadequate to “identify a coherent class of constructions” (p. 24),
López proposes that the discourse notions of “anaphor” and “contrast” are the crucial
notions (i.e. features) of information structure. Discourse Anaphors have two
characteristics: (i) they obligatorily take a discourse antecedent that is necessarily local
87
87
(in the sense of Villalba, 2000),44 and (ii) they are in a discourse-structural asymmetry
with respect to their dependent.
The second binary feature, contrast, opens up a variable in the quantification
domain (after Vallduví & Vilkuna, 1998). The syntax-discourse structures that López
uses as evidence for his syntactic analysis (data from Catalan and, to a lesser extent,
Spanish) are then posited as combinations of these binary features.
[+ contrast] [- contrast]
[+anaphor] - Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD)
- Clitic Right Dislocation (CLRD) - P-movement
[-anaphor] - Fronted Focus - Rheme (Informational focus)
Table 3-2 Feature combinations and syntax-discourse structures, López (2009)
As Table 3.2 illustrates, CLLD and Fronted Focus differ in one feature: CLLD is
[+anaphor], whereas Fronted Focus is not [-anaphor]. These two structures (CLLD and
Fronted Focus) are similar in that both of them open a variable in the quantificational
domain, while simultaneously resolving it.45 As mentioned earlier, this is in contrast with
simple focus (Rheme), which resolves a variable that was left open in the discourse. One
important difference between Fronted Focus and CLLD is that CLLD requires that the
dislocated element necessarily be a discourse anaphor (i.e. it needs to take a local
antecedent and being in a discourse-structural asymmetry), while Fronted Focus does not
have such a requirement (i.e. the dislocated element can be either discourse-old or
discourse-new).
44Roughly, anaphors should be explicitly mentioned in the discourse or else be abundantly prominent in the context but, crucially, cannot be the answer to wh-questions.
45 Which is, incidentally, precisely what the feature [+contrast] is intended to capture in López’s model.
88
88
López’s approach, which is crucially dependent on movement, outlines in detail
how the step-by-step derivation of these structures proceeds. In the case of CLLD, the
dislocated element moves from its base position to the edge of the phase (the specifier of
vP; Spec,vP). In (3.61) below, the solid black line indicates the movement of the
dislocated constituent (a Elena), while the copy left behind is indicated by brackets (<>).
Once the dislocated phrase moves to Spec,vP, the interpretive pragmatics module can
then mark the clitic (and not the dislocated element directly) as anaphoric [+a]. López
takes the pragmatics module to be invasive, meaning that it can “inspect a syntactic
structure and attach a feature to it” (p. 98). In accordance with phase theory (Chomsky,
2001), however, the pragmatics can only attach a feature after a phase is completed.
(3.61) Step 1: López’s derivation of A Elena la vieron ayer. (“Elena, they saw
yesterday.”)
Crucially, the clitic (adjoined to the head of vP) enters in an Agree relationship
with the dislocated (moved) constituent (phi features are checked). Because of this Agree
relationship, the dislocated phrase (a Elena) comes to be marked [+anaphoric] as well.
89
89
(This provision will be of crucial importance in terms of how the derivation of Fronted
Focus will proceed.)
The following step involves movement to the next phase edge, the specifier of
Finite Phrase (FinP). After the dislocated phrase is marked [+a], by virtue of agreeing
with the clitic, which is also [+a], the dislocated phrase moves to the left periphery.
Specifically, López argues that the (target) landing site of this movement is FinP. Once
the dislocated phrase is at the edge of the next phase (FinP, this time), the pragmatics
module will mark it as contrast [+c]. These steps are illustrated in the tree in example
(3.62) below.
(3.62) Step 2: López’s derivation of A Elena la vieron ayer. (“Elena, they saw
yesterday”)
As can be seen in (3.61 and 3.62), the pragmatics module marks the dislocated
phrase. One of this is performed directly and the other via Agree so that the dislocated
element ends up with the feature composition [+contrast, +anaphor].
In López’s analysis, the difference between how CLLD and Fronted Focus are
derived involves the manner in which a dislocated element is assigned [+anaphor] (vs.
[+contrast]). As illustrated in the tree in (3.62), the pragmatics module assigns [+contrast]
90
90
to the actual dislocated phrase. However, the feature [+anaphor] is only assigned through
agreement with the clitic. As noted earlier, Fronted Focus does not have an agreeing clitic
that doubles the dislocated phrase. Thus, in López’s proposal, Fronted Focus is NOT
marked [+anaphor] precisely because there is no clitic to assign it to—in spite of the fact
that it lands in Spec,vP (the edge of the phase). The rest of the derivation proceeds in the
same manner as for CLLD, and thus Fronted Focus, which does not have a doubling clitic
and thus cannot be marked [+a], ends up with the feature composition [+contrast, -
anaphor].
Thus, Lopez’s approach to the characterization of CLLD and Fronted Focus
dislocates (defining these in terms of the pragmatic features [+a] or [-a] and [+c] or [-c] is
not just compatible with a movement analysis but, instead, it is absolutely contingent on
movement of these dislocates. On the other hand, Rizzi’s cartographic approach can be
compatible with movement but it is not contingent on it. In fact, Rizzi remains mostly
agnostic on this point. In terms of the acquisition of CLLD by English speakers, there
might be subtle but meaningful differences in terms of the predictions that can be gleaned
from both approaches. If CLLD involves movement, L1 English speakers should, in
principle, easily transfer the movement strategy from English topicalization. This fact
could be compatible with both approaches.
However, in terms of the landing sites, recall that Rizzi’s articulated periphery
proposes different landing sites for each head, while López proposes that the landing site
(the phase) is the same for both CLLD and Fronted Focus (i.e. FinP). Thus, while Rizzi
explains the order CLLD > Fronted Focus by positing different landing sites (and
syntactic requirements of feature-matching), López resorts to a discourse (as opposed to a
syntactic) restriction, whereby CLLD precedes Fronted Focus because the CLLD (being
[+a]) is required to be closer to its antecedent than Fronted Focus. Fronted Focus, by
virtue of being [-a], does not have such requirements. As will be described in Chapter 4,
one of the conditions in the Acceptability Judgment Task will ask participants to judge
91
91
these structures in combination (e.g. CLLD + Fronted Focus, CLLD + wh-elements). In
Chapter 5, I will speculate how these experimental tokens support the view that López’s
account might better account for the results.
3.5 Summary
I this chapter I have focused on the presentation and those syntactic and discourse
properties of CLLD that are relevant for the empirical study. For the purposes of
comparison, I have presented cross-linguistic data from other Romance languages.
Additionally, in order to establish what the transfer effects (learning tasks) are for the L2
group, I have also outlined the general syntactic and discourse properties of English-style
topicalization. The last part of the chapter presented two (competing) syntactic analyses
that aim to account for the syntactic and pragmatic properties of CLLD (López, 2009;
Rizzi, 1997, 2001).
92
CHAPTER 4
METHODS
4.1 Introduction to the Chapter
The purpose of the present chapter is to introduce the different methodologies
used in this study, detailing the tasks and procedures for each. It also details the
demographics of the participant groups included therein. The tasks that were used in this
study included on-line (time-sensitive) and off-line tasks that measured both linguistic
and non-linguistic cognitive capacities. In order to test the viability of the claims of the
(dis)continuity debate in L2 processing as well as the generation of predictions in L2
Spanish, this study uses Clitic Left Dislocation in Spanish (CLLD). CLLD is a long-
distance dependency that is felicitous only in particular discourse contexts, as reviewed in
the previous chapter. CLLD is an apt construction to test anticipatory language
processing in L2 because it requires a specific syntactic reflex (an agreeing dative or
accusative clitic) to appear downstream once a topicalized phrase has been encountered
(i.e. the clitic is necessary for the sentence to be completed felicitously).
According to the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH; Clahsen & Felser 2006a,
b), post-puberty second language learners can only process language “shallowly”
because, unlike native speakers, L2 learners are argued to not have detailed grammatical
representations of their L2. Given that the SSH predicts that when processing their L2 the
learners in this study will only have access to pragmatic and semantic information, rather
than detailed syntactic representations, the learners in this study are not expected to show
evidence of native-like language processing. One of the experimental tasks of this study
focuses on investigating the generation of syntactic predictions for a downstream
linguistic element after encountering a linguistic cue. Thus, native-like prediction of
long-distance dependencies (such as CLLD) in the L2 learner group would not be
predicted under the SSH.
93
93
Prior to the presentation of the methods used in the study, I will reiterate the
research questions put forth in the introductory chapter:
4. Do L2 learners of Spanish, native speakers of English, show off-line knowledge
of the syntactic and pragmatic constraints of CLLD in Spanish?
5. Are long-distance dependencies such as Spanish CLLD especially difficult for L2
learners to process in real time, as predicted by the Shallow Structure Hypothesis?
6. Can individual differences in measures of linguistic (e.g. L1 vocabulary) and non-
linguistic (e.g. inhibitory control and statistical learning ability) predict variability
in the acquisition and processing of CLLD in L2 Spanish?
Thus, the present study has direct relevance to the understanding of how a second
language is learned over the course of development and how (non)linguistic skills can
transfer across languages. Additionally, it can further our understanding of how
individual differences in linguistic and non-linguistic cognitive abilities can modulate this
development. In order to address the contributions of individual differences in the
development of linguistic prediction in L2, this study uses a variety of tests. Both on-line
and off-line tests were included in order to gain a more complete understanding of the L2
linguistic system.
4.2 Participants
4.2.1. Second language learners
This study includes data from a total of 120 native speakers of English, post-
puberty learners of Spanish (85 women; mean age = 26.4 years, SD = 9.48 years). These
participants were recruited at two universities in the U.S. At the time of testing, these
participants were either enrolled in Spanish courses or were teaching said courses at the
college or high-school level. Participants in the L2 groups reported having normal
hearing and normal or corrected-to-normal vision. No cognitive disabilities were
94
94
reported. Table 4-1 presents the demographics of the L2 participants, grouped by
proficiency level.
Advanced Intermediate
N 56 37
Women 37 24
Age (mean) 32.5 21.3
Age (SD) 10.5 3.6
Years of exposure (mean) 14.9 7.5
Years of exposure (SD) 8.8 2.8
Table 4-1 Demographics of the L2 Learner group
L2 participants were sequential bilinguals who were exposed to Spanish during
puberty (mean age of exposure = 14.4), after they had already learned their first language.
None reported fluency in a language other than English or Spanish. L2 participants
received compensation for their participation.
4.2.1. Native speaker control group
The participants in the Spanish NSs group (n=36) were mostly monolingual; they
were tested in their native country (Puebla, Mexico) and reported having normal hearing
and normal or corrected-to-normal vision. These participants were included in order to
have a baseline of linguistic and processing behavior. Spanish NSs reported having had
only minimal exposure to English. However, most of them had taken at least a year of
foreign language (usually English) because secondary foreign language education is
compulsory in Mexico for at least a year. Additionally, many of them have been exposed
to English from movies, music, and other American cultural products that are ubiquitous
in Mexico. Nevertheless, none of the native Spanish participants reported fluency in any
95
95
language other than their native one. Table 4-2 presents the demographics of the native
speaker group.
Native Speaker participants
N 36
Women 20
Age (mean) 40.7
Age (SD) 18.7
Table 4-2 Demographics of the Native Speaker group
Given that previous research has shown evidence that level of education and other
variables such as socioeconomic background are closely related to language outcomes
(Mulder & Hulstijn, 2011; Pakulak & Neville, 2010; Street & Dąbrowska, 2010), NS
participants were recruited from a middle-class local arts music conservatory and from
the state hospital (Puebla, Mexico). In order to seek a close match in educational
backgrounds, all NS participants had to have completed at least two years of college in
order to be included in the study.
4.3 Tasks and Materials
Participants completed a battery of off-line and on-line tests over the course of
two separate data collection sessions. L2 participants took the tests in a computer lab,
while NS participants took the tests in a private office. Figure X presents the order of
tasks and the duration of each. Participants completed the tasks in the same order.
96
96
Figure 4-1 Tasks with approximate durations (L2 group)
For the L2 learner group, data collection sessions were at least two days apart, but
no more than five days apart. For the native speaker group, data collections took place a
month apart. Given that data collection occurred over the course of two different trips, it
was difficult to locate some of the speakers and thus only twenty-seven of the thirty-six
completed the full battery of tests.
4.3.1 Off-line Tasks
The off-line tests in this study included a) an independent proficiency test, b) a
test of syntactic knowledge of clitics, c) an English vocabulary task (only for the L2
group), d) an audio-visual rating task, e) a statistical learning task, and f) a language
background questionnaire. These tasks are detailed below.
97
97
4.3.1.1 Proficiency Test: Materials and Procedures
In order to discriminate between proficiency levels, this battery of tests included
an independent proficiency test that tested grammar and vocabulary. This test is a
shortened version of a standardized test used for official Spanish language accreditation
in Spain called DELE (Diploma de Español como Lengua Extranjera) issued by the
Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport of Spain. It also includes a section from the
reading and vocabulary sections of the Modern Language Association Cooperative
Foreign Language Test (Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ). This proficiency
test has been used successfully as a discriminator of proficiency in prior L2 Spanish
acquisition research (e.g., White, Valenzuela, Kozlowska-MacGregor & Leung, 2004;
Montrul, 2004; Rothman, 2009). The test was uploaded to an independent survey
software and was available online, although all the participants took the test under
supervision. Instructions and test items were in Spanish. (4-1) presents an example from
the proficiency task (correct answer is in bold).
(4-1) Sus amigos pudieron salvarlo pero lo dejaron ____. His friends could have saved him, but they let him ____. a. ganar (win)b. parecer (resemble)c. perecer (perish)d. acabar (finish)
The test consisted of fifty multiple-choice items focusing on vocabulary and
grammar (maximum possible score=50). The first 30 items were randomized per
participant. The last 20 were part of a coherent paragraph, and consequently they were
presented in the same order to all participants. Most participants completed this task
within 35 minutes, although participants had up to 40 minutes to complete the proficiency
task. Partly based on previous literature (e.g. Slabakova, Rothman & Kempchinsky,
2011), the accuracy range cutoffs were set at 40-50 for the advanced group, 25-39 for the
98
98
intermediate group, and 10-24 for the beginner group. Because the self-paced reading
task was rather difficult in both syntactic and lexical counts, participants needed to have
knowledge of basic lexical items. Thus, this study included only the data of participants
who scored at least 50% on the proficiency task (n=93).
4.3.1.2 Clitic Knowledge Test
In order to determine whether the L2 learners had knowledge of the syntactic
properties of clitics, participants completed a multiple-choice test that included ten
multiple-choice items. This test has been successfully used in previous research on Clitic
doubling and Fronting operations in Spanish with L2 and Heritage Speaker populations
(e.g. Leal Méndez, Rothman & Slabakova, 2014, in press; Slabakova et al., 2011;
Slabakova, Rothman & Kempchinsky, 2012). Romance clitics appear either before finite
verbs or, in cases where there is an auxiliary (in many cases, a restructuring verb in the
terminology of Rizzi, 1982) and a semantic verb, they can either precede the first verb or
it can attach to the second, which can be either a gerund or an infinitive. Examples (4-2)
and (4-3) reproduce the instructions as well as two items from this test, one with a single
finite verb (only one option is grammatical) and one with two verbs (two options are
grammatical).
INSTRUCCIONES: Los segmentos de diálogo que están abajo están incompletos. Escoge cualquier respuesta que considere natural y apropiada. Puede haber (o no) más de una respuesta correcta.
INSTRUCTIONS: Each dialogue below is incomplete. Choose any answer that you consider to sound natural and appropriate. There may or may not be more than one correct answer.
(4-2) Pablo: Me encanta esta camisa pero es muy cara Juana: No te preocupes, yo ___________. Pablo: I love this shirt, but it is too expensive. Juana: Don’t worry, I’ll (buy it for you).
99
99
� Te compro la ��Compro ! Te la compro � La te compro ��Cómprotela
(4-3) José: Le voy a enviar las instrucciones a Pablo. Alfonso: Te pido un favor, ¿_________ a mí también? José: I will send Pablo the instructions. Alfonso: Can I ask you a favor? Can you (send them to me) as well?
� podrías me las enviar ! me las podrías enviar ��me podrías enviar ! podrías enviármelas � podrías enviar
As shown in (4-2) and (4-3), each item included a small dialogue that ended on a
question, the answer to which required the use of accusative clitics. Every item included
two clitics, one accusative clitic and one dative clitic. These clitics have ordering
restrictions in Spanish (Zagona, 2002), with dative clitics preceding accusative clitics.
Dialogues were followed by five answer options, some of which were ungrammatical due
to the position of the clitic in relation to the verb, others because of the position of a clitic
in relation to the other, and still others because a clitic was missing. Participants were
instructed to click on every right answer. They were also instructed that although at least
one answer was correct, they could pick more than one. Items and answer choices were
randomized per participant. The maximum score for this task was 50 points. This task
was administered via an independent online survey service (under supervision) after all
other tasks, in order to avoid priming effects. Most participants completed this task
within 15 minutes although there was no set time limit.
100
100
4.3.1.3 (English) Vocabulary Knowledge (L1 Verbal
Skills)
In order to obtain a broad measure of L1 verbal skills of the L2 participants, those
in the learner group completed the vocabulary subtest of a standardized vocabulary
measure, the Shipley Institute of Living Scale (SILS; Zachary, 1994). Native Spanish
participants did not complete this task or any other task of native verbal skill ability. This
pen-and-pencil test includes forty multiple-choice vocabulary items, which vary
substantially in terms of difficulty. Items were presented in the standard order, which
roughly presents vocabulary in order of difficulty. Participants were asked to choose
among four options what they considered to be the closest synonym for each vocabulary
item. Example (4-4) presents a sample item along with the instructions (italics and bold
in the original). The correct answer is marked with a circle.
(4-4) INSTRUCTIONS: In the test below, the first word in each line is printed in capital letters. Opposite it are four other words. Circle the one word that means the same thing, or most nearly the same thing as the first word. If you don’t know, guess. Be sure to circle the one word in each line that means the same thing as the first word.
QUERULOUS Maniacal Curious Devout Complaining
Although this task is rather brief (participants completed it within 10 minutes), the
SILS vocabulary subtest correlates highly with other verbal IQ measures, such as
Kaufman and Kaufman’s (1990) Brief Intelligence Test (r = .77 in a sample of college
students; Bowers & Pantle, 1985). Additionally, Zachary, Crumpton and Spiegel (1985)
reported correlations between the SILS and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
(Wechsler, 1955) ranging from .73 to .90 (median r = .795) across eight research studies.
As such, the SILS vocabulary subtest has been estimated to be a “brief but accurate
101
101
(verbal) IQ estimate” (Zachary et al., 1985). Furthermore, these effects have been
replicated successfully (Weiss & Schell, 1991).
4.3.1.4 Audio-Visual Rating Task of CLLD
In order to gauge off-line knowledge of CLLD in Spanish, participants completed
an untimed audio-visual acceptability judgment (rating) task. This task aimed to
determine whether L2 participants could exhibit knowledge of either word order
restrictions or of the required clitics after a topicalized phrase was introduced when there
were no time constraints. Each test item was presented entirely in Spanish (text and audio
recording) and included a context followed by a short question and an answer. Answers
either conformed to the discourse-conferred expectations or not, meaning that they did or
did not include an accusative clitic before the finite verb (Embedded CLLD items) or,
alternatively, that they were presented in the right word order (Main Clause CLLD
items). Figure 4-2 presents a screenshot from the rating task.
Figure 4-2 Screenshot from the audio-visual rating task, condition e (temporal adverbial clauses)
102
102
Five native speakers of Spanish recorded the test items in order to avoid any
intonation coercions. The inclusion of the audio recordings was crucial because
dislocated structures in Spanish have special intonation patterns. While CLLD lacks
stress, Focus Fronting has emphatic stress on the fronted constituent. In this respect, the
difference between these constructions might include both clitic presence/absence and the
intonation. If the presentation were only visual, participants could accept some
infelicitous structures for the wrong reasons (e.g. an infelicitous context-test sentence
combination for CLLD could be accepted as felicitous if participants mentally assigned
emphatic (e.g. contrastive) stress).
Previous research using virtually identical methodologies has shown that L2
learners and simultaneous bilinguals (Heritage Speakers) were successful in
demonstrating knowledge of CLLD by the intermediate proficiency level (Leal Méndez,
in press; Slabakova et al., 2011, 2012). In addition, the participants in these studies were
sensitive to Set-Subset and Identity semantic distinctions. However, these studies used
clitic left dislocations involving no embeddings and dislocating a single NP only. In
order to determine whether L2 learners could demonstrate knowledge of the syntactic
and pragmatic properties of CLLD in other syntactic environments (such as embedded
CLLD), this study includes six different conditions of CLLD. Table (4-3) presents the
conditions included in this task along with the number of tokens per list.
Main Clause CLLD
Condition Tokens per list A) Topic + Fronted Focus Grammaticality depends on word order.
3 grammatical 3 ungrammatical
i. Ese dinero A JUAN no se lo daré. ii. *A JUAN ese dinero no se lo daré. ‘It is to Juan that I will never give that money.’
Table 4-3 Conditions and sample tokens from the Offline Rating Task
103
103
B) Topic + wh-constructionsGrammaticality depends on word order.
3 grammatical 3 ungrammatical
i. Ese dinero ¿a quién se lo darás?to whom that money CL.DAT CL.ACC 2nd.give.FUT
ii. *A quién ese dinero se lo darás? ‘To whom will you give that money?’
Embedded CLLD Condition Tokens per list C) Subjunctive complements
Acceptability depends on clitic presence.3 grammatical 3 ungrammatical
i. El presidente quiere que al secretario lo asciendan. the president wants that to.the secretary CL.ACC.3.M.SG promote.SUBJ.3PL
ii. #El presidente quiere que al secretario asciendan. ‘The president wants the secretary to be promoted.’ D) Temporal adverbial clauses Acceptability depends on clitic presence.
3 grammatical 3 ungrammatical
i. Mientras a Don Armando lo ayudaban a preparar el asado, while to Don Armando CL.ACC.3.M.SG they-helped to prepare the grill a Jaimito se le ocurrió prenderle fuego a una cortina. to Jaimito CL CL occurred light fire to a curtain
ii. #Mientras a Don Armando ayudaban a preparer el asado, a Jaimito se le ocurrióprenderle fuego a una Cortina. .
“While they helped Don Armando to prepare the barbeque, Jaimito thought to set the curtain on fire.”. E) Subjunctive complements
Acceptability depends on clitic presence.3 grammatical 3 ungrammatical
i. Que a ese hombre lo hayan despedido no me sorprende. That to that man CL.ACC have.SUB.3rd.PL fired neg me surprise
ii. Que a ese hombre hayan despedido no me sorprende. ‘That they fired that man doesn’t surprise me.’
Table 4-3 �FRQGLQXHG��Conditions and sample tokens from the Offline Rating Task
For each item, participants evaluated the acceptability of each answer on a 7-point
Likert scale, ranging from “Normal (normal)—7” to “Very strange (muy rara)—1.”
104
104
Participants were also provided with an “I don’t know” option, although they were
instructed that this option was only to represent uncertainty, rather than the middle of the
scale. Items were presented in a Latin square such that no participant saw both
(grammatical and ungrammatical) versions of each item. Each list contained 33 test
sentences and 10 fillers. The small number of fillers is due to the fact that the study
comprised a great number of tasks and this one in particular was quite lengthy, with an
approximate duration of 45 minutes.
4.3.1.5 Statistical Learning Task
In order to gauge individual statistical learning abilities, participants completed a
long-distance dependency artificial grammar-learning task (Gómez, 2002) in which
subjects were expected to learn probabilistic regularities of the input implicitly, through
unguided exposure. The materials that were used in the study have been successfully used
in statistical learning tasks. Long-distance dependencies have been argued to have strong
natural language structure correlates (Gómez, 2002; Misyak & Christiansen, 2012) such
as center embeddings and natural long-distance dependencies. Friederici, Bahlmann,
Heim, Schubotz and Anwander (2006) have argued that only long-distance dependencies
are relevant for language, although the evidence for this claim is not beyond dispute
(Misyak & Christiansen, 2012).
In this task, subjects were first aurally exposed to an artificial grammar comprised
of a non-adjacent dependency (aXb). Three elements, which are non-words that adhere to
the phonological properties of English (e.g. ‘pel’, ‘jic’) (a, b, c), are uniformly linked to
three others (d, e, f), with an intervening X element, which was randomly chosen from a
pool of 24 items. Participants heard a total of 436 strings drawn from this AXB grammar
(approximately 25 minutes of training). Table X presents the artificial grammar words
from each category (A, B, X).
105
105
Artificial grammar (Language 1 from Gómez, 2002)
S"{ aXd bXe
cXf }
A B X
a = pel b = vot c = dak
d = rud e = jic f = tood
wadim, kicey, puser, fengle, coomo, loga, gople, taspu, hiftam, deecha, vamey, skiger, benez, gensim, feenam, laeljeen, chila, roosa, plizet, balip, malsig, suleb, nilbo, wiffle
Table 4-4 Grammar and items in Gómez’s Language 1
After training, subjects were presented with six strings that were consistent with
the grammar and six strings that were inconsistent with the grammar. In a forced choice
task with two alternatives, participants were asked to judge whether each string was
consistent with the patterns of the input or not. Test items contained one new X element,
such that accurate performance on this test necessarily involved generalization. Accuracy
rates were used as an index of an individual’s ability to pick up on non-adjacent
relationships in an artificial grammar.
4.3.1.6 Language Background Questionnaire
All participants also completed an online language background questionnaire that
collected demographic (non-identifying) information, as well as language background
(profile on language use) and language learning history.
4.3.2 On-line Tasks
In order to have an index of language processing as well as obtaining a measure
of cognitive control, this study also included two time-sensitive measures: a self-paced
reading task and a non-verbal Stroop task. Both tasks are detailed below.
106
106
4.3.2.1 Self-paced reading task
This study included a self-paced reading task in order to investigate whether
participants were able to predict downstream linguistic material based on previously
appearing syntactic cues. Stimuli were presented on a computer using a word-by-word
moving window display (Just, Carpenter & Wooley, 1982). Each target sentence was
preceded by a one- or two-sentence context that was necessary to make the topicalization
natural (i.e. the topic was introduced). Each target sentence was followed by a yes/no
comprehension question. Half of the comprehension questions were based on the context
and half on the target sentence. Stimuli included 24 dislocated sentences in two versions
(early and late conditions): one where a sentential-conferred prediction was violated
(dependency was completed late), relative to another where the prediction was met
(dependency was completed early). In total, the self-paced reading experiment had forty-
eight target sentences.
These materials were previously designed (Pablos, 2006) to test long-distance
dependencies in a group of Peninsular Spanish NSs. In order to independently verify
NSs’ preferences, Pablos used an off-line grammaticality-rating task to verify that NSs
preferred clitic over clitic-less sentence continuations after a dislocated phrase was
introduced. The sentences used in this study were only slightly simplified from Pablos
(2006) by removing a level of embedding; some lexical items were also replaced with
more standard counterparts in order to avoid any differences due to dialectal varieties.
Example (5-1) is a sample token.
(5-1) CONTEXT: Varias estudiantes visitaron el departamento al que habían mandado su inscripción. (Several students visited the department where they had sent their registration.)
Target: A aquellas estudiantes la linda secretaria felizmente (les) contóTo those students the lovely secretary happily (clitic) told.3rd.sg que probablemente las admitirán en el programa. that probably (clitic) admit.pl.3rd.FUT in the program
107
‘The lovely secretary happily told the students that they would probably be admitted to the program.’
In order to determine whether the sentences used in the experimental items did
require a clitic in the grammar of native speakers, an additional group of participants
completed a preliminary normative sentence-completion task. This task was presented in
two forms: the first included the target verb while the second one did not (i.e. the
participants could complete the sentence using a verb of their choosing). Monolingual
speakers of Mexican Spanish (none of whom participated in any other tasks) completed
these tasks while in their native country. The target items were constituted by 24 sentence
fragments based of the stimuli used in the self-paced reading tasks. Each sentence
fragment was preceded by a context and was identical right before the main verb. The
rest of the sentence (including the main verb) was replaced by a line. Participants were
asked to complete the sentence quickly, using the first completion that they could think
of. These 24 items along with 24 fillers were randomized per subject. A total of 24
participants completed the first list (verb included) while 25 participants completed the
second list (participants could use a verb of their choosing). Sentences were scored by
hand and grouped into two categories: (a) sentences were completed using an accusative
or dative doubling clitic or (b) sentences were not completed using a doubling clitic.
Results showed that 87.1% of the sentences in the first list (verb included) were
completed using a clitic while 89.5% of sentences in the second list (verb open) were
completed with a clitic. Thus, it is clear that native Spanish speakers have a clear
preference for completing such sentences using a doubling clitic.
In this manipulation, the sentential-conferred expectation after encountering a
left-dislocated phrase (e.g. ‘A aquellas estudiantes’, in 1) is that a clitic will appear later
on. Because Spanish clitics appear before finite verbs (Rizzi, 1982), the clitic would be
anticipated before the matrix verb (contó in (X)). If speakers had predicted an upcoming
108
108
clitic after encountering a topicalized phrase, their reaction times (RTs) should be slower
at the main verb if the clitic was not present. In the original design, Pablos (2006) chose
matrix verbs that were optionally ditransitive (e.g. contar ‘to tell’). These verbs can take a
dative argument or not, which increases the chances of an equal bias for the
presence/absence of the clitic.
The researcher constructed two lists with the 48 experimental sentences so that
each participant would only see one version of each sentence (every participant was
exposed to 24 experimental sentences only, 12 in the early condition and 12 in the late
condition). An additional forty-eight sentences, which did not include any dislocated
items but were also preceded by a context, were included as fillers. Items were
randomized per participant.
4.3.2.2 Non-verbal Stroop task
In order to measure an individual’s ability to suppress information that is
irrelevant to a given task (i.e. ‘inhibitory control’), the participants in this study
completed a non-verbal Stroop task (Stroop, 1935, specifically the version adapted by
Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011 from Liu, Banich, Jacobson, & Tanabe, 2004) as part of the
battery of tests. It has been argued that when bilinguals process language, there is
simultaneous activation of the L1 and the L2 (called “parallel activation”), regardless of
linguistic context (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2007; Marian & Spivey, 2003; Marian, Spivey
& Hirsch, 2003). Thus, some researchers propose that bilingual speakers face higher
levels of linguistic competition on a regular basis (e.g. Bialystok, 2009; Linck, Kroll, &
Sunderman, 2009) and, furthermore, that this increased competition results in a cognitive
advantages which might include advantages in inhibitory control mechanisms (Bialystok
& Codd, 1997; Bialystok & Martin, 2004).
109
109
Blumenfeld and Marian’s Stroop task creates cognitive conflict by manipulating
different aspects of the stimulus so that these are either congruent or incongruent. The
stimulus consisted of an arrow, and the aspects that were manipulated were arrow
location (arrow was located at either the right or left side of the screen) and arrow
direction (arrow could either point right or left). In this study, participants were asked to
push “3,” which was located on the right side in a numerical pad when they saw an arrow
pointing rightward and “1,” which was located left on a numerical pad when they saw an
arrow pointing leftward. In other words, participants were asked to mind arrow direction
while ignoring (i.e. inhibiting) arrow location. Figure 4-3, panel (a) presents the initial
fixation point along with two examples of congruity (arrow direction and arrow location
match). Panel (b) depicts the fixation point and two examples of incongruity (arrow
direction and arrow location do not match).
110
110
Figure 4-3 Sample stimuli from the non-verbal Stroop task. Panel (a) depicts congruent stimuli (left and right) and panel (b) depicts incongruent stimuli (left and right).
Each trial started with a centrally-located fixating cross (Figure X, panels a and b,
left side) that was presented for 500 ms. This fixation cross was presented in order to
have participants focus on the middle of the screen. After the fixation point, participants
were exposed to a congruent or an incongruent stimulus for 700ms. In total, participants
were exposed to 160 trials (3:1 ratio congruent/incongruent): 120 congruent trials (60
congruent right and 60 congruent left) and 40 incongruent trials (20 incongruent right
and 20 incongruent left). At the end of each trial, participants were exposed to a blank
screen for 800 ms. Trials were presented in a pseudo-randomized order so that all
participants saw the same order. Before the actual experiment, participants had a small
practice run which included both incongruent and congruent items. Although the software
111
111
recorded reaction times during the practice runs, participants could not move on until
they answered every item in the practice right.
4.4 Summary
This chapter presented the tasks used in this study in order to weigh in on the
(dis)continuity debate in L2 processing. This study examines the processing of L2 long-
distance dependencies and the development of linguistic predictions (anticipatory
language processing) in an L2. Discontinuous accounts of L2 processing posit that the
mechanisms used in L1 and L2 processing are different from each other (i.e. L1 and L2
processing are qualitatively different). Specifically, the SSH (Clahsen & Felser, 2006a,
2006b) predicts that L2 learners will display qualitative differences from native speakers
when processing long-distance dependencies in a second language. This is argued to be
due to lack of detail in the syntactic representation in the L2. On the other hand,
continuous accounts of L2 processing do not posit either impaired representations or
different processing mechanisms for L2 processing. Instead, these accounts predict a
gradual emergence of sensitivity for violation of expectations.
112
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
5.1 Introduction to the Chapter
The current chapter presents the results of the experimental tasks described in
Chapter 4. The tasks used in this study, which measured both linguistic and non-linguistic
cognitive capacities, were completed by a group of native speaker Spanish controls
(tested in Mexico) and a group of L2 learners of Spanish, native speakers of English
(tested in two universities in the United States). The L2 (experimental) group was divided
into two subgroups (advanced and intermediate), based on the independent proficiency
test detailed in Chapter Four. The purpose of including a control group was to ascertain
that the tasks are reliable as well as to ensure test validity (that the tasks measure what
they purpose to measure). Following Bley-Vroman (1983) and Dekydtspotter et al.
(2006), I will also focus on examining whether L2 learners can show evidence of
sensitivity to grammaticality or the to the (on-line) violation of expectations within their
own groups (thus avoiding Bley-Vroman’s Comparative Fallacy). As presented in the
previous chapter, there were two types of tasks: off-line tasks, which where completed in
an untimed fashion, and on-line tasks, which were time-sensitive tasks where reaction
times were recorded.
The tasks included in this study have a three-fold purpose: a) to examine whether
learners show off-line knowledge of the syntactic properties CLLD in Spanish, b) to test
the claims of the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen & Felser 2006a, b), which
argues that adult L2 learners process their L2 “shallowly” due to incomplete grammatical
representations by way of examining the processing of a long-distance dependency in L2
Spanish and c) c) to examine the contributions of individual differences in the acquisition
and processing of long-distance dependencies L2 Spanish. The linguistic property
examined in this study is Clitic Left Dislocation in Spanish (CLLD), a long-distance
113
113
dependency in Spanish. As argued earlier, CLLD is an apt construction to test prediction
(anticipatory language processing) in L2 because it requires for a specific syntactic reflex
(an agreeing dative or accusative clitic) to appear downstream once a topicalized phrase
has been encountered (i.e. the clitic is necessary for the sentence to be completed
felicitously).
In addition to descriptive statistics, the data will be analyzed using repeated-
measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc tests in both intergroup and intragroup
comparisons. Additionally, to describe the potential relationships between the several
measures of individual abilities, I will use a Pearson Product-Moment correlation and
regression analyses.
5.2 Off-line Tasks
As noted in the previous chapter, the off-line tests in this study included: a) an
independent proficiency test, b) a test of syntactic knowledge of clitics, c) an English
vocabulary task (only for the L2 group), d) an audio-visual rating task focusing on
CLLD, e) a statistical learning task, and a f) language background questionnaire. These
results of each task will be detailed below.
5.2.1 Proficiency Test
The proficiency test tested grammar and vocabulary and was used to divide the
experimental group into two subgroups. The test consisted of fifty multiple-choice items,
so that the maximum possible score was 50 points. This test has been used extensively in
L2 acquisition research, both with on-line and off-line studies (e.g. Dussias, 2004;
Montrul, 2004; Rothman, 2009; White et al., 2004;) and only a subset of the native
speaker participants completed the task (n=27). Multiple-choice proficiency tests are one
of the more practical ways to assess language level, although they are admittedly limited
in terms of assessing overall language skill (only reading and comprehension).
114
114
Group (n) Mean SD Range
Native speakers (n=27) 48.5 1.5 5 (45-50)
Advanced L2 (n=56) 45 3.0 10 (40-50)
Intermediate L2 (n=37) 31 4.6 14 (25-39)
Table 5-1 Means, standard deviations, and range of scores on the proficiency measure per group.
Table 5-1 displays the means and standard deviations of the proficiency test for
each group. Using (admittedly) arbitrary cutoff points, which have been used in the
literature (e.g. Slabakova et al., 2012), I used the scores from the proficiency test to
assign L2 learners to two sub-groups.46 The accuracy range cutoffs were set at 40-50 for
the advanced group and 25-39 for the intermediate group. The native speakers ranged
from 45-50 points. Because the battery of tests included linguistic tasks that were rather
difficult on both syntactic and lexical counts, participants needed to have knowledge of
basic lexical items and syntactic structures in order to complete the tasks. Thus, this study
included only the data of participants who scored at least 50% on the proficiency task
(n=93). The data from the participants scoring less than 50% was not analyzed.
A one-way ANOVA revealed that there were significant differences in the mean
proficiency scores across groups, F(2, 117) = 265.282, p < .0001. Post-hoc Bonferroni
comparisons also indicated that the mean scores of all three groups were significantly
different from each other. The proficiency scores of the natives were higher than those of
the L2 advanced and, in turn, the L2 advanced group scored higher than the L2
intermediate group.
46 The only difference is that in the present study, the intermediate group includes a larger range of scores. Slabakova et al. (2012) used 30-40 for the intermediate group. This approach was chosen because in this study we did not include the data of novice or beginner learners.
115
115
5.2.2 Clitic Knowledge Test
Participants also completed a multiple-choice test that included ten multiple-
choice items (maximum 50 points). This test has been successfully used in previous
research on L2 and Heritage Speaker populations (e.g. Leal Méndez, Rothman, &
Slabakova, in press; Slabakova et al., 2011; Slabakova, Rothman & Kempchinsky, 2012).
This test focused on the syntactic knowledge of clitics, specifically, on clitic location
(rather than agreement). Again, only a subset of native Spanish speakers (n=27)
completed this test.
Group (n) Mean SD Range
Native speakers (n=27) 49.37 1.14 37 (25-62)
Advanced L2 (n=56) 48.51 2.19 45 (21-66)
Intermediate L2 (n=37) 39.19 6.9 17 (18-35)
Table 5-2 Means, standard deviations, and ranges of the scores of the test of clitic knowledge per group
Table 5-2 displays the means, standard deviations, and ranges of scores on the
clitic knowledge test for each participant group. A one-way ANOVA revealed that there
were significant differences in the mean scores across groups (F(2, 117) = 68.98,
p < .0001). Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferroni corrections indicated that the mean
scores for the intermediate L2 group (ML2.I = 39.19, SDL2.I = 6.9) were significantly
different from both the advanced L2 group and the native speaker groups (ML2.A = 48.51,
SDL2.A = 2.19, p < .0001; MNS = 39.19, SDNS = 6.9, p < .0001, respectively). The means
of the advanced group, however, did not significantly differ from the means of the native
speaker group (p = 1.000).
116
116
5.2.3 (English) Vocabulary Knowledge (L1 Verbal Skills)
The participants in the learner group completed the multiple-choice vocabulary
subtest of a standardized vocabulary measure, the Shipley Institute of Living Scale
(SILS; Zachary, 1994) with the purpose of obtaining a broad measure of their verbal
skills in their native language (i.e. English). The maximum score for this test was forty
points (no half points were possible). Table 5-3 presents the means, standard deviations
and ranges of the scores on the Vocabulary measure per group.
Group (n) Mean SD Range
Advanced L2 (n=55) 35.82 2.60 13 (27-40)
Intermediate L2 (n=37) 31.73 3.81 19 (21-38)
Table 5-3 Means, standard deviations, and ranges of the scores on the SILS Vocabulary test for the L2 groups.
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores in the
SILS measure for both the intermediate and advanced L2 groups. The test revealed a
significant difference at the p = 0.05 level in the scores for intermediate and advanced
groups; t(91) = , p < .0001. Thus, the scores on the Vocabulary test were reliably higher
for the participants of the L2 advanced group than for the L2 intermediate group.
5.2.4 Audio-Visual Rating Task of CLLD
This task consisted of an untimed, audio-visual acceptability judgment task
focusing on CLLD. I will first present the results of the Main Clause CLLD items
(conditions b, c), given that the grammaticality of these sentences involved word order
alternations (rather than the absence (ungrammatical) or presence (grammatical) of an
accusative clitic.
117
117
5.2.4.1 Rating Task: Main Clause CLLD (Group results)
Mean group responses for all three participant groups included in the study (Main
clause CLLD structures) for conditions A (CLLD Topic + Fronted Focus) and B (CLLD
Topic + wh-constructions) are displayed Figure 5-1. Examples (5-1 a,b) below illustrate
condition A while example (5-2 a,b) illustrate condition B.
(5-1) Condition A: Topic + Fronted Focus a. Ese dinero A JUAN no se lo daré.
that money to Juan neg cl.DAT CL.ACC.3m.sg 1st.give.FUTb. *A JUAN ese dinero no se lo daré.
“It is to Juan that I will never give that money.”
(5-2) Condition B: Topic + wh-constructions a. Ese dinero ¿a quién se lo darás?
that money to whom cl.DAT cl.ACC 2nd.give.FUT b. *A quién ese dinero se lo darás?
“To whom will you give that money?”
As noted in Chapter Four, the experimental design required participants to read
and simultaneously listen to a short context. After the context, participants listened to and
read a question and answer pair after which participants evaluated the answers with the
order Topic > {FF, wh} (which were expected to be grammatical based on the literature),
and the answers with the order {FF, wh} > Topic (which were expected to be
ungrammatical) independently of each other. Items were distributed in two lists, so no
participant saw both versions of each item (grammatical and ungrammatical). The scale
provided was 1 – 7, with the upper end of the scale indicating grammaticality and the
lower end of the scale ungrammaticality. Participants were also presented with the option
“I don’t know.” These answers were not analyzed and only constituted 1.62% of all
responses.
118
118
Figure 5-1 Mean acceptability rates for Condition A (CLLD + Fronted Focus) and B (CLLD + wh-operator)
A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was performed with condition (i.e.
CLLD + Fronted Focus, CLLD + wh-operator) and grammaticality (✓ word order
Topic > {FF, wh} and * word order {FF, wh} > Focus) as within-participant variable and
group as a between-participant variable (native speakers, L2 advanced, L2 intermediate).
The significance level was established at p < 0.05. There was a significant effect of
grammaticality (F(1, 117) = 269.303, p < 0.0001), but no effect of condition (F(1, 117) =
.440, p > 0.05). There was an effect of group (F(2, 117) = 4.457, p > 0.01), although the
interaction between condition and group was not significant (F(2,117) = .559, p > 0.05).
Tests also revealed a significant interaction between grammaticality and condition
(F(1, 117) = 50.226, p < 0.0001), indicating that the grammaticality effect was greater in
the CLLD + wh-operator condition (MG = 5.533, SDG = 1.22; MUG = 3.05, SDUG = 1.34)
119
119
than in the CLLD + Fronted Focus condition (MG = 4.757, SDG = 1.5; MUG = 3.733,
SDUG = 1.4). This result, which may appear at first sight to be somewhat unexpected, will
be discussed in Chapter 6. The only other significant interaction was between
grammaticality and group (F(2, 117) = 13.71, p < 0.0001), which was examined further.
Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections revealed that all three groups made a
significant contrast between the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences (p = 0.0001
for all three participant groups).
5.2.4.2 Rating Task: Embedded Clause CLLD (Group
results)
In this task, participants were asked to read and listen to the sentences and
evaluate the answers with clitics (which were expected to be grammatical), and the
answers without clitics (which were expected to be ungrammatical) independently of
each other, as presented in a Latin square. Figure 5-2, displays the mean group ratings for
all three participant groups included in the study. Examples (5-3 a,b) are illustrative of
the grammatical and ungrammatical options in condition C .
(5-3) Condition C Subjunctive complements a. El presidente quiere que al secretario lo asciendan.
the president wants that to.the secretary cl.ACC.3m.sg promote.SUBJ.3PL b. *El presidente quiere que al secretario asciendan. “The president wants the secretary to be promoted.”
120
120
Figure 5-2 Mean acceptability rates for Embedded CLLD condition C (Subjunctive Complements) for all groups.
Figure 5-4 illustrates the ratings for condition D (Temporal Adverbials). Example
5-4 illustrates the ungrammatical and grammatical options in each condition. As
mentioned earlier, these items were distributed in two lists so that participants were only
exposed to one version of the items.
(5-4) Condition D Temporal adverbial clauses a. Mientras a ella la adulan, a él lo ignoran. while to she cl.ACC.3f.sg idolize.3rd.PL to he cl.ACC ignore.3rd.PL b. Mientras a ella adulan, a él lo ignoran. “While they idolize her, they ignore him.”
121
121
Figure 5-3 Mean acceptability rates for Embedded CLLD condition D (Temporal Adverbials) for all groups.
Finally, Figure 5-4 below presents the ratings of condition E (Sentential Subjects)
for all groups. Example 5-5 is illustrative of the grammatical and ungrammatical options
that were rated in this condition.
(5-5) Condition E Sentential Subjects a. Que a ese hombre lo hayan despedido no me sorprende. that to that man cl.ACC have.SUB.3rd.PL fired neg me surprise b. Que a ese hombre hayan despedido no me sorprende. “It doesn’t surprise me that they fired that man.”
122
122
Figure 5-4 Mean acceptability rates for Embedded CLLD condition E (Sentential Subjects) for all groups.
A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was performed with condition (C—
Subjunctive Complements, D—Temporal Adverbials, and E—Sentential Subjects), and
grammaticality (clitic ✓ and without clitic *) as within-participant variables and group as
a between-participants variable. A significance level of p < 0.5 was established. There
was a significant effect of condition (F(2, 234) = 4.439, p = 0.013), an effect of
grammaticality (F(1, 117) = 111.535, p < 0.0001), and an effect of participant group
(native speakers, L2 advanced, L2 intermediate; F(2, 117) = 3.360, p < 0.038). The
interaction between condition and group was not significant (F(4, 234) = 1.908, p > 0.05),
however.
123
123
The interactions between grammaticality and group (F(2, 117) = 14.67,
p < 0.0001) and between condition and grammaticality (F(2, 117) = 9.278, p < 0.0001)
we both statistically significant. Finally, there was a significant three-way interaction
among condition, grammaticality, and group (F(4, 234) = 2.745, p < 0.029). These
interactions show that the intermediate L2 participants did not make a robust distinction
between the ungrammatical and grammatical sentences while the native speaker and the
L2 advanced participants did make a distinction between the two. This three-way
interaction was further examined.
Table 5-4 displays the contrasts between the types of test sentences in native
speaker judgments (Bonferroni adjustment). Blank cells represent irrelevant comparisons.
As expected, native speaker participants made a reliable distinction between the
grammatical and the ungrammatical sentences in all three conditions (Subjunctive
Complements, Temporal Adverbials, and Sentential Subjects test sentences). The cells
where these contrasts were expected have a darker background. Additionally, these
pairwise comparisons show that the native speakers did not display a significant
difference among all grammatical sentence conditions (sentences with the clitics,
regardless of condition).
124
124
Grammaticality
Condition C (Subjunctive compl.)
Condition D Temporal Adverbials
Condition E Sentential Subj.
✓ * ✓ * ✓
Condition C * p < 0.0001
Condition D ✓ n.s.
* n.s. p < 0.0001
Condition E ✓ n.s. n.s.
* p < 0.001 p < 0.004 p < 0.0001
Table 5-4 Pairwise comparisons (grammaticality*condition*group): Embedded CLLD (native speakers). Conditions: C—Subjunctive Complements, D—Temporal Adverbials, E—Sentential Subjects.
However, the native speaker judgments exhibited an interesting contrast between
the three types of ungrammatical sentences (conditions C, D, E). Namely, native speakers
judged the ungrammatical sentences in condition E (Sentential subjects; MUG = 4.83,
SDUG = 1.10) significantly higher (more acceptable) than the ungrammatical sentences in
conditions D (Subjunctive complements; MUG = 3.29, SDUG = 1.36) and e (Temporal
adverbials; MUG = 3.86, SDUG = 1.02). Note that in section X, Haegeman (2006) noted
that her informants rated Sentential Subjects somewhat lower than the other embedded
CLLD types. However, the native speakers in this task did not accept CLLD Sentential
Subjects at a lower rate—instead, they rejected the ungrammatical sentences significantly
less robustly than the other two conditions.
Table 5-5 displays the aforementioned contrasts presented in Table 5-4 but in the
judgments of L2 advanced speakers. Again, blank cells represent irrelevant comparisons.
As in the case of the native speaker group, L2 advanced participants made a reliable
distinction between the grammatical and the ungrammatical sentences in all three
125
125
conditions (C—Subjunctive Complements,�D—Temporal Adverbials, and E—
Sentential Subjects test sentences). Also in keeping in the contrasts shown by native
speakers, the L2 advanced speakers did not display a significant difference among all
grammatical sentence conditions (clitic sentences, regardless of condition).
Grammaticality
Condition C (Subjunctive compl.)
Condition D Temporal Adverbials
Condition E Sentential Subj.
✓ * ✓ * ✓
Condition C * p < 0.0001
Condition D ✓ n.s.
* n.s. p < 0.0001
Condition E ✓ n.s. n.s.
* p = 0.06 n.s. p < 0.0001
Table 5-5 Pairwise comparisons (grammaticality*condition*group): Embedded CLLD (L2 advanced learners)
Although the L2 advanced speakers exhibited the same expected contrasts as
native speakers, the L2 advanced group did not display the contrast between the three
types of ungrammatical sentences (conditions C, D, E) present in the judgments of native
speakers. L2 learners made a marginal distinction (p = 0.06) between the ungrammatical
sentences in condition E (Sentential subjects; MUG = 4.68, SDUG = 1.38) and the
ungrammatical sentences in conditions C (Subjunctive complements; MUG = 4.14, SDUG
= 1.58). However, the distinction of the ungrammatical sentences in condition C and
condition D (Temporal adverbials; MUG = 4.45, SDUG = 1.62) was not statistically
significant.
126
126
Finally, Table 5-6 displays the same contrasts in the judgments of L2 intermediate
speakers. Unlike the native speaker group and the L2 advanced group, however, the L2
intermediate participants only exhibited a statistically significant distinction between the
ungrammatical and grammatical sentences in condition E (Sentential subjects). On the
other hand, as in the case of other two groups, L2 intermediate participants did not
display a significant difference among any of the grammatical sentences, regardless of
condition.
Grammaticality
Condition C (Subjunctive compl.)
Condition D Temporal Adverbials
Condition E Sentential Subj.
✓ * ✓ * ✓
Condition C * p = .101
Condition D ✓ n.s.
* n.s. p = .235
Condition E ✓ n.s. n.s.
* n.s. n.s. p < 0.040
Table 5-6 Pairwise comparisons (grammaticality*condition*group): Embedded CLLD (L2 intermediate learners)
Additionally, L2 intermediate speakers did not display any contrasts among the
three types of ungrammatical sentences (conditions C, D, E).
5.2.5 Statistical Learning Task
Participants completed an artificial grammar-learning task (Gómez, 2002) in order
to determine individual statistic learning abilities. In this task, participants were exposed
to the probabilistic regularities of the artificial grammar in the hopes that they would
127
127
(implicitly) learn a long-distance dependency in the language (See section X for details).
Importantly, the words in the artificial grammar were non-words that nonetheless adhered
to English phonotactic rules. After the twenty-five minute exposure phase, participants
were asked to complete a twelve-item forced-choice task where they had to judge
whether the options were consistent or not with the input to which they were exposed.
Table 5-7 illustrates the mean accuracy rates and standard deviations for each participant
group.
Participant groups Mean Accuracy (percentage) SD Ranges
Native Speakers (n=27) 6.41 (53%) 1.62
L2 Advanced (n=56) 8.87 (74%) 2.75 L2 Intermediate (n=37) 8.54 (71%) 2.71
Table 5-7 Mean accuracy rates and standard deviations for the statistical learning task (all groups)
As mentioned in Chapter Four, accuracy rates were used as an index of individual
ability to pick up on long-distance dependencies in the artificial grammar. A one-way
ANOVA revealed that there were significant differences in the mean scores across groups
(F(2, 117) = 9.092, p < 0.0001). Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferroni tests indicated
that the mean scores for the native speaker group were significantly different from both
the advanced L2 group (p < 0.0001) and the intermediate L2 group (p = .003). The means
of the L2 advanced group, however, did not significantly differ from the means of the L2
intermediate group. Although there is no reason to believe that statistical learning ability
varies according to native language, recall that our task (Gómez, 2002) followed the rules
of English phonotactics. Thus, the lower performance of the native Spanish speakers
(essentially monolingual-) group appears to indicate a perceptual bottleneck that regulates
128
128
performance in this task. In other words, the Spanish native speakers were probably
unable to pick up on the regularities of the language because they had trouble perceiving
the non-words of the artificial language.
5.3 Interim Summary: Offline tasks
The two main tasks were the tasks focusing on CLLD: an offline rating task and
an online self-paced reading task. A portion of the off-line rating task tested main clause
CLLD focusing on the combination of CLLD with other left-periphery structures
(Fronted Focus, wh-operators). The other portion tested the occurrence of embedded
CLLD in Subjunctive Complements, Temporal adverbials and Sentential Subjects.
The offline rating task tested main clause CLLD where the grammatical and
ungrammaticality options differed in terms of word order (grammatical: Topic > {FF,
wh}; ungrammatical: {FF, wh} > Topic. In these items, all the participant groups were
able to discriminate between the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences and, as a
whole, they displayed a larger difference between the ungrammatical-grammatical pairs
involving wh-operators than the pairs involving Fronted Focus.
In terms of embedded CLLD, both the native speaker and advanced L2 learner
group were able to make a clear distinction between the grammatical-ungrammatical
pairs in the three conditions (Subjunctive Complements, Temporal Adverbials, and
Sentential Subjects), while the intermediate L2 group was only able to display this
distinction in the condition of Sentential Subjects. There is another difference that merits
discussion. Namely, within the ungrammatical sentences, the native speakers had lower
ratings for the ungrammatical conditions in Subjunctive Complements and Temporal
Adverbials. Thus, they rated the ungrammatical sentences in the Sentential Subjects
condition reliably higher (“less” ungrammatical, so to speak). The advanced group
displayed only one difference in this respect: While they rated the ungrammatical
sentences in the Subjunctive Complements lower, there was no significant contrast in
129
129
terms of the rate of their rejection of ungrammatical sentences between the sentences in
the Temporal Adverbials condition and the Sentential Subject condition.
5.4 On-line Tasks
In order to obtain indices of language processing as well as of cognitive control,
this study also included two time-sensitive measures: a self-paced reading task (Pablos,
2006) and a non-verbal Stroop task (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2010). The results of these
tasks are presented in turn.
5.4.1 Self-paced reading task
The self-paced reading task was included to determine whether participants were
able to predict downstream linguistic material based on previously appearing cues.
Stimuli (slightly modified from Pablos, 2006) included twenty-four CLLD sentences in
two conditions (forty-eight total sentences in two randomized lists so that no single
participant saw both early and late versions of each sentence). In the early condition, a
sentential-conferred prediction was violated (dependency completed late), as compared
to another where the prediction was met (dependency completed early). The example
below (5-1) illustrates a sample token.
(5-1) CONTEXT: (“Estudiantes” are mentioned) Target: A aquellas estudiantes la linda secretaria felizmente (les) contó
To those students the lovely secretary happily (clitic) told.3rd.sg que probablemente las admitirán en el programa. that probably (clitic) admit.pl.3rd.FUT in the program “The lovely secretary happily told the students that they would probably be admitted to the program.”
Thus, for Spanish speakers, the expectation after encountering an a-marked left-
dislocated phrase should be that a clitic will appear later on (before a finite verb). Thus,
RTs should be higher at the main verb when the clitic was not present (dependency
completed late) compared to when it was (dependency completed early). Each context
130
130
and test sentence was followed by a yes/no comprehension question. Per list there were
seventy-two comprehension questions in total, twenty-four comprehension questions
associated with the CLLD items.
5.4.1.1 Accuracy scores on comprehension questions
Accuracy scores will be presented in two different ways: overall accuracy and
accuracy on experimental items only. Table 5-8 presents the mean accuracy scores and
standard deviation per participant group of all the items in each list (overall accuracy),
including fillers (total of 72 items).
Participant groups Mean Accuracy (percentage) SD
Native Speakers (n=36) 63.4 (88%) 4.9
L2 Advanced (n=56) 64.8 (90%) 3.6 L2 Intermediate (n=37) 59.7 (83%) 6.7
Table 5-8 Mean overall accuracy rates (fillers included) and standard deviations for the self-paced reading comprehension questions (all groups)
A one-way ANOVA revealed that there were significant differences in the mean
scores across the three participant groups (F(2, 126) = 11.763, p < 0.0001). Post-hoc
comparisons using Bonferroni tests indicated that the mean scores for the native speaker
group were not significantly different from the advanced L2 group (p > 0.05). However,
the mean accuracy scores of the intermediate group were significantly different to both
the mean scores of the native speakers (p = .003) and the mean scores of the advanced L2
group (p < 0.0001).
Table 5-9 presents the mean accuracy scores and standard deviation per
participant group only for the experimental CLLD items in each list (accuracy in
131
131
experimental stimuli), thus not including fillers (each participant was exposed to a total of
twenty-four items per list: twelve in the late condition, twelve in the early condition).
Participant groups Mean Accuracy (percentage) SD
Native Speakers (n=27) 20.3 (85%) 9.94
L2 Advanced (n=56) 21.5 (90%) 7.73 L2 Intermediate (n=37) 18.8 (78%) 13.1
Table 5-9 Mean accuracy rates and standard deviations on the experimental items only (n=24 per list) for the self-paced reading comprehension questions (all groups)
A one-way ANOVA revealed that there were significant differences in the mean
scores across the three participant groups (F(2, 126) = 14.687, p < 0.0001). Post-hoc
comparisons using Bonferroni tests indicated that the mean scores for all three participant
groups were different from each other. The native speaker group scores were different
from both learner groups: L2 advanced (p = .042) and the L2 intermediate (p = .030).
Additionally, the scores of the L2 advanced group were also significantly different from
the intermediate L2 group (p < 0.0001). Although the difference in the performance of
the L2 advanced and native speaker groups merits discussion (the learners answered on
average 5% higher than the natives did) it is important to note that overall, all of these
comprehension score rates (including the scores of the native speakers) are in keeping
with comparable L1 and L2 processing experiments.
5.4.1.2 Reading Times
As mentioned in Chapter Four, the software package used in the experiment
recorded the time spent on every segment by each participant in milliseconds. Figure 5-5
graphs the magnitude of the RTs (in milliseconds) of both the early condition
(expectation met) and late condition (expectation not met) across all fifteen regions for
132
132
native Spanish speaker participants. As mentioned in Chapter 4, stimuli included 24
dislocated sentences in two versions (early and late conditions): one where a sentential-
conferred prediction was violated (dependency was completed late—clitic did not appear
until the embedded verb), relative to another where the prediction was met (dependency
was completed early—clitic appeared at the first possible opportunity, the main verb).
Figures 5-6 and 5-7 plot the RT magnitudes in both conditions for the L2 advanced and
L2 intermediate groups, respectively. Reading times are presented in their original (raw)
form and were trimmed at the 200 ms and 3000 ms lower and upper boundaries,
respectively. Screening for outliers proceeded as follows.
Figure 5-5 Reading times per region for the early and late completion conditions (error bars +/- 1SE) for the native speaker group (see (5-1)): A1 aquellas2 estudiantes3, la4 linda5 secretaria6 felizmente7 les8 contó9 que10 probablemente11 las12 admitirán13 en14 el_programa15
1��
134
Figure 5-6 Reading times per region for the early and late completion conditions (error bars +/- 1SE) for the advanced L2 learner group (see (5-1)): A1 aquellas2 estudiantes3, la4 linda5 secretaria6 felizmente7 les8 contó9 que10 probablemente11 las12 admitirán13 en14 el_programa15
135
Figure 5-7 Reading times per region for the early and late completion conditions (error bars +/- 1SE) for the intermediate L2 learner group (see (5-�)): A1 aquellas2 estudiantes3, la4 linda5 secretaria6 felizmente7 les8 contó9 que10 probablemente11 las12 admitirán13 en14 el_programa15
136
136
As is customary, we excluded from the analyses those participants whose
performances were clearly distant from the rest of the participant groups. Some outliers
scored less than 3 standard deviations in the yes/no (experimental) comprehension
questions. This resulted in the exclusion of four participants: two from the advanced
group and one from each the native and intermediate L2 groups. In view of the fact that
offline knowledge of clitic presence in CLLD (as demonstrated in the offline rating task)
constitutes a syntactic pre-requirement to the processing of CLLD, we excluded a total of
one additional participant. This individual (native speaker) was the only participant from
the native speaker group who did not made a distinction between any of the offline
CLLD conditions, or did so in the wrong direction (0 out of five). Thus, the data
discussed below included the responses from 34 native speakers, 54 advanced L2
participants and 36 intermediate L2 participants.
As illustrated in Figures 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7, there are very few differences in mean
RT values between the early and late conditions for all groups. This is unsurprising, given
that these sentences were identical expect for the presence (early condition) or absence
(late condition) of the clitic (segment 8). A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was
performed with condition (early—expectation met and late—expectation not met) and
segment as within-participant variables and group as a between-participants variable
(native speakers, L2 advanced, L2 intermediate). The total number of segments compared
was fourteen. Segment eight was excluded from this analysis because the first clitic was
absent in the late condition; therefore, no comparisons could be made. The significance
level was established at p < 0.05. A Mauchly's Test of Sphericity indicated that the
assumption of sphericity had been violated for segment, (χ2(90) = 1658.569, p < 0.0001)
and for condition*segment (χ2(90) = 682.406, p < 0.0001). Thus, the df values reported
include a Greenhouse-Geisser correction throughout
Analyses of variance revealed that there was a significant effect of segment
(F(2.855, 339.350) = 342.612, p < 0.0001) on reading times, but no effect of condition
137
137
(F(1, 120) = .200, p > 0.05). This is unsurprising given that both conditions were nearly
identical. Furthermore, there was no effect of participant group (F(1, 120) = 2.114,
p > 0.05). Additionally, the interaction between group and condition did not have a
significant effect on reading times (F(2, 120) = 1.493, p > 0.05). Tests revealed a
significant interaction between segment and group (F(5.710, 342.612) = 4.252,
p < 0.0001). Table 5-10 displays the pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) with p
values per segment. Only significant values are shown. All other segments fell over the
established significance level. The superscripts (“n” for native speakers, “a” for L2
advanced and “i” for L2 intermediate) indicate the group with the higher mean (i.e.
slower reading times overall).
L2 Intermediate (n=36)
L2 Advanced (n=54)
Native Speakers (n=34)
Segment 4 (p = 0.003)n
Segment 12 (p = 0.001)n
Segment 14 (p = <0.0001)n
Segment 15 (p = 0.005)n
Segment 4 (p = 0.052)n
Segment 5 (p = 0.29)n
Segment 12 (p = 0.014)n
Segment 14 (p = 0.16)n
L2 Advanced (n=54) Segment 7 (p = 0.006)i
Table 5-10 Self-paced reading pairwise comparisons (segment * group): all segments except segment 8 for all participant groups. Superscripts indicate the group with the higher RT mean.
Note that in every case where there was a significant contrast involving native
speakers (both when compared to the L2 advanced and the L2 intermediate), the native
speaker participants had the highest RT mean (i.e. natives read slower). In the only case
where the advanced and the intermediate where compared, the intermediate had a higher
mean (i.e. they read segment 7 slower than the L2 advanced). This difference in reading
speed might reflect differences in the background of the participants, especially as it
138
138
relates to age, reading habits, ease with technology, and familiarity with linguistic
experiments.
The analyses of variance also revealed that there was a significant interaction
between condition and segment (F(5.122, 10.245) = 4.759, p < 0.0001). Overall, the early
and late conditions were read at significantly different speeds, with the late condition
been read slower on two different segments: segment 9 (ME.9 = 552.104, SDE.9 = 13.794,
ML.9 = 624.04, SDL.9 = 12.673, p < 0.0001) and segment 10 (ME.10 = 450.428,
SDE.10 = 8.88, ML.10 = 477.214, SDL.10 = 9.304, p < 0.0001). Additionally the last segment
(segment 15) was, overall, read faster in the early condition than in the late condition
(ME.15 = 1246.181, SDE.15 = 51.01, ML.15 = 1185.773, SDL.15 = 44.021, p = 0.044). Finally,
there was a also significant three-way interaction among condition, segment, and group
(F(10.322, 624.480) = 1.904, p < 0.040). This three-way interaction was further
examined.
Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections revealed that the native speaker
group did not display a significant difference in terms of reading times between the late
and early conditions on segments 1 through 7, and 11, though 13. Table 5-11 presents
these comparisons for all three groups with their respective p values. On the other hand,
the native group did display significant differences in reading times between the late and
early conditions in segments 9 (ME.9 = 545.19, SDE.9 = 192.17, ML.9 = 645.68, SDL.9 =
162.34, p < 0.0001), 10 (ME.10 = 467.24, SDE.10 = 147.06, ML.10 = 501.08, SDL.10 =
132.68, p = 0.004), 14 (ME.14 = 587.33, SDE.14 = 200.55, ML.14 = 558.90, SDL.14 = 216.33,
p = 0.032) and 15 (ME.15 = 1430.95, SDE.15 = 800.82, ML.15 = 1329.38, SDL.15 = 687.89,
p = 0.004). The advanced L2 group displayed the same contrasts as native speakers in
segments 9 (ME.9 = 519.55, SDE.9 = 138.95, ML.9 = 614.90, SDL.9 = 142.56, p < 0.0001),
and 10 (ME.10 = 436.23, SDE.10 =84.75, ML.10 = 4.68.00, SDL.10 = 90.55, p = 0.001), and
throughout except for the last three segments. Out of these last three segments, only
segment 13 (ME.13 = 779.17, SDE.13 = 248.45, ML.13 = 740.41, SDL.13 = 242.77, p = 0.05),
139
139
exhibited a significant contrast. The intermediate learners showed a different pattern.
These learners only made a significant contrast in terms of reading times between the
early and late conditions on segment 9 (ME.9 = 569.55, SDE.9 = 122.76, ML.9 = 610.34,
SDL.9 = 105.29, p = 0.037). Table 5-12 indicates the pairwise comparisons (per segment)
of the condition * segment * group interaction. The superscripts (“e” for early condition,
“l” for late condition) indicate the condition with the higher mean (i.e. which condition
was read slower per segment).
Segment / word (see 5-�)
Native Speakers (n=34)
L2 Advanced (n=54)
L2 Intermediate (n=36)
1 | A n.s. n.s. n.s.
2 | aquellas n.s. n.s. n.s.
3 | estudiantes n.s. n.s. n.s.
4 | la n.s. n.s. n.s.
5 | linda n.s. n.s. n.s.
6 | secretaria n.s. n.s. n.s.
7 | felizmente n.s. n.s. n.s.
9 | contó (p < 0.0001)l
(p < 0.0001)l
(p = 0.036)l
10 | que (p = 0.004)l
(p = 0.001)l n.s.
11 | probablemente n.s. n.s. n.s.
12 | las n.s. n.s. n.s.
13 | admitirán n.s. (p = 0.05)e n.s.
14 | en (p = 0.05)e n.s. n.s.
15 | el_programa (p = 0.004)e n.s. n.s.
Table 5-11 Self-paced reading pairwise comparisons (condition*segment*group): all segments except segment 8 for all participant groups. Superscripts indicate the condition with the higher mean.
All of the research outcomes on the prior discussion have been presented by
binning the L2 participant results by proficiency level. As mentioned earlier, this artificial
grouping based on admittedly arbitrary (albeit conventionally used in the literature) cut
140
140
off points can be problematic in several levels. Even if we consider using the same
proficiency test and same language pairings, one potential issue, for example, is that a
slight variation in cut-off points can jeopardize how replicable the results are. There are
other problems associated with artificial groupings. For example, researchers (e.g. Cohen,
1983 cited in West, Aiken & Kull, 1996) have shown how the artificial dichotomization
of a continuous variable can result in reduced statistical power, which has an effect on the
individual differences variables as well as the interactions between these and the
manipulated variables.
Although a review of the problems of this statistical analysis approach is outside
the scope of this chapter, it is important to note that the decision of grouping participants
has important repercussions. Therefore, in order to examine the relationship between L2
proficiency and the magnitude of the effect elicited by the violation of expectations (i.e.
whether participants were able to predict an upcoming element based on previous
information) in a more continuous fashion, this relationship was also examined through
the calculation of a Pearson correlation coefficient.
Figure 5-8 displays a scatterplot with proficiency, as measured with the
proficiency test, scores ranging from 25-50, and reaction times in the early (expectation
violation) and late (expectation met) conditions at segment 9. In view of the fact that the
purpose of this comparison is to determine whether with increasing proficiency
participants show heightened sensitivity to the violation of expectations, only the L2
learners are plotted in this graph. Note that, for ease of exposition, although I use the
difference score (late RTs minus early RTs) in the calculations, Figure 5-8 illustrates the
RTs in each condition separately.
141
141
Figure 5-8 Scatter plot of proficiency test scores and reaction times at segment 9 in the late (expectation violation) and early (expectation met) conditions for the L2 learner group.
Overall, using the difference score between the early and late conditions (the
subtraction of the RTs of the late condition from the RTs in the early condition where a
positive difference is interpreted as heightened sensitivity to the violation of
expectations), L2 learners demonstrated a significant positive correlation between
proficiency scores and matrix-verb RTs when the clitic was absent relative to when it was
present (r = .335, n = 91, p = .001). Thus, with increasing proficiency, the learners show
an increased sensitivity to the violation of expectations. It is important to note that
142
142
although it appears like the error signal is increasing in magnitude, the increase in the
magnitude in the difference scores appear to be driven in large part by as speed up on the
processing of the main verb when a clitic was present. In other words, although it is true
that with increasing proficiency, non-native RTs appeared progressively similar to NSs in
terms of the magnitude of RTs elicited by the expectation violation, this is due to two
factors. First, the learners took longer to read the late condition (expectation violated) as
their proficiency increased but, crucially, they also were faster when reading the main
verb in condition where their expectations were met.
5.4.2 Non-verbal Stroop task
This task was included to measure the ability to suppress information that is
irrelevant to a given task (i.e. ‘inhibitory control’). This task, adapted by Blumenfeld and
Marian, 2011 (from Liu, Banich, Jacobson & Tanabe, 2004) has been previously used in
research with bilinguals and has been found to relate to auditory comprehension. The
non-verbal Stroop task creates conflict by manipulating different aspects of the stimulus
(an arrow, in this case) so that these are either congruent or incongruent. The arrow
varied in two dimensions: the arrow’s location (arrow was located at either the right or
left side of the screen) and the arrow’s direction (arrow could either point right or left).
The task included 160 trials (3:1 ratio congruent/incongruent): 120 congruent trials and
40 incongruent trials. Trials were scored for accuracy (correct, incorrect). For a trial to be
coded as correct, it had to be answered correctly the first time within the time limit.
Figure 5-9 presents the mean accuracy rates and standard errors on the congruent and
incongruent trials.
143
143
Figure 5-9 Mean accuracy scores and standard errors for the congruent and incongruent trials for the non-verbal Stroop task (all groups).
In terms of reaction times, only the RTs on accurate trials were considered. Figure
5-10 presents the means and standard errors of reaction times per group on the congruent
and incongruent trials.
144
144
Figure 5-10 Mean reaction times and standard deviations for the congruent and incongruent trials for the non-verbal Stroop task (all groups).
Following the analysis carried out in Blumenfeld and Marian’s study, in order to
compare the groups in terms of two different measures (accuracy and response times) the
data was analyzed using 2 x 2 mixed ANOVAs with trial type (congruent, incongruent)
as within-subjects factor and group (native speakers, L2 advanced, L2 intermediate) as
between subjects factor. As in the case of Blumenfeld and Marian’s study, the analyses
yielded a significant effect of trial both in terms of accuracy and RTs. Namely,
participants were more accurate (F(1, 112) = 170.187, p < .0001) and faster (F(1, 112) =
853.457, p < .0001) in the Congruent trials than in the Incongruent trials. There was also
an effect of group both in terms of accuracy (F(2, 112) = 5.939, p = .004) and RTs (F(2,
112) = 16.980, p < .0001). Finally, there was no interaction between trial and group in
145
145
terms of RTs or accuracy. Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that in terms of accuracy,
the native speaker group was significantly less accurate than both the L2 advanced and
the L2 intermediate groups (p = .035 and p = .003, respectively). However, there was no
significant difference in terms of accuracy between the L2 intermediate and advanced
groups (p > .05).
In terms of reaction times, tests revealed that the native speaker group was slower
than both the L2 advanced and the L2 intermediate groups (p = .029 and p < .0001,
respectively). Interestingly, the L2 advanced group was also significantly slower in terms
of RTs than the L2 intermediate group (p < .0001). Thus, overall, as far as accuracy is
concerned, the results of this task are in general agreement with the notion that there is an
advantage in inhibitory control for the L2 learner groups overall. Furthermore, in regards
to accuracy, this advantage appears to be modulated by proficiency in the L2. In terms of
RTs, however, there was an overall effect between the L2 learner group as a whole
(native speakers were slower than both of the L2 groups), but proficiency did not appear
to modulate this relationship. It is possible age effects might affect the nature of the
relationship, especially as the L2 group is concerned. On average, the native speaker
group was a decade older than the advanced L2 learners and, in turn, the L2 advanced
learners were also about a decade older than the L2 intermediate learners (MNS = 43.58,
SDNS = 12.02; ML2.A = 32.94, SDL2.A = 10.46; ML2.I = 21.42, SDL2.I = 3.6). Additionally,
it is also possible that the L2 group was more used to experimental settings. Although the
groups were somewhat match for education level (all the natives had completed at least
two years of college), most of the natives had attended college many years prior.
5.5 Inter-correlations between tasks
As mentioned in Chapter 4, one of the objectives of this study was to investigate
whether individual differences in abilities such as inhibitory control and statistical
learning ability could predict variability in the acquisition and processing of CLLD in L2
146
146
Spanish. For this reason, a correlation among the different tasks was calculated. Table 5-
12 presents the inter-correlations between the different task measures for the L2 group
only, using the same exclusion criteria described in section 5.4.1.2.
Table 5-12 shows that Proficiency scores were positively related to all but
one of the task measures and other variables: the measure of statistical learning
ability. In fact, statistical learning ability did not show a positive association with
any of the different task measures. The fact that proficiency scores correlated
significantly with both overall exposure to Spanish, (r = .478, n = 90, p < .0001,
and with study abroad, r = .511, n = 90, p < .0001) is significant although
expected under Usage-based models. These correlations, considered “moderate”
in magnitude, provide evidence that proficiency is driven, at least to some degree,
by the amount of exposure learner has had to the language.
147
Prof D9 Clitics SLT SILS Acc O
Acc Ex
Study Abroad Exp.
Cong RTs
Incong RTs
Cong Acc.
Incong Acc.
AJT CL
AJT WO
D9 .321**
Clitics .703** .239*
SLT .036 -.099 .055
SILS .682** .132 .462** .037
Acc O .537** .193 .354** .093 .525**
Acc Ex .619** .200 .560** .091 .618** .794**
S Abroad .511** .225* .397** -.056 .285** .243* .222*
Exp .478** .087 .381** .108 .383** .272** .246* .272**
Cong RTs .389** .003 .312** .130 .363** .351** .298** .221* .310**
Incong RTs .343** -.054 .270* .117 .320** .286** .198 .197 .309** .829**
Cong Acc -.170 .240* -.160 -.014 -.168 -.086 -.085 -.087 -.117 -.326** -.277**
Incong Acc -.105 .176 -.018 -.023 -.047 .026 .070 -.003 -.106 -.380** -.426** .653**
AJT CL .358** .054 .257* .044 .216* .177 .308** .406** .278** -.003 .010 -.141 -.047
AJT WO .346** .026 .365** -.128 .251* .141 .190 .289** .106 .202 .223* -.141 -.046 .180
Age .595** .023 .441** .114 .528** .351** .351** .427** .755** .549** .501** -.475** -.291 .363** .227**
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 5-12 Inter-correlation between task measures (significant correlations in shaded cells).
148
Note:
Prof = Proficiency score; D9 = Magnitude of Expectation violation in milliseconds (= late RTs – early RTs), segment 9; Clitics = Clitic test score; SLT = Statistical learning score; SILS = Vocabulary score; Acc O = Overall accuracy in comprehension questions in SPR; Acc Ex = Accuracy in comprehension questions in SPR on the experimental items only; SAbroad = Length of study abroad; Exp = Total exposure to Spanish; Cong RTs = Stroop task, RTs on Congruent items; Incong RTs = Stroop task, RTs on Incongruent items; Cong Acc = Stroop task, Accuracy scores on Congruent items (percentages); Incong RTs = Stroop task, Accuracy scores on Incongruent items (percentages); AJT CL = Acceptability Judgment Task difference scores (= grammatical – ungrammatical) in embedded clause items where the manipulation involved clitics; AJT WO = Acceptability Judgment Task difference scores (= grammatical – ungrammatical) in main clause items where the manipulation involved word order; Age = Age of participant.
Table 5-12 (continued) Inter-correlation between task measures (significant correlations in shaded cells).
149
In terms of the off-line measure of CLLD knowledge which was most
comparable to the self-paced reading task (AJT CL = Acceptability Judgment Task
difference scores (= grammatical – ungrammatical) in embedded clause items where the
manipulation involved clitics), we find that these scores were positively related to
Proficiency (r = .358, n = 90, p = .001), the scores of the clitic test (r = .257, n = 90, p =
.015), the measure of English vocabulary (r = .216, n = 90, p = .042), accuracy in the
self-paced reading compression questions in experimental items (r = .308, n = 90, p =
.003), length of study abroad (r = .406, n = 90, p < .0001) and overall exposure to
Spanish (r = .278, n = 90, p = .008). Importantly, the scores from the off-line CLLD task
were not related to the on-line CLLD task (r = .054, n = 90, p > 0.05).
Multiple regression analysis was used in order to assess the degree to which each
task measure predicted performance in the off-line CLLD task (both the portion
manipulating word order and the portion manipulating clitic presence/absence). The
predictors included were Proficiency, scores on the Clitic Test, SILS scores, length of
study abroad, total Exposure to Spanish, accuracy on the Stroop task (congruent and
incongruent trials), RTs on the congruent and incongruent trials of the Stroop task and
accuracy on the comprehension questions of the self-paced reading task. For the portion
manipulating clitic absence/presence (Embedded CLLD), the results of the regression
indicated that the predictors explained a significant portion of the variance (R2 = .299,
F(11,88) = 2.989, p = .002). These analyses showed that the reliable predictors of native-
like CLLD judgments were length of study abroad (β = .303, p = .010), total exposure to
Spanish (β = .242, p = .036), and accuracy on the self-paced reading comprehension
questions (β = .541, p = .007). The results of the multiple linear regression for the portion
of the AJT manipulating word order was not significant (R2 = .200, F(11,88) = 1.75,
p > 0.05).
150
In terms of the on-line measure (D9 in Table 5-13, or the magnitude of
expectation violation obtained by subtracting the RTs in the early condition from the RTs
in the late condition in segment 9), these scores were positively related to three other task
measures: Proficiency, (r = .321, n = 90, p = .002, moderate effect), the scores of the
Clitic Test (r = .239, n = 90, p < .0001, small effect) and study abroad (r = .225, n = 90,
p = .033, small effect). It is relevant to note that this on-line measure did not display a
positive association with overall exposure to Spanish (r = .087, n = 90, p > 0.05). Because
the number of months spent learning Spanish is logically confounded with the number of
months spent studying abroad, two partial-correlations were computed. These partial
correlations showed that there was a significant positive correlation between the
magnitude of the effect elicited by the violation of expectations and number of months of
study abroad, after statistically controlling for the total number of months spent learning
Spanish overall (r = .219, n = 87, p = .049). However, after controlling for the number of
months of studying abroad, there was no significant relationship between the number of
months spent learning Spanish and the magnitude of the expectation violation (r = .028,
n = 87, p = .796).
In order to assess the degree to which each task measure predicted performance in
the on-line CLLD task after statistically controlling for other measures in an alternative
way, regression coefficients were calculated for each measure (Proficiency, scores on the
Clitic Test, SILS scores, length of study abroad, total Exposure to Spanish, accuracy on
the Stroop task (congruent and incongruent trials), RTs on the congruent and incongruent
trials of the Stroop task, accuracy on the comprehension questions of the self-paced
reading task). The results of the regression indicated that the predictors explained a
significant portion of the variance (R2 = .226, F(11,88) = 2.040, p = .036). Analyses
showed that there were two reliable predictors of native-like RT patterns on segment 9:
L2 Proficiency (β = .386, p = .05) and accuracy on the Congruent trials of the Stroop task
151
(β = .308, p = .029). In summary, when controlling for the effects of all the other
measures, the only significant predictors of native-lie processing of CLLD was L2
proficiency level and accuracy on the Congruent trials on the Stroop task.
5.6 Summary
This chapter presented the results of the experimental tasks used in this study with
the intention to test the predictions of the Shallow Structure Hypothesis as well as to
investigate the relationship between proficiency and the ability to generate predictions.
These tasks included off-line and on-line tasks that measured both linguistic and non-
linguistic abilities. The two main tasks were the tasks focusing on CLLD: an offline
rating task and an online self-paced reading task. A portion of the off-line rating task
tested main clause CLLD while the other tested embedded CLLD. As mentioned in
section 5.3, overall, the results of the native speakers and the L2 advanced participants on
this task conformed to the expectations based on the linguistic literature. On the other
hand, the intermediate group had trouble making a distinction between the grammatical
and ungrammatical sentences in two of the five conditions.
The results of the on-line self-paced reading task were largely comparable to the
results of the off-line task. Namely, all participant groups displayed a significant
difference in reading times in segment 9 (in the late versus the early condition), following
the absence/presence of the clitic. There was a spill over effect on the following segment
for both the native speakers and the L2 advanced, but not the intermediate L2 group.
There was also an effect on the regions following the appearance of the second clitic.
Namely, both the native speaker group and the L2 advanced group some of the segments
in the early condition slower than in the late condition. While the advanced group
registered this effect earlier (segment 13, immediately following the clitic), the native
speaker group registered the effect on segments 14 and 15 (final segment). The
152
intermediate group showed only one effect, on segment 9. As I will argue in the next
chapter, I believe these results pose a problem for accounts such as the Shallow Structure
Hypothesis, which argues that the representations of the L2 learners will show processing
differences due to incomplete grammatical representations.
153
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Introduction to the Chapter
This chapter will present a summary of the main findings of the experimental
tasks included in the study and detail how these results address the research questions that
informed this empirical study. Additionally, this discussion will situate the results within
previous research studies, especially those on L2 processing. Although some of the
results replicated some aspects of previous investigations (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011;
Gómez, 2002; Pablos, 2006), the investigation of long-distance dependencies involving a
pronoun rather than a gap in L2 processing had not been previously carried out in L2
research. Although these novel findings are an important first step, more research in this
area is clearly needed in order to draw strong generalizations.
As noted earlier, the overarching goal of this dissertation was to examine the on-
line processing of long distance dependencies by L2 learners of Spanish with special
regard to the predictions of the Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Thus, in this chapter I will
address the degree to which the SSH can account (or not) for the experimental findings.
In order to draw connections between judgments and processing of long-distance
dependencies by L2 learners, I will compare the on-line and off-line results of the tests
measuring CLLD knowledge and processing.
Additionally, I will discuss the results of the tasks measuring linguistic and non-
linguistic individual abilities and detail the extent to which these tasks can account for the
variability found in the CLLD tasks. After presenting the main findings and how these
address the three main research questions, this chapter will include a discussion of the
shortcomings and limitations of the study. Finally, I will offer some possible avenues for
future research studies and offer a brief summative conclusion.
154
6.2 Summary of Main Findings
In this section, I will present the summary of the main findings as these relate to
the research questions put forth in Chapter 4, which are reproduced below.
6.2.1 Research Question 1
1. Do L2 learners of Spanish, native speakers of English, show evidence of off-line
knowledge of the syntactic and pragmatic constraints of CLLD in Spanish? If they
do, how does L2 proficiency modulate the L2 learners’ off-line judgments?
In view of the results of the untimed, audio-visual acceptability judgment task
focusing on CLLD, this research question can be answered, overall, in the affirmative: a
segment of the L2 learner group judged the grammaticality of embedded and main clause
CLLD in a native-like manner. Overall, the performance of the native Spanish speakers
also confirmed the expectations set by the linguistic literature. Importantly, the
performance of the L2 learners showed evidence of being modulated by proficiency
level: The more proficient the learners, the better they were at judging the sentences.
Recall that there were two main types of items in the rating task: Main clause CLLD,
where the dimension that was manipulated in the stimuli was word order and Embedded
CLLD, which manipulated clitic absence/presence.
With regard to Main clause CLLD items, there were two conditions that paired
CLLD with other left-periphery operations: Fronted Focus and wh-movement. In these
conditions, the crucial difference between the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences
involved word order. When CLLD is combined with other structures in the left periphery,
CLLD must precede any other structures. Thus, the order Topic > {FF, wh} was expected
to be grammatical according to the literature while the alternative order *{FF, wh} >
Topic was expected to be ungrammatical. Not surprisingly, the native speaker judgments
revealed just such a difference (see Figure 5.1). Additionally, the L2 advanced and
155
intermediate groups also showed a clear distinction between the ungrammatical and
grammatical sentences. These overall results are not completely surprising, given that the
even the intermediate group had been exposed to an average of 7.5 years of Spanish
instruction and practice. Nevertheless, this is not an easy feat, especially because this
knowledge is not likely to be something learned explicitly, as CLLD is not typically
covered in classroom instruction. Furthermore, although these sentences are
ungrammatical, the different orders would not necessarily impede the comprehensibility
of the sentences.
In terms of comparing conditions A and B (Main Clause CLLD), one result
clearly stands out. Namely, although the native speakers reliably distinguished between
the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences, they rated the grammatical sentences in
the CLLD + Fronted Focus reliably lower than those in the grammatical sentences in the
CLLD + wh-questions condition. One possibility is that this is a dialectal preference—the
native speaker group was tested in the same region in central Mexico. López (2009), for
example, has noted that Fronted Focus is less acceptable in Mexican Spanish. However,
prior investigation using this structure (e.g. Leal Méndez et al., 2014) testing a group of
native Mexican Spanish speakers did not reveal such a marked difference.
Another possibility is that the sentences were rated lower because they are more
infrequent. Although to my knowledge there are no corpora studies investigating the
frequency of Fronted Focus, there is no doubt that this structure is much less frequent
than wh-questions, regardless of the dialect. Furthermore, the frequency of Fronted Focus
in combination with CLLD should be even lower. In my own judgments, however, the
ungrammatical sentences involving CLLD + wh-questions are indeed much worse than
those involving CLLD + Fronted Focus. Thus, although it would appear, in the surface,
that the L2 speakers are outperforming the natives, it might be the case that the natives
156
are sensitive to these subtle frequency differences. Clearly, more research in this area is
needed.
If we assume López’s, analysis, however, there might be a more straightforward
explanation for these results. Recall that in López’s analysis, both CLLD dislocated
elements and Fronted Focus dislocates move to in Spec,Fin (multiple specifiers). The
order CLLD > Fronted Focus is thus driven by the requirement that the CLLD dislocated
element, which is marked [+a] by the pragmatics, must find its (discourse antecedent).
The dislocated element in Fronted Focus, which is marked [-a] by the pragmatics, does
not have such a requirement. Note that these requirements are brought into effect by
discourse constraints, rather than by syntactic ones. On the other hand, the CLLD > wh-
element order derives, in principle, from two constraints. The first, as in the case of
Fronted Focus, from the (discourse) requirement that the CLLD dislocated element be
closer to its antecedent. The second is syntactic in nature because wh-movement is also
driven by an uninterpretable feature that motivates the movement of the wh-constituent to
Spec,Fin. This uninterpretable feature, being a “narrow” syntactic feature, operates
independently of the surrounding discourse context. Thus, again, if we follow López’s
analysis, the difference between these requirements (discourse requirements vs. discourse
+ syntax requirements) appears explain the native speaker judgments (i.e. judging the
ungrammatical order *Fronted Focus > CLLD higher than the ungrammatical order *wh-
element > CLLD). Under Rizzi’s approach, however, there is no straightforward
explanation, as there is no a priori reason to assume differences between movement to the
speficier of TopP vs. movement to Spec,whP.
The portion of the rating task investigating Embedded CLLD included three
different conditions: conditions C (Subjunctive complements), D (Temporal adverbial
clauses) and E (Sentential Subjects). These conditions were chosen for two reasons. First,
several research investigations had previously uncovered that L2 learners were successful
157
at rating the acceptability of main clause CLLD when the relevant dimension on which
the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences differed was the absence/presence of a
doubling clitic (e.g. Slabakova et al., 2010, 2011, 2012).47 Second, the on-line task used
in this study (i.e. self-paced reading) involved embedded clauses, so including embedded
CLLD items were deemed to be most suitable in terms of comparing the on-line and off-
line tasks. With regard to the portion of the rating task focusing on Embedded CLLD,
both the native speakers and the L2 advanced learners made a significant distinction
between how they judged the grammatical versus the ungrammatical sentences in all
conditions. The intermediate L2 learners, however, only made a distinction between the
two in one condition: CLLD in Sentential Subjects.
Interestingly, however, it is precisely in the Sentential Subjects condition that the
judgments of native Speakers show an interesting effect. Haegemann (2006) noted that
her Spanish-speaking informants had rated these sentences lower. However, in this
investigation what we see is that native speakers did not rate the grammatical sentences
lower; instead, they rated the ungrammatical sentences higher (rejected them less
reliably) than in the other two conditions. Although the L2 advanced and intermediate
speakers reliably distinguished between the grammatical and ungrammatical sentence, we
do not see such an effect in their responses.
In sum, in regards to the embedded CLLD, CLLD in Sentential Subjects were
judged in a more native-like fashion earlier (at the intermediate level), whereas CLLD in
Temporal Adverbials and Subjunctive Complements is not mastered until the advanced
level. Although it might be tempting to appeal to a notion like syntactic complexity, it is
unclear how that would work in these particular conditions. Recall that this manipulation
47 Additionally, these investigations explored two different semantic relationships between the dislocated element and its antecedent (identity, set-subset). The stimuli for the rating task in the present study only included identity relationships.
158
only varied in one dimension: the absence or presence of the clitic. Additionally, for
independent reasons, all the sentences in the Sentential Subjects condition involved the
subjunctive, so it cannot be the case that the presence of the subjunctive alone (i.e. in the
Subjunctive Complements condition) could account for the difference. An alternative
explanation might again involve frequency. Although I have no personal intuitions about
the relative frequency of occurrence of these three sentence-types, it is not impossible to
imagine that there might be a difference among then.
Nevertheless, the most important result from the portion of the rating task
focusing on Embedded CLLD is that, overall, L2 learners can eventually reach native-
like performance. In terms the relationship between Proficiency and off-line CLLD
knowledge, we can see that as learners attain higher proficiency levels, their off-line
judgments of CLLD become increasingly more native-like. Additionally, there seems to
be an effect of the type of CLLD in the sequence of acquisition, with some properties
being acquired earlier than others.
6.2.2 Research Question 2
2. Are long-distance dependencies such as Spanish CLLD especially difficult for L2
learners to process in real time, as predicted by the Shallow Structure Hypothesis?
As mentioned in Chapter 2, the SSH (Clahsen & Felser, 2006a,b) makes clear and
testable predictions with regard to the processing of long-distance dependencies by
learners of a second language. Specifically, the SSH proposes that when processing a
sentence in their L2, learners can make use only of semantic and contextual information
(e.g. thematic information, argument structure, word order, world-knowledge), to the
exclusion of hierarchical syntactic information which is crucial to process long-distance
syntactic dependencies. This is proposed to be the case regardless of L1 background (i.e.
L1 English vs. L1 Japanese) or L2 proficiency level. Thus, the SSH would not expect an
159
improvement in performance that is specifically yoked to proficiency. The SSH has
received support from a variety of empirical investigations focusing on the L2 acquisition
and processing of wh-dependencies, relative clause attachment preferences, and verb
subcategorization (e.g. Clahsen, Felser, Neubauser, Sato, & Silva, 2010; Felser, Roberts,
Gross & Marinis, 2003; Marinis et al., 2005; Papadopoulou & Clahsen, 2003). However,
there is also a body of evidence that shows evidence against the predictions of the SSH
(e.g. Hopp, 2006, 2013; Tanner, 2011).
In terms of the present empirical investigation, the SSH predicts that the L2
learners in this study should not be able to predict a syntactic element (in this case, an
agreeing clitic) based on structural cues. Recall that the self-paced reading task
manipulated syntactic expectations—in one condition, the long-distance dependency was
completed at the first possible opportunity (early condition). On the other hand, the late
condition delayed this resolution, thereby investigating the effects of predictions when
these were not met (compared to when they were met). The absence of a clitic in the
sentences in the late condition is unexpected but it does not alter meaning—the clitic is a
purely syntactic reflex in Spanish. In the paragraphs that follow, I will address the results
in the main region of interest (segment 9, main verb). I will then address the effects in the
latter part of the sentence.
With regard to the main region of interest (segment 9), the results of the native
speakers essentially replicate the effects elicited in a prior investigation of long-distance
dependency processing in L1 Spanish speakers (Pablos, 2006). Namely, there was a main
effect of clitic presence at the main verb, where verbs in the late condition were read
substantially slower than those in the early condition. As indicated in Chapter 4, the only
difference between the two conditions was the presence of a (dative) clitic before the
main verb in the early but, crucially, not the late condition.
160
With respect of the explanatory adequacy of the SSH, even the results from the
L2 intermediate group appear problematic for the hypothesis because the data shows that
these learners, like the native Spanish speakers, read segment 9 (main verb) differentially,
when comparing RTs in the late and early conditions. In other words, these learners
showed sensitivity to the violation of expectations. As was the case with the native
speakers in the present study (and those in Pablos’s study), the intermediate L2
participants took longer to read the main verb in the late condition—the condition where
the expectation for a clitic was violated (clitic was absent). Interestingly, this same group
showed that, even if their off-line judgment of embedded CLLD was somewhat
inconsistent in some of the embedded CLLD conditions, the on-line processing of CLLD
embedded sentences showed sensitivity to the violation of expectations. However, it must
also be noted that the conditions in the off-line CLLD task different structures, which
may make the comparison of these two tasks far from straightforward.
The data from the advanced L2 learner group are also problematic for any
approaches to SLA, such as the SSH, which posit unassailable processing difficulties for
L2 learners. Again, with regard to the current study, the SSH predicts that learners will
not have access to detailed syntactic information when processing long-distance
dependencies in their L2—even if they show evidence of knowledge of syntactic
dependencies off-line. Unlike the L2 intermediate group, the advanced L2 group
performed within native-speaker expectations on the off-line task in every condition.
Under the SSH, even though L2 advanced learners showed evidence of off-line
knowledge, these learners were not expected to show evidence of native-like language
processing. However, our results showed evidence of native-like processing of CLLD by
advanced learners in segment 9.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, it seems clear that with increasing
proficiency, the learners show an increased sensitivity to the violation of expectations.
161
Once more, as figure 5.8 shows, the increase in the magnitude in the difference scores
was in part driven by faster reading times of the main verb when a clitic was present
(early condition = expectation met). Thus, the increased magnitude of the difference
score (late condition - early condition) indicates that learners are indeed more bothered
when their expectations are violated but it also shows that they have been successful at
learning the long-distance dependency, processing the main verb faster with increasing
proficiency.
In addition to the main effect found at segment 9 (main verb), there was a second
effect elicited by the violation of expectations at the second (embedded) verb, after the
(accusative) clitic. This effect is slightly different than that found in Pablos’s (2006) prior
investigation in terms of the timing of the effect. In Pablos’s study, the effect was visible
at the accusative clitic preceding the embedded verb whereas in the present investigation
the effect was delayed. This difference is very probably due to the fact that the present
study used a slightly modified version of Pablos’s stimuli. Specifically, the stimuli used
in this dissertation simplified the sentences by removing a third, neutral clitic that
appeared in between the main and embedded verbs. A sample stimuli from Pablos’
dissertation is presented in example (6-1) below.
(6-1) Early/Late Completion conditions in Pablo’s stimuli (Late condition omitted the material in parenthesis) A estas chicas, mi hermana mayor más tarde (les) dijo To these girls my sister older more late CL-DAT.3.PL told.3rd.PAST que ya lo cree que las conoce that indeed CL.NEUT.SG think.2nd that CL.ACC.3F.PL knows.2nd desde hace tiempo. since long time “My old sister later told these girls that she indeed thinks she has known them for a long time.”
162
In light of the fact that these sentences were already long and complex, especially
as far as the L2 learners were concened, the present study used a slightly modified
version. This approach was chosen because the sentences would be too complex for the
lower end of the proficiency scaled (three instead of two levels of embedding and three
clitics—accusative, dative, neutral—in the early condition).48 The second, perhaps most
important reason is that Pablos’s original results did not register an effect at that region
for the native speakers in her study. Therefore this middle region including an additional
level of embedding (“ya lo cree que”) was exchanged for a second adverb such as
probablemente (“probably”). Therefore, it is possible that the differences between the
present investigation and Pablos’s study are due to this additional level of embedding
and/or clitic.
In terms of the results of the present investigation, interestingly this second effect
surfaced earlier in the sentence in the data of the L2 advanced group than it did in the
data of the native Spanish speaker group. Whereas the advanced L2 group read the
embedded verb more slowly (segment 13, embedded verb), the native speakers of
Spanish did not show this effect until the word after (segment 14). However, although
this effect appeared earlier in the L2 advanced group (segment 13), the effect was also
more transitory. The native speaker group displayed that effect at segment 14
(preposition), which then spilled over in the final segment (segment 15). The intermediate
L2 group did not read any of the later segments significantly differently at any region
except segment 9. Although the timing of this effect might be somewhat surprising, it is
worthy to note that the advanced L2 group, overall, displayed significantly faster reading
times overall.
48 Additionally, some lexical items were modified to others that were deemed more standard. Recall that the native speakers in Pablos’s study were tested in Spain while the native speakers in this dissertation were tested in Mexico.
163
Nevertheless, the most important feature of this effect is that the direction of the
effect was the same. Namely, the regions in the early condition were read more slowly
than their analogues in the late condition both by the native speaker group in Pablos’s
investigation and the native speaker and L2 advanced groups in the present study. Pablos
interpreted this effect as being “facilitative”. She argued that, given that the sentences in
the late condition the long-distance dependency completion was delayed, participants
read the clitic faster because it was highly predictable. Indeed, this effect seems to point
again at predictive processing—these effects are only possible if participants have an
expectation upon encountering the topicalized element.
In the results of the present investigation, however, neither the native speakers nor
the L2 group showed an effect at the accusative clitic (segment 12). Thus, it might be
somewhat unlikely to hypothesize, based on this data set, that the high predictability of
the clitic would elicit a facilitative effect either one or two words after the clitic (for the
L2 advanced and native speaker groups, respectively). While this explanation might be
possible, especially given the fact that the stimuli were slightly different, I believe that
there might be another way to account for this effect, at least in this data set. In fact, this
alternative explanation might be additive, meaning that it might operate in parallel to
Pablos’s interpretation.
To wit, the generation of predictions might have consequences not only for those
elements for which predictions are generated but also for those elements that occur when
they are not predicted (unexpected elements). In the case of the specific manipulation, it
is reasonable to assume, as Pablos did, that participants would have a high expectation for
the clitic in the late condition, given that the long-distance dependency was not
completed at the first, predicted, opportunity. Therefore, the shorter reading times could
be interpreted as indicating facilitative effects. However, it is also possible that in the
early condition, participants were surprised to encounter a second clitic that agreed with
164
the same topicalized phrase. In this condition, the syntactic dependency was already
completed, so there would be no expectation for a second clitic—even if such a clitic
would be, in theory, grammatical.
Indeed, if we consider this explanation seriously, we would not necessarily expect
this effect at the (accusative) clitic. In Spanish, third person plural accusative clitics are
homonymous with definite articles (los, las). This is relevant because the stimuli in
segment 12 only included clitics which bore the phi features accusative 3rd person,
feminine, plural (las).49 Therefore, given that an accusative clitic would not be expected
in the early condition (i.e. the dependency had already been completed) the point of
disambiguation would not take place until the word following the clitic: the embedded
verb. Indeed, the results of this investigation show that this effect appears not at the clitic
but after encountering the clitic.
In any case, regardless of the interpretation, the data again pose a challenge to the
SSH. Namely, there was no evidence of a lack of sensitivity in the L2 advanced to the
syntactic long-distance dependencies investigated in this study. In fact, the participants in
this group reacted slightly sooner than the participants in the native speaker group. The
data of the intermediate L2 group, however, could very well be accounted by the SSH. As
mentioned earlier, however, the SSH explicitly rejects that these effects would be brought
about by differences in proficiency level. In that regard, the results of this dissertation
lend additional support to the notion that L2 proficiency is perhaps the key factor that
modulates L2 processing. In fact, there exist an increasing number of research studies
that lend support to this idea (Hopp, 2006, 2013; cite, cite).
49 Accordingly, all the dislocated noun phrases also involved the phi features plural, feminine.
165
6.2.3 Research Question 3
3. Can individual differences in measures of linguistic (e.g. L1 vocabulary) and non-
linguistic (e.g. inhibitory control and statistical learning ability) predict variability
in the acquisition and processing of long-distance dependencies such as CLLD in
L2 Spanish?
The study of individual differences in L2 acquisition has a long tradition and has
focused the investigation of numerous factors on various aspects of L2 acquisition
outcomes, including those related to L2 processing. In this regard, there have been studies
investigating the effects of individual differences in working memory (e.g. Baralt, 2010;
Harrington & Sawyer, 1992; Juffs, 2005; Juffs & Harrington, 2011; Mackey, Philip, Egi,
Fuji, & Tatsumi, 2002; Miyake & Friedman, 1998), language aptitude (e.g. Carroll, 1989;
Robinson, 2001; Skehan, 1991), anxiety levels (e.g. Baralt & Gurzynzki-Weiss, 2011;
Kim & Tracy-Ventura, 2011; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989; Scovel, 1978), and motivation
(e.g. Dörnyei, 2001; Gardner, 2001; MacIntyre, 2002; Williams, Burden, & Lanvers,
2002). This is by no means an exclusive list.
Recently, increased theoretical and empirical attention has been devoted to the
construct of inhibitory control (Green, 1998) and its effects on second language
acquisition and on bilinguals in general (e.g. Bialystok, Craik, Klein, & Viswanathan,
2004; Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011; Kroll, Misra, & Guo, 2008; Levy, McVeigh, Marful,
& Anderson, 2007; Rodriguez-Fornells, Balaguer, & Münte, 2006; Sorace, 2011).50
Green (1998) proposed that the system responsible for inhibitory control must be able to
monitor the task goals as well as manage the attention system so that the system can
ultimately interact with linguistic systems.
50 Although some authors (e.g. Green 1998) draw a distinction between the terms such as “mental control,” “executive control,” “cognitive control” on one hand and “inhibitory control” on the other, where the latter is either a subcomponent or a level of control, I use the terms interchangeably here.
166
As mentioned earlier, Marian and colleagues (e.g. Blumenfeld & Marian, 2007;
Marian, Spivey, & Hirsch, 2003; Spivey & Marian, 1999) have presented evidence that
bilinguals show evidence of activating both their L1 and L2 during processing (parallel
activation). It has been proposed that this dual language activation in bilinguals causes
languages to compete and that that increased practice at managing this competition in
bilinguals can boost inhibitory control. Nevertheless, Schwartz and Kroll (2006) note
that, although it is perhaps counterintuitive, numerous research studies have shown
evidence that parallel activation does not appear to be specifically related to L2
proficiency levels, as even highly proficient bilinguals show significant levels of dual
activation.
Although proficiency level does not appear to modulate the degree of the
cognitive advantages that result from the competition that arises from parallel activation,
the effects have been replicated in several studies. In fact, many researchers working on
this cognitive construct have proposed that bilinguals’ increased need to handle two (or
more) different languages gives rise to lasting cognitive benefits which extend well
beyond the linguistic realm—the so-called “bilingual executive processing advantage”
(see Hilchey & Klein, 2011 for discussion).
In order to investigate the possible effects of inhibitory control task (as measured
by a non-linguistic arrow Stroop) on L2 acquisition and processing, Chapter 5 included
correlation analyses to examine the relationship between performance on this task and the
other measures of linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge. Stroop trials in both trial types
(congruent, incongruent) were compared both in terms of percentage of trial accuracy
(correct, incorrect) and reaction times in milliseconds. Recall that in the congruent trials,
the two dimensions that were manipulated to create a match (e.g. arrow location: right;
arrow direction: right-ward facing arrow). In the incongruent trials, however, the
167
manipulation created a mismatch (e.g. arrow location: right; arrow direction: left-ward
facing arrow).
In terms of accuracy, correlational analyses showed that the accuracy rates on the
Congruent trials displayed a positive relationship with the magnitude of expectation
violation on segment 9 (main verb) in the self-paced reading task. In these analyses, only
the data from the L2 learners were included. Thus, these findings indicate that higher
accuracy rates on the Congruent trials were associated with more native-like processing
in the self-paced reading task. In light of the previous discussion, it would be tempting to
interpret this as a ramification of the so-called bilingual advantage. As noted in the
previous chapter, overall, both of the L2 groups were faster and more accurate than the
monolingual native speakers. The regression analyses, however, showed that accuracy
rates on Congruent trials were only marginally significant.
The interpretation of this result in terms of a bilingual advantage cannot be
straightforwardly interpreted because the accuracy rates on the Incongruent trials did not
correlate significantly with native-like processing in the self-paced reading task. Recall
that these trials were designed to present a mismatch between arrow location and arrow
direction. Thus, one would naturally expect that the effect would be more prominent here.
Nonetheless, this effect was not present in the Incongruent trials.
As far as Stroop reaction times are concerned, the data showed a slightly different
pattern. Overall, in terms of RTs, the results of the Stroop task indicated that both of the
L2 groups were faster than the monolingual native Spanish speakers. These findings
appear to support the idea that bilinguals have a relative advantage in terms of inhibitory
control as measured by reaction times. The relationship between L2 proficiency,
however, is not as straightforward. This is complicated by the possibility that within the
L2 group, age effects might conceal the possible effects of proficiency level. To wit, the
age of L2 participants was correlated with higher reading times in both the Congruent and
168
Incongruent trials, so that older L2 participants were slower to respond in both trial types.
As mentioned earlier, Schwartz and Kroll (2006) note that dual activation does not seem
to be associated with proficiency. In this regard, the RT results of the Stroop task would
seem to suggest that the benefits of bilingualism might emerge even at intermediate
levels of proficiency. This suggestion, however, must be interpreted with caution because
of the possible effects of Age of the L2 participants in these responses. With regard to the
processing of CLLD, however, results did not show a relationship between faster RTs in
the Stroop task and native-like processing of CLLD.
As discussed at the outset of this dissertation, the purpose of including measures
of individual ability was an attempt to determine whether these differences could account
for the variability found in L2 outcomes with specific regard to the acquisition and
processing of long-distance dependencies in L2 Spanish. Given that statistical learning
has been shown to be a powerful learning mechanism both in infants and adults, this
study also included a task that measured the abilities of finding structural regularities in
an artificial language. In view of the statistical learning findings, it stands to reason that
individual variability in statistical learning abilities could have an impact on L2
acquisition and processing outcomes. The statistical learning task used in this study
(Gómez, 2002) was chosen because it contains a long-distance dependency that has been
proved to be learnable through exposure alone.
Overall, however, the data from this study did not provide any evidence that
statistical learning, as gauged by the specific learning task, was associated with L2
processing outcomes. Based on these results, then, we cannot support the hypothesis that
better pattern-learners (in an artificial long-distance dependency) were better at learning
and processing a natural long-distance dependency in their L2. Nevertheless, it is
possibly the case that the lack of association between statistical learning and L2
169
processing outcomes (as measured by the self-paced reading task) is related to the choice
of task used to measure statistical learning.
A disadvantage of using Gómez’s (2002) task is that the range of responses (0 to
12) is rather small, which limits the amount of variation that can be found between the
scores. Goodwin and Leech (2006) discuss several factors that affect the size of a Pearson
correlation, some of which might be at least partially at play in this particular case. One
of the factors that influences the Pearson correlation is the amount of variability among
the observations. This factor is commonly referred to as “restricted” or “truncated” range.
It is likely the case that the specific task does not discriminate statistical learning too
precisely, resulting in the scores clustering around either chance level (~6 points) or
ceiling (12 points).
Another factor that has an influence on the size of a correlation involves the
(dis)similarity between shapes of the distributions of the variables involved. In this
particular case, the distribution of the difference RT scores (late – early RTs) at segment
9 was substantially different from the distribution of statistical learning scores. RT
difference scores had a substantial range (653 ms), with scores ranging from -208.83 ms
to 444.61 ms (M = 73.51, SD = 111.52). RT difference scores were roughly normally
distributed, with skewness of .397 (SE = .254) and kurtosis of 1.176 (SE = .503). On the
other hand, the distribution of statistical learning scores had a range of 8 points, with
scores ranging from 4 to 12 (M = 8.75, SD = 2.74). Statistical learning scores were non-
normally distributed (roughly bi-modal), with skewness of -.085 (SE = .254) and kurtosis
of -1.611 (SE .503). Thus, the fact that the two distributions were quite different could
have affected the presence of a correlation.
A further potential factor is the presence of outliers. In regards to the RT
difference scores, there are several data points that clearly fall outside of the range of
observations. On the other hand, the SLT scores, with a smaller measurement range,
170
displayed virtually no outliers. Nevertheless, upon visual inspection, the number of
outliers in the RT difference scores was rather small, so this factor might not weigh in as
heavily as the others. Furthermore, it should be noted this explanation does not address
why there was no single correlation between the scores of the statistical learning task and
all the other variables. Lastly, there is some evidence (e.g. Conway & Christiansen, 2005)
that shows that statistical learning ability might be constrained by modality (e.g. visual,
auditory, tactile). Thus, it might be the case that the outcomes of Gómez’s task (which
exposed participants to auditory stimuli) might be modulated by some sort of perceptual
auditory bottleneck that does not translate well to our other tasks.
Thus, as far as statistical learning abilities are concerned, the results of this
investigation are to some extent inconclusive. Although the correlation analyses did not
detect evidence of a relationship between statistical learning scores and L2 processing (as
measured by the magnitude of expectation violation measured in milliseconds), there is
reason to believe that the choice of statistical learning task (Gómez, 2002) might have
had at least some impact in the absence of relationship between statistical learning
abilities on one hand and the measures of acquisition and processing of CLLD on the
other. In any case, it is quite clear that what is now needed is further research that
explores the impact of statistical learning abilities using tasks that are better
discriminators of individual ability.
One such measure, which appears to be very promising in this respect, is a task
used in a study by Karuza, Farmer, Fine, Smith, and Jaeger (submitted). The statistical
learning task used in this study, which is an adaptation of Gómez’s (2002) task, focuses
on a long-distance dependency by using a self-paced moving window methodology.
Participants are exposed to regularities that can be learned and, consequently, predict,
over the course of the experiment. Karuza and colleagues found that those participants
who made predictions that were subsequently met attained higher scores in the post-test.
171
There are several advantages to this task, especially in the context of comparing this
measure to the results obtained using the methodologies employed in this dissertation. A
first important advantage of this task is that the task employs visual shapes rather than
auditory stimuli of words in the artificial language.51 Presently, there is some evidence
that statistical learning ability measures might be constrained by modality. Thus,
presenting a visual (rather than an auditory task) would be preferable for the purposes of
comparison. Additionally, the self-paced presentation, where participants regulated the
speed in which they were exposed to the stimuli, is also more suitable because the
obtained measure is not only accuracy but also processing time (in milliseconds), which
might alleviate previously problems related to issues such as truncated range and the
presence of outliers.
If after using this more sensitive task, further research does not uncover a
relationship between statistical learning and L2 processing, it might indeed be the case
that statistical learning is not a good predictor of on-line language comprehension. To
date, there is no study substantiating this link (see Misyak & Christiansen, 2012 for a link
between statistical learning abilities and off-line language comprehension). There is,
however, some evidence that statistical learning has an impact on L2 literacy skills (Frost
et al., 2013).
In the previous discussion, the measures of individual ability that were discussed
involve differences in general cognitive abilities that can be regarded as non-linguistic.
The following discussion addresses the potential relationships between measures of
linguistic ability on the acquisition and processing of CLLD in L2 Spanish. For this
purpose, we will focus on two different variables: a measure of L1 linguistic ability (the
51 The shapes are glyphs from the Ge’ez writing system, which is employed in countries like Ethiopia and Eritrea, and were chosen because most native English speakers would be unfamiliar with said (non-Roman) script.
172
English vocabulary portion of the SILS test) and a measure of L2 knowledge of the
syntactic restrictions of clitics (Clitic Test). In the case of the L1 vocabulary measure,
correlation analyses found no relationship between SILS scores and L2 processing as
measured by the difference RT scores on segment 9. On the other hand, the results of the
Pearson correlation revealed that Vocabulary scores were positively associated with the
scores of the CLLD Acceptability Judgment task, both with the portion that manipulated
word order (Main Clause CLLD) and the portion manipulating the absence/presence of
the clitic (Embedded CLLD). However, the results of the regression analysis showed that
Vocabulary scores were not reliable as predictors of L2 acquisition and processing of
CLLD in L2 Spanish.
In terms of the test of (L2 syntactic) clitic knowledge, correlation analyses
revealed a small relationship between clitic test scores and L2 processing as measured by
RT difference scores on segment 9. However, after assessing the degree that these scores
could predict native-like L2 processing performance using a regression coefficient, clitic
test scores were not found to be significant predictors of L2 processing. Similarly,
although correlation analyses revealed a positive association between the scores on the
clitic test and rating task responses (both the portion manipulating word order and the
portion manipulating clitic presence/absence), regression analyses revealed that clitic
scores were not significant predictors for either measure of off-line CLLD knowledge
(rating task manipulating either word order or clitic absence/presence). Thus, although
knowledge of the syntactic properties of clitics is a first step in learning about the long-
distance dependency, our Clitic test measure was not a good predictor of native-like
processing of CLLD. In sum, neither of these linguistic measures (L1 Vocabulary and L2
test of syntactic clitic knowledge) appears to modulate the acquisition and processing of
long-distance dependencies in L2 Spanish. The only significant and reliable predictor of
native-like processing of CLLD appears to be proficiency level.
173
6.3 Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future
Research
The present study has several limitations that have potential repercussions in
terms of the generalizability of the results. One important limitation involves the choice
of measure in the statistical learning task. As discussed in the previous section, there are
several reasons why the statistical learning task might not have been the best
discriminator of individual learning abilities in the context of this particular study. Thus,
these data from the present study must be interpreted with caution—especially as it
pertains the potential contribution of statistical learning in L2 acquisition and processing
outcomes. Future research should explore this question using more sensitive and
appropriate tasks (e.g. Karuza et al., submitted).
Another limitation involves the choice of L2 processing task. Although the use of
self-paced reading might be perfectly suitable for testing the predictions of the SSH, this
particular methodology might be perceived by some as less suitable to test L2 prediction.
What we know about prediction in the L1 literature is largely based upon empirical
studies that use methodologies such as mouse and eye tracking, ERP, and fMRI. These
methodologies allow for the exploration of effects before the resolution of an ambiguity.
Although it is hard to envision for the processing findings in this study to be explained by
a mechanism other than prediction, future studies focusing on long-distance dependencies
should one or more of these, more sensitive, methodologies in order to more safely
extrapolate the results to a larger population.
In terms of sampling, another limitation of the study concerns the demographics
of the groups involved, in particular the age of the participant groups. Although this
limitation might not affect many of the tasks, there is evidence that the Stroop task results
might have been affected by it. Although the results are in general agreement with
previous literature, the inclusion of age-control participants might alter the replicability of
174
the present results. In view of the fact that one of the motivations for including a
monolingual group was to avoid the potential effects of L1 attrition, this study included
only those native Speakers of Spanish who were not functionally bilingual. Given that
English education is compulsory in Mexico and that this requirement has been enforced
more systematically in recent times, most of the monolingual speakers recruited in the
study were, on average, about a decade older than the participants in the L2 advanced
group. Similarly, given that the participants in the L2 advanced group were mostly
graduate students or high school and college professors, these participants were also, on
average, about a decade older than the L2 intermediate students. Therefore, future studies
would also benefit from including age-controlled participant groups.
In order to better specify the developmental time course of L1 acquisition/
processing, one possible avenue for future research could involve a training study aimed
at determining the degree to which implicitly exposing L2 learners to an increased
number of CLLD sentences can facilitate learning of the dependency (when compared to
a baseline L2 group). Based on the results of this dissertation, the prediction would be
that increased and systematic exposure for the Experimental group to CLLD should
facilitate learning of the long-distance dependency inherent to the CLLD manipulation,
and thus, an increase in the ability of L2 learners to predict the presence of a clitic when
topicalization occurs.
Another possible improvement to the design of the self-paced reading task itself
would be to include tokens that included both CLLD stimuli and HTLD stimuli (for
instance, introduced by a phrase such as En cuanto a X… “As for X…”). The experiment
in its present form does not allow for the researcher to know whether any given
participant responded in a particular way because of him/her failing to notice the a-
marking and thus processing a particular sentence as a HTLD rather than CLLD. The
inclusion of HTLD stimuli would allow the researcher to investigate whether participants
175
actually comprehended the sentence as CLLD rather than a hanging topic. A further
improvement would be to include comprehension questions that actually focused on the
manipulation itself. Pablos’s (2006) materials included questions that focused either on
the context (half the time) or the target sentence but did not focus on the actual
manipulation (the slight difference in interpretation between the sentences with the clitic
and the sentences without the clitic). Such a design could have the advantage or
providing a more meaningful measure of comprehension of CLLD.
6.4. Conclusions
This dissertation investigated the acquisition and processing of CLLD in L2
Spanish with special regard to the generation of predictions involving long-distance
dependences, which are hypothesized under the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH;
Clahsen & Felser, 2006a, b) to pose extreme difficulties for L2 learners. Additionally,
this study also examined the relationship between off-line knowledge and on-line
processing of CLLD, focusing on the possible impact of individual differences in
variables such as inhibitory control and statistical learning abilities on L2 outcomes. It
was expected that these variables would predict some of the variability in the L2 off-line
and on-line data. Overall, the results did not support the predictions of the SSH. The
evidence suggests, instead, that the processing of long distance dependencies is subject to
developmental improvements related to proficiency level. Although native-like
processing of CLLD appears to be a gradual and slow process, the most advanced
learners showed that their off-line knowledge of CLLD as well as their CLLD processing
signatures were indistinguishable from native speakers’.
The results of this study, which are in agreement with previous findings,
underscore the need to focus on aspects beyond the native-like or non-native-like
dichotomy. In this regard, further studies would benefit from increased focus on the
176
developmental time course of processing and the generation of predictions in a second
language. In terms of individual differences, neither non-linguistic (statistical learning
scores and reaction times in the Stroop task) nor linguistic (SILS Vocabulary and scores
on the Clitic Test) appeared to be reliable predictors of L2 processing. In this regard, the
findings of this study show evidence that the only reliable predictor of native-like
processing of long-distance dependencies involves proficiency in the L2.
177
REFERENCES
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(3), 242-275.
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435-483.
Anagnostopoulou, E. (1997). Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In E. Anagnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk, & F. Zwarts, (Eds.), Materials on left dislocation, (151-192) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
AlFallay, I. (2004). The role of some selected psychological and personality traits of the rater in the accuracy of self-and peer-assessment. System, 32(3), 407-425.
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264.
Altmann, G., & Mirković, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 583-609.
Aoun, J., & Benmamoun. E. (1998). Minimality, reconstruction, and PF-movement. Linguistic Inguirv 29, 569-597.
Arai, M., & Keller, F. (2013). The use of verb-specific information for prediction in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(4), 525-560.
Arregi, K. (2003). Clitic left dislocation is contrastive topicalization. In E. Kaiser & S. Arunachalam (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 9(1), 31-44.
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological science, 9(4), 321-324.
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished Dissertation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University.
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (2000). Introduction. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer, (Eds,) Usage-based models of language. Standford: Center for the Study of Language
178
and Information.
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 201-229.
Barbosa, P. (2001). On inversion in wh-questions in Romance. Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of universal grammar, 20-59.
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language learning, 59(1), 1-26.
Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25(4), 657-689.
Benati, A. (Ed.). (2011). Issues in second language proficiency. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Benincà, P., & Poletto, C. (2004). Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The Structure of CP and IP, (pp. 52-75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3-11.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290–303.
Bianchi, V. & Frascarelli, M. (2010). Is Topic a root phenomenon? Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 2, 43-88.
Birner, B. J. & Ward, G. (1998). Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Blanche, P., & Merino, B. J. (1989). Self‐Assessment of Foreign‐Language Skills: Implications for Teachers and Researchers. Language Learning, 39(3), 313-338.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic
179
Analysis, 20, 3-49.
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(02), 175-198.
Bloom, E., Polišenská, D., & Weerman, F. (2008). Articles, adjectives and age of onset: The acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender. Second Language Research, 24, 297-331.
Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2007). Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 633-660.
Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2011). Bilingualism influences inhibitory control in auditory comprehension. Cognition, 118(2), 245-257.
Boeckx, C. (2011). Approaching parameters from below. In A.M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx, The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty, (205-221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bowers, T. L., & Pantle, M. L. (1998). Shipley institute for living scale and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test as screening instruments for intelligence. Assessment, 5(2), 187-195.
Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In. P. Robinson, & N.C. Ellis, Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, (pp. 216-236). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Bybee, J. L., & Hopper, P. J. (2001). Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In J.L. Bybee, & P.J. Hopper, (Eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (1-26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Campos, H., & Zampini, M. (1990). Focalization strategies in Spanish. Probus,2(1), 47-64.
Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory & Cognition, 27(5), 826-833.
Carroll, S., & Meisel, J. M. (1990). Universals and second language acquisition.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(2), 201-208.
Casielles-Suárez, E. (2003). Left-dislocated structures in Spanish. Hispania, 326-338.
180
Casiellez-Suárez, E. (2004). The syntax-information structure interface. New York: Garland.
Cecchetto, C. (1999). A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica, 53(1), 40-67.
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234– 272.
Chater, N. & Manning, C. (2006) Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(7): 335–44.
Chee, M. W., Tan, E. W., & Thiel, T. (1999). Mandarin and English single word processing studied with functional magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19(8), 3050-3056.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz, (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, (pp 1-52). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic inquiry, 36(1), 1-22.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2001). Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(2), 82-88.
Cinque, G. (1977). The movement nature of left dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 397-411.
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of Ā-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42.
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204.
181
Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249-253.
Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Modality-constrained statistical learning of tactile, visual, and auditory sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 24.
Cornilescu, A. (2006). On clitic doubling and parasitic gaps in Romanian. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 1, 23-42.
Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73-105.
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. Tesol Quarterly, 14(2), 175-187.
Dallas, A. C. (2008). Influences of verbal properties on second-language filler-gap resolution: A cross-methodological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.
Dallas, A. C., DeDe, G., & Nicol, J. (2013). An Event-Related-Potential (ERP) investigation of filler-gap processing in native and second language learners. Language Learning, 63, 766-799.
De Cat, C. (2007). French dislocation without movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25(3), 485-534.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(1), 1-25.
de Villers, J. & Roeper, T. (2011). Introduction. In J. de Villers & T. Roeper, Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition, (pp. 3-12). Dordrecht: Springer.
Dekydspotter, L., & Renaud, C. (in press). On second language processing and grammatical development: The parser in second language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(2), 131-165.
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 pro- cessing research. In M. G. O’Brien, C. Shea, & J. Archibald (Eds.), 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006) (pp. 33–40). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
182
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117–1121.
Dik, S. C. (1997). The theory of functional grammar: the structure of the clause. Walter de Gruyter.
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., Farmer, T. A., & Pylkkänen, L. (2010). Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science, 21(5), 629–634.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1990). Clitic doubling, wh-movement, and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry, 351-397.
Donaldson, B. (2011). Nativelike right-dislocation in near-native French. Second Language Research, 27(3), 361-390.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual review of applied linguistics, 21, 43-59.
Dussias, P. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in second language learners: Some effects of Bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.
Dussias, P. E., & Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Language Research, 26(4), 443-472.
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(02), 353-387.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188.
Ellis, N.C. (2007). Dynamic Systems Theory and SLA: The wood and the trees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 23-25.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 92:2, 232-249.
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for
183
applied linguistics—Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics,27(4), 558-589.
Ellis, R. (1990). Grammaticality judgments and learner variability. In H. Burmeister & P. Rounds (Eds.). Proceedings of the 10th Second Language Research Forum, (pp. 25-60). American English Institute, University of Oregon.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition (8th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elman, J. L. (1991). Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, 7(2–3), 195–225.
Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48(1), 71-99.
Emonds, J. (2004). Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In D. Adger, C. de Cat, & G. Tsoulas, Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects, (pp. 75-120). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Epstein, S., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1998). The strong continuity hypothesis: some evidence concerning functional categories in adult L2 acquisition. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O’Neil (Eds.). The generative study of second language acquisition, (pp. 61-77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farmer, T. A., Brown, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2013). Prediction, explanation, and the role of generative models in language processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(03), 211-212.
Farmer, T. A., Fine, A. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (2011). Implicit context-specific learning leads to rapid shifts in syntactic expectations. In L. Carlson, C. Holscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2055–2060). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society
Farmer, T. A., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2006). Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(32), 12203-12208.
Fathman, A., & Precup, L. (1983). Influences of age and setting on second language oral proficiency. Second language acquisition studies, 151-161.
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Gross, R., & Marinis, T. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied
184
Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 453–489.
Feldhausen, I. (2014). Modeling individual variation in prosody: the case of Clitic Left-Dislocations in Spanish. Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production, Köln (Germany).
Fernández, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1998). SLA property: No trespassing!. The Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 91-94.
Flege, J. E., & Liu, S. (2001). The effect of experience on adults’ acquisition of a second language. Studies in second language acquisition, 23(4), 527-552.
Flege J.E., Yeni-Komishian G.H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104.
Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1994). Mapping from the Initial State to the Final State: The separation of universal principles and language specific properties. In B. Lust, M. Suñer, & J. Whitman (Eds.), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: crosslinguistic perspectives, (pp. 319-336), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Frascarelli, M. & Hinterhölzl, R. (2007). Types of topics in German and Italian. In, S. Winkler & K. Schwabe (Eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, (pp. 87–116). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Friederici, A. D., Bahlmann, J., Heim, S., Schubotz, R. I., & Anwander, A. (2006). The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: functional localization and structural connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(7), 2458-2463.
Frost, R., Siegelman, N., Narkiss, A., & Afek, L. (2013). What predicts successful literacy acquisition in a second language?. Psychological science,24(7), 1243-1252.
185
Garrod, S. (2006). Psycholinguistic Research Methods. In E.K. Brown (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd Edition, Vol. 10. S., 251-257. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gass, S. A Historical survey of SLA research. In W. Ritchie & T.J. Bhatia (Eds.), The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 3-28). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Gass, S., Flecker, C., Leder, N., & Svetics, I. (1998). Ahistoricity revisited: Does SLA have a history? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 407-421.
Gass, S., & Lee, J. (2007). Second language acquisition of relative clauses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(02), 329-335.
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd edition). New York: Routledge.
Goad, H., & White, L. (2008). Prosodic structure and the representation of L2 functional morphology: A nativist approach. Lingua, 118(4), 577-594.
Gómez, R. L. (2002). Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science, 13(5), 431-436.
Goodwin, L. D., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Understanding correlation: Factors that affect the size of r. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(3), 249-266.
Gow, D. W., & McMurray, B. (2007). Word recognition and phonology: The case of English coronal place assimilation. Papers in laboratory phonology, 9, 173-200.
Graybiel, A. M. (1995). Building action repertoires: memory and learning functions of the basal ganglia. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 5, 733-741.
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 1(02), 67-81.
Gregg, K. R. (1993). Taking explanation seriously; or, let a couple of flowers bloom. Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 276-294.
Gregg, K. R., Long, M, Jordan, G., & Berreta, A. (1997) Rationality and its discontents in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 18(4): 539-559.
Gundel, J. K. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure In M. Hammond, E. Moravczik & J. Wirth (Eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology (pp. 209-239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haegeman, L. (2006). Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD, and the Left
186
Periphery. In R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Erburger, P.H. Portner, (Eds,). Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture (pp. 27-52). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Haegeman, L. (2012). Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hahne, A. (2001). What’s different in second-language processing? Evidence from event- related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 30, 251–266.
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Processing a second language: late learners’ comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 123–141.
Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English. Language Learning, 26, 321-351.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part II. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199-244.
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In K. Hale & S.J. Keyser, (Eds.), The View From Building 20 (pp. 111-176), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Harrington, M. W. & M. Sawyer (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skills. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14.1, 25–38.
Hawkins, R. (2011). Statistical learning and innate knowledge in the development of second language proficiency: evidence from the acquisition of gender concord. In A.G. Benati, (Ed.) Issues in second language proficiency. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y.-H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis.’ Second Language Research, 13(3), 187–226.
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22(3), 269-301.
Hilchey, M. D., & Klein, R. M. (2011). Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 18(4), 625-658.
187
Hilles, S. (1991). Access to Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. In L. Eubank, Point Counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the Second Language, (pp. 305-338). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hoey, M. Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. New York: Routledge.
Hoover, M. L., & Dwivedi, V. D. (1998). Syntactic processing by skilled bilinguals. Language Learning, 48(1), 1-29.
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22(3), 369-397.
Hopp, H. (2007). Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: Grammar and processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between nonnative and native speakers. Lingua, 120(4), 901–931.
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29(1), 33-56.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, Jan H. (2011). Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(3), 229-249.
Hyams, N. (1991). Seven Not-So-Trivial Trivia of Language Acquisition: Comments on Wolfgang Klein. In L. Eubank, Point Counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the Second Language, (pp. 71-103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 539 – 588). Oxford : Blackwell .
Ivanov, I. P. (2012). L2 acquisition of Bulgarian clitic doubling: A test case for the Interface Hypothesis. Second Language Research, 28(3), 345-368.
Iverson, M., Kempchinsky, P., & Rothman, J. (2008). Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish. Eurosla Yearbook, 8(1), 135-163.
Jackendoff, R. (2003). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution.
188
Oxford University Press.
Jackson, C. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphsyntactic information duging L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58(4), 875-909.
Jaeger, T. F., & Snider, N. E. (2013). Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition, 127(1), 57-83.
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.
Juffs, A. (1998). Some effects of first language argument structure and morphosyntax on second language sentence processing. Second Language Research, 14(4), 406–424.
Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21(2), 121–151.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning.Language Teaching, 44(02), 137-166.
Kaan, E. (in press). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4(2)-257-282.
Kato, M. A. (1993). Object Position in Brazilian Portuguese. In Linguistic Perspectives
on Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the XXI Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Santa Barbara, February 21–24, 1991 (Vol. 103, p. 225). John Benjamins Publishing.
Kato, M. A., & Raposo, E. P. (2007). Topicalization in European and Brazilian
Portuguese. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science series. 4, 287, 205.
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jiménez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N.
(2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116(3), 321-340.
Kempchinsky, P. (2013). CLLD as a Window on the Left Periphery. In C. Howe, S.E. Blackwell, & M. Libbers Quesada, Selected Proceedings of the 15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 310-327). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Procesedings Project.
Kim, K. H., Relkin, N. R., Lee, K. M., & Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature, 388(6638), 171-174.
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2011). Task complexity, language anxiety, and the
189
development of the simple past. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance, pp. 287-306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kiss, K. E. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245–73.
Klein, D., Milner, B., Zatorre, R. J., Meyer, E., & Evans, A. C. (1995). The neural substrates underlying word generation: a bilingual functional-imaging study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 92(7), 2899-2903.
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta psychologica, 128(3), 416-430.
Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., & Smith, N. J. (2011). A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In M. Bar, (Ed.) Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future, (pp. 190-207). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (1996) SLA building: Letting all the flowers bloom. Language Learning, 46(4), 713-749.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge University Press.
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25(2), 173-227.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579-589.
Larsen‐Freeman, D. (2010). Not so fast: A discussion of L2 morpheme processing and acquisition. Language Learning, 60(1), 221-230.
Leonetti, M. (2004). Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish.Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3(2004), 75-114.
Leal Méndez, T., Farmer, T. A., & Slabakova, R. (in press). A same-system view of L2 processing: Evidence from long-distance syntactic dependencies in L2 Spanish. BUCLD 38 Proceedings.
Leal Méndez, T., Slabakova, R. & Rothman, J (in press). A rare structure at the syntax-discourse interface: Heritage and Spanish-dominant Native Speakers weigh in. Language Acquisition.
190
Leal Méndez, T., Slabakova, R., & Rothman, J. (2014). Discourse-sensitive Clitic-doubled Dislocations in Heritage Spanish. Lingua.
Leal Méndez, T., & Slabakova, R. (2012). The Interpretability Hypothesis again: A partial replication of Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007). International Journal of Bilingualism. DOI: 10.1177/1367006912448125.
Leonetti, M., & Escandell-Vidal, V. (2009). Fronting and verum focus in Spanish. In A. Duffer & D. Jacob, Focus and Background in Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, (pp. 155-204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126-1177.
Levy, B. J., McVeigh, N. D., Marful, A., & Anderson, M. C. (2007). Inhibiting Your Native Language The Role of Retrieval-Induced Forgetting During Second-Language Acquisition. Psychological Science, 18(1), 29-34.
Lim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2013). Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(03), 518-537.
Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507-1515.
Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 81(3): 318-323.
López, L. (2009). A derivational syntax for information structure . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 226.
MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and Second‐Language Learning: Toward a Theoretical Clarification. Language learning, 39(2), 251-275.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. New York: Routledge.
191
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in
working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.,) Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181-209). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M.
B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). New York: Oxford University Press.
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language.
The Linguistic Review 22, 429-445. Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Bilingual and monolingual processing of competing
lexical items. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(02), 173-193. Marian, V., Spivey, M., & Hirsch, J. (2003). Shared and separate systems in bilingual
language processing: Converging evidence from eyetracking and brain imaging. Brain and language, 86(1), 70-82.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language
sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 53-78. Maye, J., Werker, J. F., & Gerken, L. (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional
information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition, 82(3), B101-B111. McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for
poor grammaticahty judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381-401.
McMurray, B., Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2012). Word learning emerges from the
interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning.Psychological review, 119(4), 831.
Meisel, J. (1991). Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of language learning:
Some similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition. In L. Eubank, Point Counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the Second Language, (pp. 231-276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Meisel, J. M., Elsig, M., & Bonnesen, M. (2011). Delayed grammatical acquisition in
first language development: Subject-verb inversion and subject clitics in French interrogatives. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(4), 347-390.
Miller, K., & Schmitt, C. (2010). Effects of variable input in the acquisition of plural in
two dialects of Spanish. Lingua, 120(5), 1178-1193.
192
Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: an individual differences study. Language Learning, 62(1), 302-331.
Miyake, A. & N. P. Friedman (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne (eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on retention and training. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 339–364.
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125-142.
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to basics: Incomplete knowledge of Differential Object Marking in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 363-383.
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(03), 351-398.
Moyer, A. 1999. Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age, motivation, and instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 81–108.
Mulder, K., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2011). Linguistic skills of adult native speakers, as a function of age and level of education. Applied linguistics, 32(5), 475-494.
Munro, M. J., Flege, J. E., & MacKay, I. R. (1996). The effects of age of second language learning on the production of English vowels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17(03), 313-334.
O’Grady, W., M. Lee, and H.–Y Kwak. (2009). Emergentism and second language acquisition. In Ritchie W. and T. Bhatia (Eds.), The New Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 69–88). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Press.
Pablos, L. (2006). Pre-verbal structure building in Romance languages and Basque. Unpublished dissertation. The University of Maryland.
Pablos, L. (2008) Filled-Gap Effects in Sentence Processing: different accounts compared, ASJU, Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo: International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology, 42 (1), 309-332.
Pakulak, E., & Neville, H. J. (2010). Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2728-2744.
193
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(04), 501-528.
Phillips, C. (2006). Three Benchmarks for Distributional Approaches to Natural Language Syntax. In R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Erburger, P.H. Portner, (Eds,). Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture (pp.13-23). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Phillips, C. (2012). Individual variation and constraints on language learning. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 281-286.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2011). The use of prediction to drive alignment in dialogue. In G. R. Semin, & G. Echterhoff (Eds.), Grounding sociality. Neurons, mind and culture (pp.175–191). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–347.
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T. (2013). Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(01), 167-182.
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16(2), 103-133.
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Haegeman L (ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. (2001). On the position ‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi, (Eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, (pp. 287-296). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Reference-set computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second language research, 17(4), 368-392.
Rodriguez‐Fornells, A., De Diego Balaguer, R., & Münte, T. F. (2006). Executive control in bilingual language processing. Language Learning, 56(s1), 133-190.
Roeper, T. (1999). Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism Language and Cognition,2(3),
194
169-186.
Rothman, J. (2007). Sometimes they use it, sometimes they don't: An epistemological discussion of L2 morphological production and its use as a competence measurement. Applied linguistics, 28(4), 609-614.
Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences?: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 951-973.
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2011). The Mind-Context Divide: On acquisition at the linguistic interfaces. Lingua, 121(4), 568-576.
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, A. D. & Hahne, A. (2006). The Impact of Proficiency on Syntactic Second-language Processing of German and Itahan: Evidence from Event-related Potentials. Journal'of"Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 2030-2
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926-1928.
Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1999). Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition, 70(1), 27-52.
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72.
Schwartz A.I., & Kroll J.F. (2006). Language processing in bilingual speakers. In: Traxler M, Gernsbacher MA, editors. Handbook of Psycholinguistics, (pp. 967–999), 2nd Edition; Amsterdam: Elsevier
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28(1), 129-142.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523.
Seliger, H.W., & Shohamy, E. (1989) Second language research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1-4), 209-232.
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in second language acquisition, 13(02), 275-298.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity,
195
accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Slabakova, R., Kempchinsky, P., & Rothman, J. (2012). Clitic-doubled left dislocation and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: A case of successful acquisition at the syntax–discourse interface. Second Language Research, 28(3), 319-343.
Slabakova, R., Leal Méndez, T., & Liskin-Gasparro, J. (in review). We have moved on: Current concepts and positions in generative SLA. Applied Linguistics, Forum Piece.
Slabakova, R., Rothman, J., & Kempchinsky, P. (2011). Gradient competence at the Syntax-Discourse Interface. EUROSLA Yearbook, 11(1), 218-243.
Slabakova, R., Rothman, J., Leal Méndez, T., Campos, G., & Kempchinsky, P. (2011). Pragmatic Features at the L2 Syntax-Discourse Interface. BUCLD 35 Proceedings. (pp. 564-576). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Sorace, A., (2003). Near-nativeness. In C. Doughty & M.Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, (pp. 130–151). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1) 1-34.
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22(3), 339-368.
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 195-210.
Spivey, M. J., & Marian, V. (1999). Cross talk between native and second languages: Partial activation of an irrelevant lexicon. Psychological Science,10(3), 281-284.
Street, J. A., & Dąbrowska, E. (2010). More individual differences in language attainment: How much do adult native speakers of English know about passives and quantifiers?. Lingua, 120(8), 2080-2094.
Suppes, P., Smith, R., & Leveillé, M. (1973). The French syntax of a child’s noun phrases. Archives de Psychologie, 42, 207-269.
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition,36(1), 201-216.
Tanner, D., McLaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual
196
differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 16, 367-382.
Thomas, M. (1994). Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 44, 307-336.
Thomas, M. (1998). Programmatic ahistoricity in second language acquisition theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 387-405.
Thomas, M. (2006). Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment in second language proficiency. In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega, Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, (pp. 279-298). Amsterdam: John Benhamins Publishing Company.
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in second language acquisition, 27(02), 173-204.
Torrego, E. (1998). The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Trenkic, D. (2007). Variability in second language article production: beyond the representational deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second Language Research, 23(3), 289-327.
Tsimpli, I.M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2008). The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 23, 215-242.
Tsimpli, I. M., & Mastropavlou. M. (2007). Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. The role of formal features in second language acquisition, edited by H. Goodluck, J.Liceras & H.Zobl, 143-183. Routledge.
Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 4(2), 105-122.
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second language research, 12(1), 7-39.
197
Valenzuela, E., 2006. L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of the Spanish CLLD constructions. In: Slabakova, R., Montrul, S., Prévost, P. (Eds.), Inquiries in Linguistic Development: In Honor of Lydia White (pp. 283–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vallduví, E., & Vilkuna, M. (1998). On rheme and kontrast. In W. Abraham (Ed.) On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania (pp79-108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Haaften, T., Smits, R., & Vat, J. (1983). Left Dislocation, Connectedness and Reconstruction. In W. Abraham (Ed.) On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania, (133-
154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 176–190
Verhoeven, L., & de Jong, J. H. (Eds.). (1992). The construct of language proficiency: applications of psychological models to language assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Villalba, X. (2000). The syntax of sentence periphery. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Ward, G.L. (1988). The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Weiss, J. L., & Schell, R. E. (1991). Estimating WAIS‐R IQ from the Shipley institute of living scale: A replication. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47(4), 558-562.
West, S. G., Aiken, L. S., & Krull, J. L. (1996). Experimental personality designs: Analyzing categorical by continuous variable interactions. Journal of personality, 64(1), 1-48.
White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47-62.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: University Press.
White, L., Valenzuela, E., Kozlowska–Macgregor, M., & Leung, Y. K. I. (2004). Gender and number agreement in nonnative Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(01), 105-133.
198
Williams, M., Burden, R., & Lanvers, U. (2002). ‘French is the language of love and stuff’: Student perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 503-528.
Willingham, D. B. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 103(3), 558-584.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity (No. 17). National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yang, C. (2010). Three factors in language variation. Lingua, 120(5), 1160-1177.
Zachary, R. A., Crumpton, E., & Spiegel, D. E. (1985). Estimating WAIS‐R IQ from the Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41(4), 532-540.
Zagona, K. (2002). The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zubizarreta, M.L. (1998). Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
