GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

Week 9.Week 9.Parameter settings and Parameter settings and

transfertransfer

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

ParametersParameters

Languages differ in the settings of parameters Languages differ in the settings of parameters (and in the pronunciations of the words, etc.).(and in the pronunciations of the words, etc.).

To learn a second language is to learn the To learn a second language is to learn the parameter settings for that language.parameter settings for that language.

Where do you keep the parameters from the Where do you keep the parameters from the second, third, etc. language? You don’t have a second, third, etc. language? You don’t have a single parameter set two different ways, do single parameter set two different ways, do you?you? ““Parameter resetting” doesn’t mean monkeying Parameter resetting” doesn’t mean monkeying

with your L1 parameter settings, it means setting with your L1 parameter settings, it means setting your L2 parameter to its appropriate setting.your L2 parameter to its appropriate setting.

Four views on the role of Four views on the role of L1 parametersL1 parameters

UG is still around to constrain L2/ILUG is still around to constrain L2/IL, , parameter settings of L1 are adopted at first, parameter settings of L1 are adopted at first, then parameters are reset to match L2.then parameters are reset to match L2.

UG does not constrain L2/IL but L1 doesUG does not constrain L2/IL but L1 does, L2 , L2 can adopt properties of L1 but can’t reset can adopt properties of L1 but can’t reset the parameters (except perhaps in the face the parameters (except perhaps in the face of brutally direct evidence, e.g., of brutally direct evidence, e.g., headedness).headedness).

IL cannot be described in terms of IL cannot be described in terms of parameter settingsparameter settings—it is not UG-constrained.—it is not UG-constrained.

UG works the same in L1A and L2AUG works the same in L1A and L2A. L1 . L1 shouldn’t have any effect.shouldn’t have any effect.

Some parameters that Some parameters that have been looked at in have been looked at in

L2AL2A Pro drop (null subject)Pro drop (null subject) parameterparameter empty subjects allowed? Spanish empty subjects allowed? Spanish yesyes, English , English nono

Head parameterHead parameter head-complement order in X-bar structure; head-complement order in X-bar structure;

Japanese head-Japanese head-finalfinal, English head, English head-initial-initial ECP/ECP/thatthat-trace effect-trace effect

*Who did you say that *Who did you say that tt left? English: left? English: yesyes, Dutch: , Dutch: nono Subjacency/bounding nodesSubjacency/bounding nodes

English: DP and IP, Italian/French: DP and CPEnglish: DP and IP, Italian/French: DP and CP Verb movementVerb movement Binding theory parametersBinding theory parameters

Verb movement and Verb movement and negationnegation

French moves (tensed) verbs to T.French moves (tensed) verbs to T. Jean (ne) Jean (ne) mange pasmange pas du chocolat. du chocolat. Jean (n’)est Jean (n’)est pas bêtepas bête..

English leaves verbs (but auxiliaries) in English leaves verbs (but auxiliaries) in VPVP John does John does not eatnot eat chocolate. chocolate. John John is notis not stupid. stupid.

So French has set the So French has set the V-to-TV-to-T parameter parameter onon, English has set it , English has set it offoff (except for (except for bebe and and havehave).).

Verb movement and Verb movement and adverbsadverbs

This also predicts adverb order.This also predicts adverb order. In English, you can never have an In English, you can never have an

adverb between the verb and its object.adverb between the verb and its object. *John [eats often chocolate].*John [eats often chocolate]. John often [eats chocolate].John often [eats chocolate].

In French, you put adverbs between the In French, you put adverbs between the verb and the object.verb and the object. Jean mange souvent [— du chocolat].Jean mange souvent [— du chocolat]. *Jean souvent [mange du chocolat].*Jean souvent [mange du chocolat].

Interlanguage and UGInterlanguage and UG

A major question we’re asking is:A major question we’re asking is:Are IL grammars constrained by UG?Are IL grammars constrained by UG?

That is, are people, as they learn a That is, are people, as they learn a second language, “allowed to” posit second language, “allowed to” posit rules/constraints in the IL that do not rules/constraints in the IL that do not conform to UG—that is, that could not conform to UG—that is, that could not appear in any natural (native) appear in any natural (native) language?language?

Why parameters seem to Why parameters seem to be a good place to lookbe a good place to look

One crucial property of the parameters (in the One crucial property of the parameters (in the Principles and Parameters model) is that Principles and Parameters model) is that a a single setting of the parameter can have single setting of the parameter can have effects in several places in the grammar of a effects in several places in the grammar of a language.language.

So verb-movement (V to T), which is set to So verb-movement (V to T), which is set to “yes” in French, is responsible for:“yes” in French, is responsible for: The relative position of negation and the finite verbThe relative position of negation and the finite verb The relative position of manner adverbs and the The relative position of manner adverbs and the

finite verbfinite verb

Why parameters seem to Why parameters seem to be a good place to lookbe a good place to look

In general, we have to say that (full) In general, we have to say that (full) knowledge of the L2 is going to involve knowledge of the L2 is going to involve setting the parameters to the appropriate setting the parameters to the appropriate settings for the target language.settings for the target language.

So, we can also look for the cluster of So, we can also look for the cluster of effects that are supposed to arise from a effects that are supposed to arise from a single parameter setting.single parameter setting.

Is it the case that once a second language Is it the case that once a second language learner gets the verb-adverb order right, learner gets the verb-adverb order right, s/he also gets the verb-negation order s/he also gets the verb-negation order right? If only one kind of verb (finite vs. right? If only one kind of verb (finite vs. nonfinite) moves to T, is it the finite verb?nonfinite) moves to T, is it the finite verb?

White (1991)White (1991)

White observes that even sticking to White observes that even sticking to adverbs, there is a small “cluster of adverbs, there is a small “cluster of properties” tied to the verb raising properties” tied to the verb raising parameter:parameter:

In French (where V moves to T):In French (where V moves to T): S Adv VS Adv V order is order is disalloweddisallowed S V Adv ObjS V Adv Obj order is order is allowedallowed..

In English (where V does not move to T):In English (where V does not move to T): S Adv VS Adv V order is order is allowedallowed S V Adv ObjS V Adv Obj order is order is disalloweddisallowed..


Given this, it Given this, it shouldshould be sufficient for be sufficient for a learner to learn the one which is a learner to learn the one which is allowed (e.g., in English that allowed (e.g., in English that S Adv VS Adv V order is allowed)—the V-to-T order is allowed)—the V-to-T parameter can then be set (to parameter can then be set (to offoff for for English), and then the impossibility English), and then the impossibility of the one which is disallowed (e.g., of the one which is disallowed (e.g., *S V Adv Obj*S V Adv Obj order in English) order in English) should follow automatically if should follow automatically if they’ve set the parameter in their IL.they’ve set the parameter in their IL.


White’s study involved native speakers White’s study involved native speakers of French learning English.of French learning English.

Her subjects were children in grades 5 Her subjects were children in grades 5 (average age 11) and 6 (average age (average age 11) and 6 (average age 12) with very little prior English 12) with very little prior English exposure and have very little English exposure and have very little English exposure outside the classroom.exposure outside the classroom.

The children entered a 5-month The children entered a 5-month intensive ESL program where their intensive ESL program where their schooling was devoted entirely to ESL.schooling was devoted entirely to ESL.


The subjects were divided into two groups, The subjects were divided into two groups, based on whether the ESL instruction included based on whether the ESL instruction included specific teaching on English adverb placement specific teaching on English adverb placement (the other group was taught question-formation (the other group was taught question-formation instead).instead).

Three months in, students took a “pretest” on Three months in, students took a “pretest” on adverb placement, after which the adverb adverb placement, after which the adverb group was trained on adverbs. After the group was trained on adverbs. After the teaching period, students took a test, then teaching period, students took a test, then another at the end of the ESL program (about 5 another at the end of the ESL program (about 5 weeks later). Finally, the (originally) 5th weeks later). Finally, the (originally) 5th graders were retested a year later.graders were retested a year later.


Grammaticality judgment:Grammaticality judgment: Cartoon story with Cartoon story with captions; if student thought caption was captions; if student thought caption was incorrect, they drew arrows to repair the word incorrect, they drew arrows to repair the word order.order.

Preference task:Preference task: Students were given a Students were given a sentence in two possible orders and asked to sentence in two possible orders and asked to respond if both were good, neither was good, respond if both were good, neither was good, or only one (and which one) was good.or only one (and which one) was good.

Manipulation task:Manipulation task: Students were given cards Students were given cards with words on them and told to line them up with words on them and told to line them up to form a sentence; then asked if they could to form a sentence; then asked if they could form another with the same cards, until they form another with the same cards, until they couldn’t continue.couldn’t continue.

White (1991) resultsWhite (1991) results

Grammaticality judgment task:Grammaticality judgment task: Adverb groupAdverb group went from very high acceptance to went from very high acceptance to

SVAOSVAO to very low (native-speaker-like) levels at the to very low (native-speaker-like) levels at the first post-test, and remained there for the second first post-test, and remained there for the second one. The one. The question groupquestion group remained high throughout. remained high throughout.

Adverb groupAdverb group when from moderate use of when from moderate use of SAVSAV to to high (nearly native-speaker-like) levels at the first high (nearly native-speaker-like) levels at the first post-test, and remained there for the second one. post-test, and remained there for the second one. The The question groupquestion group remained at moderate use remained at moderate use throughout.throughout.

Results—judgmentsResults—judgments

The effect of instruction was pretty dramatic in the The effect of instruction was pretty dramatic in the first and second post-tests. Explicit instruction helped. first and second post-tests. Explicit instruction helped. (SVAO score, SAV score) (Preference task—same).(SVAO score, SAV score) (Preference task—same).

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

AdvG QG Contr

PrePost-1Post-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

AdvG QG Contr

PrePost-1Post-2

White (1991) resultsWhite (1991) results

A couple of things to notice:A couple of things to notice: The The question groupquestion group was getting basically was getting basically positive positive

evidence onlyevidence only (adverb position was not explicitly (adverb position was not explicitly taught). And they didn’t fare well on the tests.taught). And they didn’t fare well on the tests.

The The adverb groupadverb group was getting explicit was getting explicit negative negative evidenceevidence and it seemed to help a lot. and it seemed to help a lot.

Even the adverb group, while rejecting Even the adverb group, while rejecting *SVAO*SVAO, would , would not accept not accept SAVSAV as often/reliably as the native as often/reliably as the native speakers—an apparent failure of predicted clustering.speakers—an apparent failure of predicted clustering.

White suggested essentially that for L2’ers verb White suggested essentially that for L2’ers verb raising is optional, but this doesn’t really get at the raising is optional, but this doesn’t really get at the *SVAO*SVAO result. result.

The one-year-later testThe one-year-later test ……A startling result when testing those kids who were helped so A startling result when testing those kids who were helped so

dramatically by instruction: dramatically by instruction: the knowledge they gained the knowledge they gained didn’t didn’t lastlast. . Again, it doesn’t feel like a new parameter setting.Again, it doesn’t feel like a new parameter setting.

(SVAO score)(SVAO score)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

AdvG Unins

PrePost-1Post-21yrlater


In fact, White also observed that while her Adverb In fact, White also observed that while her Adverb group correctly ruled out group correctly ruled out *SVAO*SVAO sentences in English sentences in English after explicit instruction, they seemed to have after explicit instruction, they seemed to have incorrectly generalized this to also rule out incorrectly generalized this to also rule out SVAPPSVAPP:: Mary Mary walks quicklywalks quickly to school. to school. Mary Mary quickly walksquickly walks to school. to school.

A 1992 article by Schwartz and Gubala-Ryzak A 1992 article by Schwartz and Gubala-Ryzak discusses this and points out that discusses this and points out that this is not something this is not something that is possible in a natural language via parameter that is possible in a natural language via parameter settingsetting—this behavior can’t be the result of mis-set —this behavior can’t be the result of mis-set parameters, it must be some kind of prescriptive rule. parameters, it must be some kind of prescriptive rule. White, in her response, basically agrees with respect to White, in her response, basically agrees with respect to her particular subjects.her particular subjects.

White (1991)White (1991) In any event, White’s (1991) study didn’t In any event, White’s (1991) study didn’t

show the strong support for parameter show the strong support for parameter setting that it might have.setting that it might have.

White’s study also seems to show that White’s study also seems to show that negative evidence seems to only have a very negative evidence seems to only have a very short-term effect on learning.short-term effect on learning.

This leads us (and later White [1992] too) to This leads us (and later White [1992] too) to guess that what the kids were learning was guess that what the kids were learning was prescriptive rule-type knowledge, and not prescriptive rule-type knowledge, and not some kind of reorganization of their some kind of reorganization of their grammatical system (by setting a grammatical system (by setting a parameter).parameter).

Types of inputTypes of input

What White (1991) was trying to test was the What White (1991) was trying to test was the effects of effects of different kinds of inputdifferent kinds of input; negative input ; negative input via explicit instruction on adverbs vs. positive input via explicit instruction on adverbs vs. positive input via exposure (without concentrating on adverbs via exposure (without concentrating on adverbs specifically). In her “positive evidence” (question) specifically). In her “positive evidence” (question) group, very little advance was made—is positive group, very little advance was made—is positive evidence ineffectual?evidence ineffectual?

White speculated that the kids in the question White speculated that the kids in the question condition might not have actually condition might not have actually heardheard many many adverbs, after listening to some tapes of the adverbs, after listening to some tapes of the classes. classes. Perhaps they just didn’t have Perhaps they just didn’t have enough enough positive evidence?positive evidence?

FloodingFlooding

White and Trahey set out to test this White and Trahey set out to test this by getting together another group of by getting together another group of students and subjecting them to a students and subjecting them to a “input flood” of adverb material—no “input flood” of adverb material—no explicit teaching of adverbs, but lots of explicit teaching of adverbs, but lots of examples of proper adverb placement examples of proper adverb placement in English. Then they ran basically the in English. Then they ran basically the same tests on the kids as in the other same tests on the kids as in the other experiment, including the “one year experiment, including the “one year later” experiment. (Trahey 1996)later” experiment. (Trahey 1996)

Flooding resultsFlooding resultspreference taskpreference task

The effect of the input flood appears to have been an The effect of the input flood appears to have been an increase in the flood group’s use of increase in the flood group’s use of SAVOSAVO, but no , but no real change in anything else (in particular real change in anything else (in particular *SVAO*SVAO).).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

ASVO SAVO SVAO SVOA

Pre Post-1 Post-2 1yrlater

0

2

4

6

8

10

ASVO SAVO SVAO SVOA

Flood Adverb Uninstructed Control

FloodingFlooding

The flooding experiment seems to have shown:The flooding experiment seems to have shown: That the That the knowledge gained by flooding seems to be knowledge gained by flooding seems to be

more persistentmore persistent than the knowledge gained by than the knowledge gained by explicit instruction (i.e. adverb group).explicit instruction (i.e. adverb group).

That That acceptance of SAVO and rejection of SVAO acceptance of SAVO and rejection of SVAO appear to be independentappear to be independent—the flooding group —the flooding group learned that SAVO was allowed and retained this learned that SAVO was allowed and retained this knowledge, but still didn’t reject SVAO (actually a knowledge, but still didn’t reject SVAO (actually a well-known persistent error in L2 English from well-known persistent error in L2 English from French; cf. Poirot). This isn’t expected if the French; cf. Poirot). This isn’t expected if the “knowledge” is a parameter setting that is supposed “knowledge” is a parameter setting that is supposed to have both effects.to have both effects.

Asymmetry?Asymmetry?

In earlier research, White actually did In earlier research, White actually did some tests going both directions, and some tests going both directions, and found that native English speakers found that native English speakers learning French (that is, going the learning French (that is, going the other way) appear to “catch on” to other way) appear to “catch on” to the allowability of SVAO, while—as the allowability of SVAO, while—as we’ve seen—we’ve seen—native French speakers native French speakers learning English seem to hang on to learning English seem to hang on to SVAO indefinitelySVAO indefinitely. Again, if this is a . Again, if this is a binary parameter, this appears to be binary parameter, this appears to be a bit unexpected—is it easier to set a bit unexpected—is it easier to set one way than another?one way than another?

Hawkins et al. (1993)Hawkins et al. (1993)

Hawkins et al. (1993) looked at this a Hawkins et al. (1993) looked at this a little bit more closely (with the little bit more closely (with the assistance of advances in theoretical assistance of advances in theoretical syntax since White’s original study), syntax since White’s original study), looking in particular at English looking in particular at English speakers learning French.speakers learning French.

In particular, the question Hawkins et In particular, the question Hawkins et al. were asking was: al. were asking was: Do English Do English speakers learning French speakers learning French reallyreally manage manage to set the V-to-T parameter, given that it to set the V-to-T parameter, given that it seems to be so difficult the other way?seems to be so difficult the other way?


They found some evidence for a staged They found some evidence for a staged progression, whereprogression, where The least advanced of their subjects could The least advanced of their subjects could

correctly place the verb with respect to correctly place the verb with respect to negation (but not with respect to adverbs)negation (but not with respect to adverbs)

The more advanced subjects could correctly The more advanced subjects could correctly place the verb with respect to both negation place the verb with respect to both negation and adverbs.and adverbs.

The rate correct for The rate correct for toustous ‘all’ placement (cf. ‘all’ placement (cf. The students all went homeThe students all went home) was lower than ) was lower than for the other two.for the other two.


Hawkins et al. suggest that this is Hawkins et al. suggest that this is compatible with a view in which the compatible with a view in which the English speakers never really English speakers never really dodo set set the V-to-T parameter to the V-to-T parameter to onon, but , but instead rely on other mechanisms by instead rely on other mechanisms by which the English speakers can which the English speakers can “fake” French.“fake” French.

Hawkins et al. (1993)Hawkins et al. (1993) First stage:First stage: L2’ers seem to have the relative L2’ers seem to have the relative

position of negation (position of negation (paspas) and the verb correct.) and the verb correct. Hypothesis:Hypothesis: They are treat They are treat paspas it as if it were it as if it were

attached to the verb to begin with, rather than in attached to the verb to begin with, rather than in the canonical “negation” slot; hence the verb will the canonical “negation” slot; hence the verb will always appear to its left), regardless of whether the always appear to its left), regardless of whether the verb raises.verb raises.

Some evidence:Some evidence: *Ne mange pas-t-il de…*Ne mange pas-t-il de… accepted accepted (vs. grammatical (vs. grammatical Ne mange-t-il pas de…Ne mange-t-il pas de…); ); *Ne voir *Ne voir pas son amie est un supplice pour lui…pas son amie est un supplice pour lui… accepted accepted (vs. grammatical (vs. grammatical Ne pas voir…Ne pas voir…).).

And:And: This means the relative position of verbs and This means the relative position of verbs and adverbsadverbs is not necessarily predicted to be correct. is not necessarily predicted to be correct. This basically has nothing to do with verb This basically has nothing to do with verb movement in the IL.movement in the IL.

Hawkins et al. (1993)Hawkins et al. (1993) Second stage:Second stage: English speakers start to allow English speakers start to allow SVAOSVAO

order in French (without the difficulty encountered by order in French (without the difficulty encountered by French speakers in disallowing it).French speakers in disallowing it).

Hypothesis:Hypothesis: It is a generalization of It is a generalization of Heavy NP ShiftHeavy NP Shift, , already possible in English, which allows postposing of already possible in English, which allows postposing of “heavy” NPs, such as:“heavy” NPs, such as: The boy ate — The boy ate — quicklyquickly

[the hot soup his mother had made especially for him].[the hot soup his mother had made especially for him]. *The boy ate quickly it.*The boy ate quickly it.

That’s a way to get a grammatical That’s a way to get a grammatical SVAOSVAO sentence in sentence in English under special circumstances. So, perhaps these English under special circumstances. So, perhaps these L2’ers are “shifting the object rightward” (not moving L2’ers are “shifting the object rightward” (not moving the verb to T).the verb to T). Evidence(?): About 40% of I group accept both SVAO and SAVO.Evidence(?): About 40% of I group accept both SVAO and SAVO.

How are we doing?How are we doing?

It seems like the case for a UG-constrained IL It seems like the case for a UG-constrained IL grammar (“full access”) is not very strong at this grammar (“full access”) is not very strong at this pointpoint, despite White and Trahey’s best efforts. , despite White and Trahey’s best efforts. We’ve seen several things which did We’ve seen several things which did notnot seem to seem to “set a parameter value” (explicit negative evidence, “set a parameter value” (explicit negative evidence, positive evidence even if in a flood), one of which positive evidence even if in a flood), one of which was so temporary as to suggest that the knowledge was so temporary as to suggest that the knowledge was basically prescriptive. was basically prescriptive. We’ve seen that even in We’ve seen that even in cases where it cases where it looked looked like a parameter value was like a parameter value was “set”, closer inspection revealed that it didn’t act “set”, closer inspection revealed that it didn’t act parameter-like—it didn’t show the cluster of parameter-like—it didn’t show the cluster of properties.properties.

We have yet to really see any reason to believe that We have yet to really see any reason to believe that a parameter a parameter can can be set in L2A.be set in L2A.

ParametersParameters

This This clusteringclustering aspect of parametric aspect of parametric settings is very importantsettings is very important—if a L2’ers —if a L2’ers IL shows one “symptom” of a IL shows one “symptom” of a parameter setting but fails to show parameter setting but fails to show others, then this is quite good others, then this is quite good evidence that evidence that the parameter was the parameter was notnot setset, but that there is something else , but that there is something else going ongoing on or, alternatively, that something else is or, alternatively, that something else is

blocking the other “symptoms” which blocking the other “symptoms” which should correlate.should correlate.

The null subject The null subject parameterparameter

Adult languages differ in whether Adult languages differ in whether they require overt subjects or not.they require overt subjects or not.

EnglishEnglish does: does: *Go to the movies tonight.*Go to the movies tonight.

ItalianItalian and and SpanishSpanish do not: do not: Vado al cinema stasera.Vado al cinema stasera. (Italian)(Italian) Voy al cine esta noche.Voy al cine esta noche. (Spanish)(Spanish)

‘(I) go to the movies tonight.’‘(I) go to the movies tonight.’

The null subject The null subject parameterparameter

There is a significant cluster of properties There is a significant cluster of properties that seems to go along with be a “null that seems to go along with be a “null subject” (a.k.a. “pro drop”) language.subject” (a.k.a. “pro drop”) language... Subject pronouns can be omitted in tensed Subject pronouns can be omitted in tensed

clauses.clauses. (And generally are except to indicate contrast)(And generally are except to indicate contrast)

Expletive subjects are null. (Expletive subjects are null. (itit rains rains).). Subjects may be postposed. (Subjects may be postposed. (ha telefonatoha telefonato

GianniGianni)) There is no There is no thatthat-trace effect.-trace effect.

**Who did you say that left?Who did you say that left? Subject-verb agreement is “rich” or uniform.Subject-verb agreement is “rich” or uniform.

White (1985, 1986)White (1985, 1986)

Compared two groups of subjects learning Compared two groups of subjects learning English:English: 32 native speakers of (Latin American) 32 native speakers of (Latin American)

Spanish and 2 native speakers of ItalianSpanish and 2 native speakers of Italian 37 native speakers of Québec French37 native speakers of Québec French

Did a test of grammaticality judgments, as well Did a test of grammaticality judgments, as well as a question formation test:as a question formation test: Mary believes that Fred will call Mary believes that Fred will call his mother.his mother. Who does Mary believe that Fred will call?Who does Mary believe that Fred will call? Mary believes that Mary believes that FredFred will call his mother. will call his mother. Who does Mary believe will call his mother?Who does Mary believe will call his mother?

Null subject parameterNull subject parameter

Spanish (+NS) L1 learning English (–NS)Spanish (+NS) L1 learning English (–NS) An error constituting An error constituting transfer of +NStransfer of +NS would be would be

omitting a subject in an English sentence, which omitting a subject in an English sentence, which requires a subject.requires a subject.

English (–NS) L1 learning Spanish (+NS)English (–NS) L1 learning Spanish (+NS) Transfer of –NS?Transfer of –NS? Trickier—have to look for context Trickier—have to look for context

where Spanish would where Spanish would definitelydefinitely drop the subject, drop the subject, and see if English speakers incorrectly retain the and see if English speakers incorrectly retain the subject. subject. Even then, does that mean the Spanish Even then, does that mean the Spanish learner doesn’t have the parameter down, or just learner doesn’t have the parameter down, or just hasn’t worked out the pragmatics of hasn’t worked out the pragmatics of wherewhere a a subject should be dropped?subject should be dropped?

Null subject parameterNull subject parameterWhite (1985), GJ taskWhite (1985), GJ task

Percent correct at Percent correct at identifying identifying ungrammatical ungrammatical (U) as (U) as ungrammatical ungrammatical and grammatical and grammatical (G) as (G) as grammatical.grammatical.

Spanish is +NS, Spanish is +NS, French is –NS, French is –NS, English –NSEnglish –NS

Probable Probable methodological methodological problems with VS, problems with VS, SV, and SV, and thatthat-trace -trace sentences.sentences.

Sentence type Spanish French

Subjectless U 61 89

Subjectful G 90 97

VS U 91 96

SV G 81 85

that-trace U 23 35

other mmts G 79 79

Null subject parameterNull subject parameterWhite (1985), Q White (1985), Q

formationformation

correctthat-trace

other errs

Spanish (n=22) 17 71 12

French (n=30) 20 42 38

Elizabeth believes that her sister will be late.Who does Elizabeth believe (*that) t will be late?

Spanish (+NS) learning English (–NS) were more likely to make that-trace errors.

Null subject parameterNull subject parameter So, these +NS Spanish speakers accepted So, these +NS Spanish speakers accepted

subjectless English sentences around 40% of subjectless English sentences around 40% of the time (vs. 10% for French speakers), they the time (vs. 10% for French speakers), they produced produced thatthat-trace errors 70% of the time -trace errors 70% of the time (vs. 40% for French speakers).(vs. 40% for French speakers).

There is There is somesome effect at least of the ±NS effect at least of the ±NS setting of the L1.setting of the L1.

Is it transfer of the parameter value? Well, if Is it transfer of the parameter value? Well, if so, there should be “clustering”—is there?so, there should be “clustering”—is there? Seems like “no”—VS rejected by both groups. Error Seems like “no”—VS rejected by both groups. Error

in methodology? Should have been unaccusative? in methodology? Should have been unaccusative? Not actually a consequence of the NS parm after Not actually a consequence of the NS parm after all?all?

Null subject parameterNull subject parameterPhinney (1987)Phinney (1987)

English->Spanish and Spanish->EnglishEnglish->Spanish and Spanish->English

Perhaps questionable methodology (written, Perhaps questionable methodology (written, exam in one case, class composition exam in one case, class composition assignment in the other, Spanish speakers assignment in the other, Spanish speakers had English in school—perhaps not entirely had English in school—perhaps not entirely learned as an adult, English speakers only learned as an adult, English speakers only had exposure in college), but…had exposure in college), but…


Omission of pleonastic pronoun subjects.Omission of pleonastic pronoun subjects. can’t can’t be omitted in English, be omitted in English, must must be omitted in Spanish.be omitted in Spanish.

English->Spanish (SSL) always omitted pleonastic.English->Spanish (SSL) always omitted pleonastic. Spanish->English (ESL) sometimes omitted pleonastic.Spanish->English (ESL) sometimes omitted pleonastic.

Spanish: Carrying over [+NS] from L1.Spanish: Carrying over [+NS] from L1. English: English: NotNot carrying over [–NS] from L1. carrying over [–NS] from L1.

ESL1 ESL2 SSL1 SSL2

referential 13 6 83 65

pleonastic 56 76 100 100


Why would [+NS] be transferred and Why would [+NS] be transferred and not not [–NS]?[–NS]? Perhaps there is a Perhaps there is a defaultdefault (first setting) of the null (first setting) of the null

subject parameter: [+NS].subject parameter: [+NS]. Learners of a [–NS] language need to change that Learners of a [–NS] language need to change that

parameter.parameter. Learners of a [+NS] language already have it right.Learners of a [+NS] language already have it right.

ESL1 ESL2 SSL1 SSL2




If [+NS] is the default, occurrence of overt If [+NS] is the default, occurrence of overt pleonastic pronouns could serve as evidence that the pleonastic pronouns could serve as evidence that the language is [–NS]; the non-default (marked) value language is [–NS]; the non-default (marked) value can be learned.can be learned.

Arguments both for and against this exist… we can Arguments both for and against this exist… we can keep it in the back of our minds as a concept, keep it in the back of our minds as a concept, though…though…

ESL1 ESL2 SSL1 SSL2



A supplement: White, A supplement: White, Travis, Maclachlan Travis, Maclachlan

(1992)(1992) whwh-question formation Malagasy->English -question formation Malagasy->English L2’ers.L2’ers.

Malagasy: Malagasy: subject-object asymmetry from English subject-object asymmetry from English appears to be reversed (which can be explained appears to be reversed (which can be explained by reference to the syntax of this VOS language):by reference to the syntax of this VOS language): **Who does Rasoa believe [Who does Rasoa believe [tt will be buying rice]? will be buying rice]? Who was [that Who was [that tt will be buying rice] believed by Rosoa will be buying rice] believed by Rosoa

In fact In fact onlyonly the subject can be extracted in simple the subject can be extracted in simple whwh-questions:-questions: Who Who tt buys rice for the children? buys rice for the children? *What does the man buy *What does the man buy tt for the children? for the children? What is bought What is bought tt for the children by the man? for the children by the man?

WTM 1992WTM 1992

Question: Question: Do M->E Do M->E L2’ers get the L2’ers get the English restrictions?English restrictions?

The restrictions The restrictions differ in differ in bothboth directions; just directions; just learning object learning object extraction is ok in extraction is ok in English won’t be English won’t be enough.enough.

EE MM

<Complex <Complex DPsDPs

** **

<Adjuncts<Adjuncts ** **

<Subject CP<Subject CP ** √√

<Subject DP<Subject DP ** **

<Object CP<Object CP √√ **

<Object DP<Object DP √√ **

Subject Subject tt */√*/√ √√

Object Object tt √√ **

WTM 1992WTM 1992

38 adult M speakers taking English.38 adult M speakers taking English. Broken by course level and professor Broken by course level and professor

ratings into high intermediate (18) and ratings into high intermediate (18) and low intermediate (20).low intermediate (20).

Grammaticality judgment task, and Grammaticality judgment task, and question formation task:question formation task: Sam believes that Ann stole Sam believes that Ann stole his carhis car.. *What does Sam believe the claim that Ann *What does Sam believe the claim that Ann

stole?stole? What does Sam believe that Ann stole?What does Sam believe that Ann stole?

WTM 1992WTM 1992 Results: Results: High intermediates were nearly as High intermediates were nearly as

good as the controls at accepting grammatical good as the controls at accepting grammatical sentences and rejecting ungrammatical ones sentences and rejecting ungrammatical ones (and avoiding violations when forming (and avoiding violations when forming questions).questions).

One place a big difference appeared is in One place a big difference appeared is in accepting/producing accepting/producing thatthat-trace violations-trace violations (compared to controls) in production, yet in GJ (compared to controls) in production, yet in GJ task, task, controls actually accepted about 30% of controls actually accepted about 30% of the the thatthat-trace violations-trace violations—so maybe this is a —so maybe this is a preferencepreference issue (controls prefer not to issue (controls prefer not to “violate “violate thatthat-trace”, L2’ers haven’t got that -trace”, L2’ers haven’t got that preference yet)preference yet)

WTM 1992 conclude…WTM 1992 conclude…

Carrying over the settings from L1 won’t Carrying over the settings from L1 won’t explain how the Malagasy speakers get the explain how the Malagasy speakers get the English grammaticality facts so closely (since English grammaticality facts so closely (since the pattern is reversed, in places, but not the pattern is reversed, in places, but not everywhere).everywhere).

The idea:The idea: There is still some “access to UG”— There is still some “access to UG”—the options concerning what kinds of languages the options concerning what kinds of languages there can be re: there can be re: whwh-extraction are still around.-extraction are still around.

Word order parametersWord order parameters

Japanese is head-Japanese is head-final final (SOVIC)(SOVIC) [[CPCP [ [IPIP SS [ [VPVP O VO V ] ] II ] ] CC ] ]

English is head-English is head-initial initial (CSIVO)(CSIVO) [[CPCP CC [ [IPIP S IS I [[VPVP V OV O ] ]] ]

This is a parameter by which This is a parameter by which languages differ—but it should be languages differ—but it should be pretty pretty obvious obvious to the L2 learner.to the L2 learner.

Word order parametersWord order parametersClahsen and Muysken Clahsen and Muysken

(1986)(1986) Arguing for a non-UG-based view of L2A: L1A Arguing for a non-UG-based view of L2A: L1A of German and L2A of German are different.of German and L2A of German are different.

(L1) kids get SOV order right away.(L1) kids get SOV order right away. L2 learners coming from Romance use SVO L2 learners coming from Romance use SVO

order (not just V2), but this isn’t even order (not just V2), but this isn’t even transfer, since L2 learners coming from transfer, since L2 learners coming from Turkish also use SVO order (not SOV).Turkish also use SVO order (not SOV).

To the extent that people To the extent that people learnlearn the SOV the SOV German order, it’s due to (unnatural) rules German order, it’s due to (unnatural) rules transforming underlying SVO structures to transforming underlying SVO structures to the SOV forms.the SOV forms.

Word order parameters Word order parameters (*UG)(*UG)

Clahsen & MuyskenClahsen & Muysken Used naturalistic production data.Used naturalistic production data. They suggest that L2 learners extract They suggest that L2 learners extract

the “canonical” order (SVO) and stick the “canonical” order (SVO) and stick with that (later learning to move non-with that (later learning to move non-finite verbs to the end).finite verbs to the end).

White: But how do they arrive at the White: But how do they arrive at the canonical order? How can they tell canonical order? How can they tell that the Adv-V-S-O order is non-that the Adv-V-S-O order is non-canonical?canonical?

Word order parameters Word order parameters (*UG?)(*UG?)

Clahsen & MuyskenClahsen & Muysken L2 learners do seem to have assumed SVO, L2 learners do seem to have assumed SVO,

producing things like Adv-SVO, SVproducing things like Adv-SVO, SV±Fin±FinO, … O, … “canonical order”??“canonical order”??

Most languages are Most languages are uniformuniform with respect to with respect to headedness—but German isn’t. CP is head headedness—but German isn’t. CP is head initial, while VP is head-final (IP could be initial, while VP is head-final (IP could be either). either).

German has mixed headedness (CSIOV)German has mixed headedness (CSIOV) [[CPCP CC [ [IPIP S IS I [[VPVP O VO V ] ]] ]

Learner of German could easily assume German Learner of German could easily assume German is head-initial—that is, is head-initial—that is, misanalyze misanalyze it as SVO.it as SVO.

So…So… The V-to-T parameter seems to be hard to The V-to-T parameter seems to be hard to

“re-set”—perhaps it even can’t be re-set.“re-set”—perhaps it even can’t be re-set.

The null subject parameter has given us The null subject parameter has given us less than striking results—they don’t less than striking results—they don’t move move directlydirectly together. together.

Possible that except for obvious Possible that except for obvious differences in word order, misanalysis differences in word order, misanalysis (failure to re-set) occurs.(failure to re-set) occurs.

Binding Theory: once Binding Theory: once moremore

1)1) JohnJohn saw saw himselfhimself..

2)2) **HimselfHimself saw saw JohnJohn..

3)3) **JohnJohn said said Mary saw Mary saw himselfhimself..

4)4) **JohnJohn said said himselfhimself saw Marysaw Mary..

5)5) **JohnJohn saw saw himhim..

6)6) JohnJohn said said Mary saw Mary saw himhim..

7)7) JohnJohn said said hehe saw Marysaw Mary..

Binding Theory.Binding Theory. Principle A:Principle A: Anaphors (like Anaphors (like himselfhimself) ) need an “earlier” antecedent within its binding need an “earlier” antecedent within its binding domain. domain. Principle B:Principle B: Pronouns (like him) Pronouns (like him) cannotcannot have have an “earlier” antecedent within its binding domain.an “earlier” antecedent within its binding domain.

Parameter:Parameter: Binding domainBinding domain = sentence containing = sentence containing

Binding Theory Binding Theory parameter: the parameter: the domain domain

for anaphorsfor anaphors24)24) Sam believes [that Harry overestimates Sam believes [that Harry overestimates himselfhimself]]

25)25) Sam-wa [Harry-ga Sam-wa [Harry-ga zibunzibun-o tunet-ta to] it-ta]-o tunet-ta to] it-ta]Sam-top Harry-nom Sam-top Harry-nom selfself-acc pinch-past-that say--acc pinch-past-that say-pastpast‘Sam said that Harry pinched (him)self.’‘Sam said that Harry pinched (him)self.’

More advances in BTMore advances in BT This parameter of binding domain has been This parameter of binding domain has been

studied rather extensively in both theoretical studied rather extensively in both theoretical linguistics and second language acquisition.linguistics and second language acquisition.

Eventually, it was noticed that anaphors Eventually, it was noticed that anaphors which seem to be able to get their referent which seem to be able to get their referent “long-distance” tend also to be “long-distance” tend also to be monomorphemicmonomorphemic—this is particularly clear for —this is particularly clear for languages that have languages that have bothboth kinds of anaphors, kinds of anaphors, like Dutch like Dutch zichzich (LD) and (LD) and zichzelfzichzelf (local), (local), Norwegian Norwegian segseg (LD) and (LD) and seg selvseg selv (local), etc.(local), etc.

More advances in BTMore advances in BT

One thing this tells us is that One thing this tells us is that locallocal vs. vs. long-distancelong-distance is not a parameter is not a parameter differentiating differentiating languageslanguages——it’s some it’s some kind of parameter differentiating kind of parameter differentiating anaphorsanaphors, even in the same language. , even in the same language. Some languages only have one kind Some languages only have one kind (e.g., English, which has only (e.g., English, which has only complex complex pronoun+pronoun+selfself anaphors), but anaphors), but some languages have both.some languages have both.


One fact about LD anaphors which One fact about LD anaphors which seems to be pretty robust is that seems to be pretty robust is that LD LD anaphors are anaphors are subject-orientedsubject-oriented—they —they can get their reference from a long-can get their reference from a long-distance distance subjectsubject, but not from , but not from anything else outside of their clause.anything else outside of their clause.

More advances in BTMore advances in BT English English himself himself (type 1)(type 1)

FredFredii asked asked JohnJohnjj about about himselfhimselfi,ji,j.. Russian Russian sebja sebja ‘self’ (type 2)‘self’ (type 2)

IvanIvanii sprosil sprosil BorisaBorisajj o o sebjasebjai,*ji,*j.. ‘‘IvanIvanii asked asked BorisBorisjj about about selfselfi,*ji,*j.’.’

Japanese Japanese zibunzibun ‘self’ (type 3) ‘self’ (type 3) JohnJohnii wa wa MaryMaryjj ni ni zibunzibuni,*ji,*j no ayasin o no ayasin o

mise-ta.mise-ta. ‘‘JohnJohnii showed showed MaryMaryjj pictures of pictures of selfselfi,*ji,*j.’.’


So there are two things about LD So there are two things about LD anaphors that differentiate them anaphors that differentiate them from local anaphors pretty reliably:from local anaphors pretty reliably: LD anaphors are monomorphemic and LD anaphors are monomorphemic and

subject-orientedsubject-oriented Local anaphors are neither.Local anaphors are neither.


The last differentiation has to do with The last differentiation has to do with the “distance” a LD anaphor can go the “distance” a LD anaphor can go to find its referent. It turns out that to find its referent. It turns out that some languages with LD anaphors some languages with LD anaphors differentiate finite and nonfinite differentiate finite and nonfinite (=with an infinitive) clauses, and LD (=with an infinitive) clauses, and LD anaphors cannot look outside a finite anaphors cannot look outside a finite clause, only outside a nonfinite clause, only outside a nonfinite clause. Examples follow.clause. Examples follow.

-LD, +LD-finite, -LD, +LD-finite, +LD±finite+LD±finite

English English himself himself (type 1)(type 1) FredFredii believes believes JohnJohnjj to have hurt to have hurt himselfhimself*i,j*i,j.. FredFredii believes that believes that JohnJohnjj hurt hurt himselfhimself*i,j*i,j..

Russian Russian sebja sebja ‘self’ (type 2)‘self’ (type 2) SaSaSaSaii poprosila poprosila MarinuMarinujj narisovat’ narisovat’ sebjasebjai,ji,j..

‘‘SashaSashaii asked asked MarinaMarinajj to draw to draw selfselfi,ji,j.’.’ SaSaSaSaii prosit, Ctoby prosit, Ctoby MarinaMarinajj narisovala narisovala sebjasebja*i,j*i,j..

‘‘SashaSashaii requests that requests that MarinaMarinajj draw draw selfself*i,j*i,j.’.’ Japanese Japanese zibunzibun ‘self’ (type 3) ‘self’ (type 3)

AliceAliceii wa wa SueSuejj ga ga zibunzibuni,ji,j o aisite iru to omotte o aisite iru to omotte iruiru‘‘AliceAliceii thinks that thinks that SueSuejj loves loves selfselfi,ji,j.’.’


It turns out that this difference (sensitivity It turns out that this difference (sensitivity to finiteness) is a to finiteness) is a language-by-language language-by-language differencedifference—a language with a LD anaphor —a language with a LD anaphor only has one kind of LD anaphor. This only has one kind of LD anaphor. This isis a a parameter which differentiate languages.parameter which differentiate languages.

Incidentally, there is a theoretical explanation Incidentally, there is a theoretical explanation for why LD parameters are for why LD parameters are bothboth monomorphemic and subject-oriented monomorphemic and subject-oriented (roughly, they connect not to a prior noun (roughly, they connect not to a prior noun phrase, but to a verb which agrees with its phrase, but to a verb which agrees with its subject).subject).

L2 research on BTL2 research on BT There has been quite a bit of research into There has been quite a bit of research into

L2’ers’ knowledge of BT, and it also provides L2’ers’ knowledge of BT, and it also provides an area with “clustered” properties.an area with “clustered” properties.

As expected, L2’ers weren’t always perfect; As expected, L2’ers weren’t always perfect; learning English,learning English, many achieved (correct) type 1 (local) binding,many achieved (correct) type 1 (local) binding, many others (generally an effect of transfer) many others (generally an effect of transfer)

spoke English as if it were a type 3 (LD±fin) spoke English as if it were a type 3 (LD±fin) language.language.

some seemed to show an effect ±finite on some seemed to show an effect ±finite on whether an anaphor could be long distance—whether an anaphor could be long distance—sounds a bit like type 2 (LD-fin).sounds a bit like type 2 (LD-fin).

MacLaughlin 1998MacLaughlin 1998

In an experiment to try to test this In an experiment to try to test this question explicitly, MacLaughlin question explicitly, MacLaughlin looked at speakers of type 3 languages looked at speakers of type 3 languages (5 native speakers of Chinese, 10 (5 native speakers of Chinese, 10 native speakers of Japanese) learning native speakers of Japanese) learning English (type 1) in various settings. English (type 1) in various settings. What she was specifically looking to do What she was specifically looking to do is to classify each learner as “type 1,” is to classify each learner as “type 1,” “type 2,” or “type 3” to see in “type 2,” or “type 3” to see in particular if there are any that show up particular if there are any that show up as type 2.as type 2.


The significance of seeing a L2’er with a The significance of seeing a L2’er with a type 2 system is that it is type 2 system is that it is neitherneither a property a property of the L1of the L1 (hence it couldn’t have arisen due (hence it couldn’t have arisen due to transfer from the L1) to transfer from the L1) nornor a property of a property of the L2the L2 (hence it couldn’t have arisen simply (hence it couldn’t have arisen simply due to positive evidence from the L2). due to positive evidence from the L2). Rather, it is an Rather, it is an optionoption made available by UG made available by UG but taken by neither the L1 nor L2. This is a but taken by neither the L1 nor L2. This is a strong type of evidence for the availability of strong type of evidence for the availability of UG in the L2A process, since it shows that UG in the L2A process, since it shows that the the parameter optionsparameter options are still accessible. are still accessible.


The test itself was of the form:The test itself was of the form:

Tom thinks that John hates himself:Tom thinks that John hates himself: Himself Himself can be can be JohnJohn Agree___ Disagree___Agree___ Disagree___ Himself Himself can be can be TomTom Agree___ Disagree___Agree___ Disagree___

Several types of sentences were tested, Several types of sentences were tested, including sentences with embedded finite including sentences with embedded finite clauses and embedded infinitival clauses with clauses and embedded infinitival clauses with both subjects and non-subjects as potential both subjects and non-subjects as potential antecedents.antecedents.


Learners’ responses were categorized and learners Learners’ responses were categorized and learners were assigned to “types” according to whether they were assigned to “types” according to whether they met either 80% or 100% expectations.met either 80% or 100% expectations.

Type 1Type 1 Type 2Type 2 Type 3Type 3 OtherOther

8080 100100 8080 100100 8080 100100 8080 100100

EE 1818 1616 00 11 00 00 00 11

L2L2 66 44 77 44 22 55 00 22

CC 33 22 11 11 11 11 00 11

JJ 33 22 66 33 11 44 00 11

MacLaughlin 1998MacLaughlin 1998 There are two parameters relevant to the There are two parameters relevant to the typetype

that a learner is assigned to… We can see that that a learner is assigned to… We can see that type 2 is a not surprising place for some type 2 is a not surprising place for some learners to arrive at on the way to the target learners to arrive at on the way to the target type 1.type 1.

NLNL T 3T 3 T 2T 2 T 1T 1 TLTL

Anaphor typeAnaphor typeMonomorphemiMonomorphemicc

++ ++ ++

PolymorphemicPolymorphemic ++ ++ ++

AGRAGR (finite tense blocks LD relation) (finite tense blocks LD relation)

-- -- ++ ++ ++

SoSo

So, we’ve finally got something that So, we’ve finally got something that appears to be on the “UG side”—appears to be on the “UG side”—

The parameter of the anaphor and The parameter of the anaphor and the parameter (AGR) concerning the the parameter (AGR) concerning the opacity of finite tense seem to be opacity of finite tense seem to be able to be “re-set” and moreover we able to be “re-set” and moreover we see the predicted intermediate point see the predicted intermediate point when only one but not the other has when only one but not the other has been set to the target setting.been set to the target setting.

ECP: ECP: thatthat-trace effects-trace effects

The setting of the head parameter should The setting of the head parameter should be obvious in the primary data. Does the be obvious in the primary data. Does the head come before or after the complement?head come before or after the complement?

The setting of the Null Subject parameter The setting of the Null Subject parameter should also be obvious. Are there should also be obvious. Are there pleonastic pronouns in pleonastic pronouns in it’s rainingit’s raining??

ECP (ECP (thatthat-trace) and Subjacency (bounding -trace) and Subjacency (bounding nodes) are parameters which require much nodes) are parameters which require much more subtle evidence in order to be more subtle evidence in order to be correctly set.correctly set.

ECP: ECP: thatthat-trace effects-trace effects

We know that the positive evidence won’t We know that the positive evidence won’t lead a learner to the generalization that lead a learner to the generalization that thatthat is disallowed when a subject is is disallowed when a subject is extracted from an embedded sentence.extracted from an embedded sentence. John arrived yesterday.John arrived yesterday. Mary said John arrived yesterday.Mary said John arrived yesterday. Mary said that John arrived yesterday.Mary said that John arrived yesterday. Who arrived yesterday?Who arrived yesterday? Who did Mary say Who did Mary say tt arrived yesterday? arrived yesterday? *Who did Mary say that *Who did Mary say that tt arrived yesterday? arrived yesterday?

ECP: ECP: thatthat-trace effects-trace effects thatthat-trace is ok in Dutch.-trace is ok in Dutch.

Wie denk je Wie denk je datdat hem gisteren gezien heeft? hem gisteren gezien heeft?who think you who think you thatthat him yesterday see has him yesterday see has‘Who do you think ‘Who do you think tt saw him yesterday?’ saw him yesterday?’

The parameter is supposed to be a property of The parameter is supposed to be a property of C; in Dutch C; in Dutch C (C (datdat) ) is a proper governoris a proper governor, and so , and so a trace in subject position in properly governed. a trace in subject position in properly governed. In English, In English, C (C (thatthat) ) is is notnot a proper governor a proper governor, , hence the hence the thatthat-trace effect.-trace effect.

If UG is available, Dutch->English learners If UG is available, Dutch->English learners should be able to set the parameter properly on should be able to set the parameter properly on C eventually. If not, we’d expect C eventually. If not, we’d expect thatthat to be to be forever treated like forever treated like datdat..

ECP: ECP: thatthat-trace effects-trace effects Dutch->English learners given a preference task Dutch->English learners given a preference task

(how is the sentence with (how is the sentence with thatthat compared to the compared to the sentence without sentence without thatthat?). (White 1990). Some effect.?). (White 1990). Some effect.

They seem to get the differential behavior between They seem to get the differential behavior between subjects and objects, not subjects and objects, not expectedexpected based on Dutch based on Dutch—except was this checked??—except was this checked??

Control (n=30) Dutch group (n=62)

+that –that same +that –that same

subjects 0 98.5 1.5 6 82.5 11.5

objects 9 81 10 12.5 61 16.5

Subjacency and Subjacency and bounding nodesbounding nodes

A much more subtle parameter is the A much more subtle parameter is the setting of bounding nodes for setting of bounding nodes for Subjacency.Subjacency.

Subjacency: A single movement cannot Subjacency: A single movement cannot cross two bounding nodes.cross two bounding nodes.

English:English: Bounding nodes are Bounding nodes are DPDP and and IPIP.. French/Italian:French/Italian: Bounding nodes are Bounding nodes are DPDP

and and CPCP..

Subjacency and Subjacency and bounding nodesbounding nodes

**WhatWhatii [[IPIP did Mary believe did Mary believe

[[DPDP the story the story [[CPCP ttii that [ that [IPIP John saw John saw

ttii ]]]]? ]]]]?

**WhatWhatii [[IPIP did Mary wonder did Mary wonder [[CPCP

whetherwhether

[[IPIP John would do John would do ttii ]]]? ]]]?

Bounding nodesBounding nodes

French->English: Do they learn that IP is French->English: Do they learn that IP is a bounding node?a bounding node?

White (1988): Grammaticality judgments White (1988): Grammaticality judgments from intermediate adult learners. from intermediate adult learners. Suggests that at least one group hasn’t Suggests that at least one group hasn’t quite gotten IP yet—but will?quite gotten IP yet—but will?

control group 1 group 2

CNP 96 80 81

wh-island 91 65 80

ParametersParameters So, So, parametersparameters seem like one of the best places seem like one of the best places

to look for evidence that UG still plays a role in to look for evidence that UG still plays a role in L2A.L2A.

Languages differ in the value of parameters.Languages differ in the value of parameters. During L1A, one setting is picked.During L1A, one setting is picked. If only L1 can be consulted while learning L2, If only L1 can be consulted while learning L2,

then we might expect only that setting to be then we might expect only that setting to be available. (Transferred—and perhaps even available. (Transferred—and perhaps even keptkept, , with additional mechanisms to derive with additional mechanisms to derive deviations).deviations).

If a L2 learner can If a L2 learner can resetreset a parameter (from a parameter (from either a transferred setting or a default one), either a transferred setting or a default one), then this means that the then this means that the optionsoptions are still there. are still there.

Documents

GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory