Week 5. Second Language Acquisition: introduction GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

Week 5.Week 5.Second Language Second Language

Acquisition: introductionAcquisition: introduction

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic Linguistic

TheoryTheory

Scientific study of Scientific study of languagelanguage

What constitutes one’s knowledge of What constitutes one’s knowledge of language?language?

How is that knowledge acquired?How is that knowledge acquired?

Looking at adult native languages, Looking at adult native languages, we’ve found that we’ve found that language is very language is very complexcomplex (see LX 522, 523, for example) (see LX 522, 523, for example)

Looking at kids, we’ve found that Looking at kids, we’ve found that kids kids seem to learn this complicated system seem to learn this complicated system with surprisingly little help from the with surprisingly little help from the environmentenvironment..

L1 acquisitionL1 acquisition We posited a genetic predisposition for We posited a genetic predisposition for language, something which guides the language, something which guides the kinds of languages kids learn (Universal kinds of languages kids learn (Universal Grammar):Grammar): Kids learn Kids learn fastfast Kids end up with systems that are more Kids end up with systems that are more complicated than the input data justifies complicated than the input data justifies (they can judge ungrammatical sentences in the (they can judge ungrammatical sentences in the same way as other native speakers).same way as other native speakers).

Kids don’t fail to learn language despite Kids don’t fail to learn language despite differences in environment, and without differences in environment, and without getting or making use of negative evidence.getting or making use of negative evidence.

Kids seem to go through similar stages, across Kids seem to go through similar stages, across kids, across languages.kids, across languages.

But what about L2 But what about L2 acquisition?acquisition?

Adults seem to Adults seem to have a harder timehave a harder time learning language than kids do learning learning language than kids do learning their first language (there may be a their first language (there may be a “critical period”).“critical period”).

Adult second language learners Adult second language learners rarely rarely reach a native-speaker-like levelreach a native-speaker-like level of of competence.competence.

Adult second language learners Adult second language learners already already know a languageknow a language..

Adult second language learners are often Adult second language learners are often given negative evidencegiven negative evidence (“you don’t say (“you don’t say it that way”) when taught in a classroom.it that way”) when taught in a classroom.

L2A seems veryL2A seems verydifferent from L1A.different from L1A.

Is L2A like learning to play chess? Is L2A like learning to play chess? Like learning calculus? Like Like learning calculus? Like driving a car? Do we just learn the driving a car? Do we just learn the rules of the language and apply rules of the language and apply them (sometimes forgetting some of them (sometimes forgetting some of the rules, never quite learning all the rules, never quite learning all of them, etc.)?of them, etc.)?

It’s very tempting to think that’s It’s very tempting to think that’s true.true.

Scientific study of Scientific study of languagelanguage

What constitutes one’s knowledge of language?What constitutes one’s knowledge of language? How is that knowledge acquired?How is that knowledge acquired?

We can still study these questions in We can still study these questions in L2A as well and try to determine the L2A as well and try to determine the answers, whether they are related to answers, whether they are related to the answers we got for L1A or not.the answers we got for L1A or not.

And perhaps surprisingly, they might And perhaps surprisingly, they might bebe..

L2 competenceL2 competence Learners of a second language have some Learners of a second language have some kind of (systematic) linguistic knowledge.kind of (systematic) linguistic knowledge. They have retained their L1 knowledge, and They have retained their L1 knowledge, and they have knowledge of a sort which they have knowledge of a sort which approximates (perhaps poorly) the knowledge approximates (perhaps poorly) the knowledge held by a native speaker of the learner’s held by a native speaker of the learner’s L2.L2.

This knowledge is often referred to as an This knowledge is often referred to as an interlanguageinterlanguage grammargrammar—not L1, not L2, but —not L1, not L2, but something different (…and to what extent something different (…and to what extent this knowledge might be related to or this knowledge might be related to or influenced by L1 or L2 is yet to be influenced by L1 or L2 is yet to be determined).determined).

A real-world example, A real-world example, Japanese case-marker Japanese case-marker

omissionomission Adult knowledge is complicated, relies Adult knowledge is complicated, relies on the on the Empty Category PrincipleEmpty Category Principle, which , which says that says that an empty category (including an empty category (including a dropped Case marker) must be properly a dropped Case marker) must be properly governedgoverned..

The ECP is taken to be responsible for The ECP is taken to be responsible for the fact that in Japanese you can drop the fact that in Japanese you can drop a Case marker in object position but a Case marker in object position but you cannot drop a Case marker in you cannot drop a Case marker in subject positionsubject position..

Kanno 1996Kanno 1996 John ga sono hon o yonda.John ga sono hon o yonda. nom that book acc read nom that book acc read‘John read that book.’‘John read that book.’

John ga sono hon _ yonda.John ga sono hon _ yonda. nom that book Ø read nom that book Ø read‘John read that book.’‘John read that book.’

* John _ sono hon o yonda.* John _ sono hon o yonda. Ø that book acc read Ø that book acc read‘John read that book.’‘John read that book.’

Kanno 1996Kanno 1996

English speakers (learning Japanese) know English speakers (learning Japanese) know the ECP, because they know:the ECP, because they know: Who did you say Ø Who did you say Ø tt left? left? *Who did you say that *Who did you say that tt left? left?

But this is a very different context of use But this is a very different context of use from the use in Case marker drop. The from the use in Case marker drop. The question is:question is:Do English speakers respect the ECP in Do English speakers respect the ECP in their interlanguage grammar (toward their interlanguage grammar (toward Japanese)?Japanese)?

A broader way to ask the question: A broader way to ask the question: Is the Is the interlanguage grammar constrained by UG?interlanguage grammar constrained by UG?

What is UG anyway?What is UG anyway?

The conception of UG has undergone a The conception of UG has undergone a number of conceptual shifts…number of conceptual shifts… It has always been a means of explaining It has always been a means of explaining how kids uniformly and quickly reach the how kids uniformly and quickly reach the complex knowledge system that language complex knowledge system that language (L1) is.(L1) is.

But how?But how? ““Blueprint”: The LAD uses UG as a template to Blueprint”: The LAD uses UG as a template to acquire rules. UG leads to L1 but UG is not in acquire rules. UG leads to L1 but UG is not in any way any way part part of L1.of L1.

UG UG isis the common core of language knowledge, the the common core of language knowledge, the specifics of L1 are stored as parameters in the specifics of L1 are stored as parameters in the lexicon. There is no L1 without UG.lexicon. There is no L1 without UG.

……but a flawed premisebut a flawed premise It’s It’s really hardreally hard to test this kind of thing. to test this kind of thing. Do English speakers actually Do English speakers actually know know the ECP? Or do the ECP? Or do they just know that they just know that *Who did you say that left?*Who did you say that left? ? ? Blueprint view: Blueprint view: The ECP constrained the rules you The ECP constrained the rules you acquired learning to acquired learning to *Who did you say that left?*Who did you say that left?. . There There were no rules about case marker drop in English, so the were no rules about case marker drop in English, so the ECP didn’t play a role. If L2’ers obey the ECP wrt case ECP didn’t play a role. If L2’ers obey the ECP wrt case marker drop in Japanese, they re-applied the ECP—from UG—marker drop in Japanese, they re-applied the ECP—from UG—as they learned the new rules.as they learned the new rules.

Common core view:Common core view: The ECP holds of Language, including The ECP holds of Language, including English. English. It is a general constraint from which It is a general constraint from which *Who did *Who did you say that left?you say that left? is a consequence. The L1 has this is a consequence. The L1 has this constraint, which has different consequences in Japanese. constraint, which has different consequences in Japanese. But obeying the ECP wrt case marker drop in Japanese is But obeying the ECP wrt case marker drop in Japanese is applying the ECP—from L1.applying the ECP—from L1.

……but a flawed premisebut a flawed premise Kanno’s conclusions tacitly rely on the Kanno’s conclusions tacitly rely on the blueprint view:blueprint view: ECP is a property of the LADECP is a property of the LAD, you can only learn , you can only learn an L1 that obeys the ECP. The L1 you an L1 that obeys the ECP. The L1 you learn learn if you if you learn English, however, is simply a set of learn English, however, is simply a set of context-specific rules that applies to context-specific rules that applies to *Who did *Who did you say that left?you say that left? but has nothing to say about but has nothing to say about Case marker drop, since there are no Case markers Case marker drop, since there are no Case markers in English.in English.

……but the hypothesis of modern theoretical but the hypothesis of modern theoretical syntax is that syntax is that ECP is a property of the ECP is a property of the language language knowledgeknowledge, playing a role in , playing a role in generating/judging/comprehending English.generating/judging/comprehending English.

Kanno 1996Kanno 1996 Let’s look at the experiment anyway, Let’s look at the experiment anyway, though…though…

Kanno tested 26 college students in Kanno tested 26 college students in Japanese II on case particle drop.Japanese II on case particle drop.

In an effort to ensure that the students, In an effort to ensure that the students, if successful, will have “gone beyond the if successful, will have “gone beyond the input”, she examined what the students input”, she examined what the students would have been exposed to by the would have been exposed to by the textbook up to the point where they took textbook up to the point where they took the test, to see if they were the test, to see if they were taughttaught when when not to drop the case markers.not to drop the case markers.

What the Japanese II What the Japanese II students saw…students saw…

41 cases of object case-marker drop41 cases of object case-marker drop, , like:like: Enpitsu Ø kudasai ?Enpitsu Ø kudasai ?pencil givepencil give‘Can you give me a pencil?’‘Can you give me a pencil?’

8 cases of subject case-marker drop8 cases of subject case-marker drop, in , in the exceptional case when it is allowed the exceptional case when it is allowed (with a final emphatic particle—(with a final emphatic particle—these these don’t violate the ECPdon’t violate the ECP):): John Ø sono hon o yonda yo.John Ø sono hon o yonda yo.John that book acc read partJohn that book acc read part‘John (indeed) read the book.’ (I think)‘John (indeed) read the book.’ (I think)


Certain verbs have Certain verbs have nominativenominative case on their objects, and case case on their objects, and case can be dropped on those objects can be dropped on those objects too…too… John ga kankokugo (ga) dekimasu.John ga kankokugo (ga) dekimasu.John nom Korean nom can-doJohn nom Korean nom can-do‘John can speak Korean.’‘John can speak Korean.’

69 of 110 such verbs in the book 69 of 110 such verbs in the book had the object case marker had the object case marker dropped.dropped.


Japanese allows arguments to be Japanese allows arguments to be omitted (somewhat like Italian omitted (somewhat like Italian propro drop), so there were many drop), so there were many cases with just one argument (the cases with just one argument (the object) with no case marker:object) with no case marker:

Kami Ø irimasu ka?Kami Ø irimasu ka?paper need Qpaper need Q‘Do you need paper? / Is paper ‘Do you need paper? / Is paper necessary?’necessary?’


Worst of all, Worst of all, the the topictopic marker marker can be droppedcan be dropped, which looks a , which looks a lotlot like a subject marker being like a subject marker being dropped.dropped.

Tanaka-san (Tanaka-san (wawa) itsu kaimasita ka?) itsu kaimasita ka? toptop when when bought Qbought Q‘When did Tanaka buy it?’‘When did Tanaka buy it?’‘As for Tanaka, when did he buy it?’‘As for Tanaka, when did he buy it?’


““gaga [nom] might be deleted, but with [nom] might be deleted, but with a reduction of the a reduction of the emphasis and focusemphasis and focus conveyed by its inclusion.” conveyed by its inclusion.” ((NoNo hint hint that sometimes—even usually—it is not that sometimes—even usually—it is not allowed)allowed)

““If If oo [acc] is deleted, [the object] [acc] is deleted, [the object] would simply lose a bit of its would simply lose a bit of its emphasis and focusemphasis and focus. On the other . On the other hand, the addition of hand, the addition of oo would give would give added emphasis and focus.”added emphasis and focus.”

The poor Japanese II The poor Japanese II students…students…

There’s pretty much There’s pretty much no wayno way they could they could have reached the right generalization have reached the right generalization based on what they were provided.based on what they were provided. Nom can be dropped from object positionNom can be dropped from object position Top can be dropped from subject positionTop can be dropped from subject position Nom subject can be dropped with a Nom subject can be dropped with a particleparticle

Explicit instruction was only about Explicit instruction was only about emphasis.emphasis.

But did they anyway?But did they anyway?

The experimentThe experiment

To test this, the sentences used To test this, the sentences used whwh-words. -words. WhWh-words in general do -words in general do not allow topic marking, so not allow topic marking, so if if the particle is dropped from a the particle is dropped from a subject subject whwh-word, it could not -word, it could not have been a topic drop.have been a topic drop. subject wa subject wa whwh-phrase Ø verb Q?-phrase Ø verb Q? **whwh-subject Ø object acc verb Q?-subject Ø object acc verb Q? propro whwh-object Ø verb Q?-object Ø verb Q? **whwh-subject Ø -subject Ø propro verb Q? verb Q?

Kanno’s missing Kanno’s missing controlscontrols Here’s why Here’s why whwh-subjects were tested:-subjects were tested:

Subject marker Subject marker gaga cannot be dropped in L1J. cannot be dropped in L1J. Topic marker Topic marker wa wa can be dropped in L1J.can be dropped in L1J. WhWh-phrases do not allow -phrases do not allow wawa in L1J. in L1J. Hence, a Hence, a wh-wh-subject with no marker, for L1J, subject with no marker, for L1J, would have an illicitly dropped subject marker.would have an illicitly dropped subject marker.

The first two points follow from the ECP and The first two points follow from the ECP and the general knowledge that things can be the general knowledge that things can be dropped. dropped. But do the students know that wh-But do the students know that wh-phrases do not allow wa?phrases do not allow wa? If not, we’re back If not, we’re back to square one.to square one. Pressed on this point, Kanno points out that Pressed on this point, Kanno points out that students who preferred to drop subject markers in students who preferred to drop subject markers in 2-overt-argument cases didn’t in 1-overt-argument 2-overt-argument cases didn’t in 1-overt-argument cases, and suggested that they should pattern the cases, and suggested that they should pattern the same if subject markers were freely droppable same if subject markers were freely droppable (e.g., if (e.g., if wawa were there and could be dropped). were there and could be dropped).

Kanno’s missing Kanno’s missing controlscontrols

Subjects were given controls to test Subjects were given controls to test their naturalness rating of dropped their naturalness rating of dropped case markers in general.case markers in general.

But the crucial contrast has to do But the crucial contrast has to do with the naturalness of overt vs. with the naturalness of overt vs. dropped case markers on dropped case markers on whwh-words.-words.

Yet no naturalness measure of an Yet no naturalness measure of an overtovert case or topic marker on a case or topic marker on a whwh--phrase was obtained.phrase was obtained.

So, we’re left comparing overt case So, we’re left comparing overt case markers on non-markers on non-whwh-words with dropped -words with dropped case markers on case markers on whwh-words.-words.

The experimentThe experiment What we would have liked to see:What we would have liked to see:

1. subject wa 1. subject wa whwh-phrase Ø verb Q?-phrase Ø verb Q? 2. *2. *whwh-subject Ø object acc verb Q?-subject Ø object acc verb Q? 3. 3. propro whwh-object Ø verb Q?-object Ø verb Q? 4. *4. *whwh-subject Ø -subject Ø propro verb Q? verb Q? 5. *5. *whwh-subject wa object acc verb Q?-subject wa object acc verb Q? 6. subject wa 6. subject wa whwh-phrase acc verb Q?-phrase acc verb Q?

Allowing us to test:Allowing us to test: 1 vs. 6: preference for acc drop on 1 vs. 6: preference for acc drop on whwh--phrases?phrases?

5: control, wa disallowed on 5: control, wa disallowed on whwh-phrases?-phrases? 1/3 vs 2/4: preference for acc drop over nom 1/3 vs 2/4: preference for acc drop over nom drop?drop?

Kanno’s resultsKanno’s results

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

Students NSs

NP wa NP —NP — NP opro NP —NP — pro

““UG” in L2AUG” in L2A Kanno’s conclusion: L2 learners of Japanese Kanno’s conclusion: L2 learners of Japanese have nevertheless (statistically have nevertheless (statistically significantly, as a group) significantly, as a group) gottengotten the rule the rule about dropping subject case markers, despite about dropping subject case markers, despite the lack of evidence from the textbook, the the lack of evidence from the textbook, the instructor, or even English.instructor, or even English.

That is, they appear to know the ECP.That is, they appear to know the ECP. This shows that L2 learners are able to bring This shows that L2 learners are able to bring their knowledge of the ECP from L1 to bear on their knowledge of the ECP from L1 to bear on L2A.L2A. (But it doesn’t reach Kanno’s conclusion that UG (But it doesn’t reach Kanno’s conclusion that UG as as opposed to L1opposed to L1 is constraining L2A.) is constraining L2A.)

Statistically Statistically significantly,significantly,as a group…as a group… The other thing that is surprisingly The other thing that is surprisingly

often overlooked is that the often overlooked is that the hypothesis hypothesis is not about groupsis not about groups, it , it is about is about learnerslearners..

Yet in many studies, results are Yet in many studies, results are reported solely in terms of the reported solely in terms of the group. And all this really tells us group. And all this really tells us is that probably some in the group is that probably some in the group conform to the hypothesis.conform to the hypothesis.

What about the performance of What about the performance of individual subjects?individual subjects?

Statistically Statistically significantly,significantly,as a group…as a group… To look at the performance by To look at the performance by

subject, Kanno classified each subject, Kanno classified each subject in terms of their subject in terms of their preferences (whether that particular preferences (whether that particular subject generally rated subject generally rated gaga drop or drop or oo drop more favorably).drop more favorably).

And, while not 100-0, the subjects And, while not 100-0, the subjects overwhelmingly preferred overwhelmingly preferred oo drop. So drop. So the conclusion (that the L2’ers are the conclusion (that the L2’ers are obeying the ECP) appears to be safe.obeying the ECP) appears to be safe.

All I really needed to All I really needed to know I learned in UGknow I learned in UG

““The linkage of concept and sound can be acquired on The linkage of concept and sound can be acquired on minimal evidence, so variation [among languages] here minimal evidence, so variation [among languages] here is not surprising. However, the possible sounds are is not surprising. However, the possible sounds are narrowly constrained, and the concepts may be virtually narrowly constrained, and the concepts may be virtually fixed. It is hard to imagine otherwise, given the rate fixed. It is hard to imagine otherwise, given the rate of lexical acquisition, which is about a word an hour of lexical acquisition, which is about a word an hour from ages two to eight, with lexical items typically from ages two to eight, with lexical items typically acquired on a single exposure, in highly ambiguous acquired on a single exposure, in highly ambiguous circumstances, but understood in delicate and circumstances, but understood in delicate and extraordinary complexity that goes vastly beyond what extraordinary complexity that goes vastly beyond what is recorded in the most comprehensive dictionary, is recorded in the most comprehensive dictionary, which, like which, like the most comprehensive traditional grammar, the most comprehensive traditional grammar, merely gives hints that suffice for people who merely gives hints that suffice for people who basically know the answers, largely innatelybasically know the answers, largely innately.” Chomsky .” Chomsky (2000, (2000, New Horizons in the Study of Language and MindNew Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind), ), p. 120.p. 120.

Influence of UG in some Influence of UG in some form is probably form is probably

inevitable…inevitable… Like in L1A, the input is almost Like in L1A, the input is almost certainly certainly degeneratedegenerate, and the , and the negative negative evidenceevidence there might be there might be isn’t enoughisn’t enough to to make the subtle complexities of language make the subtle complexities of language learnable, and for negative evidence (in learnable, and for negative evidence (in the form of the form of correctioncorrection) to be of any use, ) to be of any use, L2 L2 learners have to make errorslearners have to make errors, yet for , yet for these subtle complexities, these subtle complexities, the learners the learners don’t seem to don’t seem to makemake the crucial errors the crucial errors that would be required to learn them.that would be required to learn them.

Kanno’s experiment (among others) shows Kanno’s experiment (among others) shows that L2 learners seem to “that L2 learners seem to “go beyond the go beyond the evidenceevidence.”.”

How is UG “used” in How is UG “used” in L2A?L2A?

What is UG really?What is UG really? Probably the simplest view of it Probably the simplest view of it is that is that UG constrains the kinds UG constrains the kinds of languages we can learnof languages we can learn.. For For the moment, assume we’re talking the moment, assume we’re talking about L1A.about L1A.

UG says: UG says: You can’t learn a You can’t learn a language that lacks the ECP. You language that lacks the ECP. You can’t learn a language that can’t learn a language that doesn’t respect constraints on doesn’t respect constraints on movement out of an island…movement out of an island…


UG shaped your L1UG shaped your L1, we take that to be , we take that to be essentially beyond dispute in some form… essentially beyond dispute in some form… but but when you learn L2, you still know L1when you learn L2, you still know L1..

So, perhaps: So, perhaps: UG constrains how you learn UG constrains how you learn L2L2 ( (directlydirectly, like it constrained your L1), like it constrained your L1)

Or, perhaps: Or, perhaps: Your L1 constrains how you Your L1 constrains how you learn L2learn L2 ( (indirectlyindirectly, UG constrains L1, L1 , UG constrains L1, L1 constrains L2)constrains L2)

Or, perhaps: Or, perhaps: Nothing language-related Nothing language-related constrains how you learn L2—it’s like constrains how you learn L2—it’s like learning chess.learning chess.


A lot of the early (198X) studies A lot of the early (198X) studies tried to classify their hypotheses tried to classify their hypotheses about the involvement of UG in L2A about the involvement of UG in L2A in terms of “access”.in terms of “access”.

Full AccessFull Access—UG constrains L2A.—UG constrains L2A. ((Partial AccessPartial Access—UG constrains L2A —UG constrains L2A partly.)partly.)

No / Indirect AccessNo / Indirect Access—UG is not —UG is not involved in L2A (except insofar as involved in L2A (except insofar as it constrains L1)it constrains L1)

An independent question—An independent question—what role does L1 play in what role does L1 play in

L2A?L2A? Full TransferFull Transfer—the properties —the properties (parameters) of L1 are taken as (parameters) of L1 are taken as the “starting point” in L2A.the “starting point” in L2A.

Partial TransferPartial Transfer—some of the —some of the parameters of L1 are taken as the parameters of L1 are taken as the “starting point” in L2A, while “starting point” in L2A, while some others start in an some others start in an independent setting.independent setting.

No TransferNo Transfer—the parameter —the parameter settings of L1 do not affect L2A.settings of L1 do not affect L2A.

Access hypothesesAccess hypotheses The model these early hypotheses The model these early hypotheses work with is essentially that UG work with is essentially that UG provides a provides a blueprintblueprint or a or a templatetemplate for languages, which is used to for languages, which is used to create a concrete create a concrete instantiationinstantiation of a of a language.language.

If this means something to you: Language as If this means something to you: Language as OOP.OOP.

•Principles•Parm 1: — (A, B)•Parm 2: — (A, B, C)•…

•Active Principles•Parm 1: A•Parm 2: B•…

UG L1

L1A

Access hypothesesAccess hypotheses

Once L1 has been instantiated, Once L1 has been instantiated, the template might become the template might become unavailable. In this case, the unavailable. In this case, the only available information only available information about what languages are like about what languages are like is what’s instantiated in L1.is what’s instantiated in L1.



UG L1


The The No / Indirect accessNo / Indirect access hypothesis hypothesis supposes that the principles and supposes that the principles and parameters of L1 (but not the parameters of L1 (but not the information in UG) are available in information in UG) are available in forming an instantiation of L2.forming an instantiation of L2.



UG L1

Access hypothesesAccess hypotheses The The full accessfull access hypothesis hypothesis supposes that the supposes that the template is still template is still available to available to instantiate L2 the instantiate L2 the same way L1 was same way L1 was instantiated.instantiated.



UG L1

L1A

•Active Principles•Parm 1: B•Parm 2: A•… L2

L2A


A A partial accesspartial access hypothesis supposes that hypothesis supposes that certain parts of the certain parts of the template are no longer template are no longer available (fixed in the available (fixed in the L1 settings) but other L1 settings) but other parts can still be used parts can still be used to instantiate L2.to instantiate L2.



UG L1

L1A

•Active Principles•Parm 1: A•Parm 2: C•… L2

L2A

Distinguishing between Distinguishing between access hypothesesaccess hypotheses

The The no accessno access hypothesis hypothesis takes L2A to be a takes L2A to be a general learning process, not constrained by general learning process, not constrained by properties of UG.properties of UG.

As such, we do not expect the IL of second As such, we do not expect the IL of second language learners to language learners to conformconform to the to the specifications of UGspecifications of UG. We expect that the IL . We expect that the IL would be free to exhibit properties unlike any would be free to exhibit properties unlike any natural language (L1).natural language (L1).

So we look for “wildness” in the IL grammar of So we look for “wildness” in the IL grammar of second language learners—for indications of second language learners—for indications of grammar which would not qualify as an L1.grammar which would not qualify as an L1.


The The full accessfull access hypothesis hypothesis, on the , on the other hand, predicts that IL grammars other hand, predicts that IL grammars of second language learners, even of second language learners, even while not actually the grammar of the while not actually the grammar of the target language, target language, will still conform will still conform to the restrictions UG places on to the restrictions UG places on natural languagesnatural languages. It will operate . It will operate under the same principles, and it under the same principles, and it will have parameters which are set to will have parameters which are set to a setting which is possible in a setting which is possible in natural language.natural language.


The The partial accesspartial access hypothesis hypothesis is the least is the least well-defined. It places itself somewhere well-defined. It places itself somewhere between between full accessfull access and and no accessno access.. We We mightmight see that a second language learner’s IL see that a second language learner’s IL shows evidence of parameter settings different from shows evidence of parameter settings different from the L1 (or not, depending on which parts of UG we are the L1 (or not, depending on which parts of UG we are hypothesizing L2A access to).hypothesizing L2A access to).

We We might might see evidence of principles not used in L1 see evidence of principles not used in L1 but provided for in UG.but provided for in UG.

The partial access hypothesis is basically the The partial access hypothesis is basically the fallback position, the compromise we need to fallback position, the compromise we need to make if the facts don’t fit into one of the make if the facts don’t fit into one of the other hypotheses.other hypotheses.

Access/TransferAccess/Transfer

The basic hypotheses out there to explore The basic hypotheses out there to explore and evaluate (not including retreats to and evaluate (not including retreats to partialpartial transfer and/or access): transfer and/or access):

Full transfer/No access:Full transfer/No access: L2 knowledge is L2 knowledge is fundamentally different from L1 knowledge, fundamentally different from L1 knowledge, based on L1 knowledge plus conversion rules.based on L1 knowledge plus conversion rules.

Full transfer/Full access:Full transfer/Full access: L2A is as L2A is as flexible as L1A, with L1 as the starting flexible as L1A, with L1 as the starting point. L1 and L2 “distance” should affect point. L1 and L2 “distance” should affect ease/course of acquisition.ease/course of acquisition.

No transfer/Full access: No transfer/Full access: L2A is as flexible L2A is as flexible as L1A, and the learner’s L1 should not have as L1A, and the learner’s L1 should not have an effect.an effect.

In this context, UG is probably best In this context, UG is probably best thought of as defining a “shape” that thought of as defining a “shape” that language knowledge can take.language knowledge can take. ParametersParameters define ways in which stored define ways in which stored knowledge can conform to the “shape” of UG.knowledge can conform to the “shape” of UG.

The The LADLAD is a system which analyzes the is a system which analyzes the PLD and PLD and setssets the parameters the parameters..

LAD

PLDUG

SubjacencyBinding Theory

A note about UGA note about UG

So two languages which differ So two languages which differ with respect to one parameter with respect to one parameter setting might be represented kind setting might be represented kind of like this.of like this.

LanguageA Language

B

Principles and Principles and ParametersParameters

Many of the discussions about “UG access” seem to Many of the discussions about “UG access” seem to confound these two aspects of the human language confound these two aspects of the human language capacity. But it could be that the LAD becomes capacity. But it could be that the LAD becomes impaired/inactive after L1A while the “shape of impaired/inactive after L1A while the “shape of language knowledge” is still available for L2A.language knowledge” is still available for L2A.

(It could also be that the “shape” of UG is (It could also be that the “shape” of UG is completely determined by LAD—that’s the completely determined by LAD—that’s the interpretation that I called “confounded.” It’s not interpretation that I called “confounded.” It’s not internally inconsistent, but it isn’t a internally inconsistent, but it isn’t a necessary—necessary—or even usualor even usual——interpretation of UG)interpretation of UG)

LAD

PLDUG

SubjacencyBinding Theory

Modeling human language Modeling human language capacitycapacity

In favor of In favor of no accessno access…… The well-known “critical period” effects seem The well-known “critical period” effects seem to point toward a view like to point toward a view like no accessno access; adult ; adult L2A is much less uniform, typically not fully L2A is much less uniform, typically not fully successful, and appears to involve much more successful, and appears to involve much more conscious effort.conscious effort.

Proponents argue that their observations about Proponents argue that their observations about differences in the course and end result of differences in the course and end result of L2A (vs. L1A) indicate that principles of UG L2A (vs. L1A) indicate that principles of UG are are not not being obeyed (for example, learners being obeyed (for example, learners positing rules that appeal to linear order, positing rules that appeal to linear order, rather than structure, contra Structure rather than structure, contra Structure Dependency).Dependency).

Keep in mind that these arguments are really Keep in mind that these arguments are really arguments about LAD and not about UG as the arguments about LAD and not about UG as the “shape of language knowledge” though.“shape of language knowledge” though.

For example…For example… Meisel (1997) looked at L1A and L2A of Meisel (1997) looked at L1A and L2A of negation in German, French, and Basque.negation in German, French, and Basque.

In L1A in the three languages, negation In L1A in the three languages, negation appears to go through similar stages.appears to go through similar stages. First, it is placed externally (generally initially, First, it is placed externally (generally initially, sometimes finally), unlike in the adult languagesometimes finally), unlike in the adult language

No(t) I go homeNo(t) I go home I go home no(t).I go home no(t). Then, it appears sentence-internally, in an Then, it appears sentence-internally, in an appropriate position with respect to the tensed verb appropriate position with respect to the tensed verb for the target languagefor the target language (differs by language). (differs by language).

L1A: Once children show evidence of knowing L1A: Once children show evidence of knowing how to use finite verbs, they seem to have no how to use finite verbs, they seem to have no particular trouble with the syntax of particular trouble with the syntax of negation in the target language.negation in the target language.

Meisel (1997)Meisel (1997) For L2A, the consensus opinion from previous For L2A, the consensus opinion from previous studies seems to be that second language studies seems to be that second language learners, regardless of target and first learners, regardless of target and first languages seem to go through pretty much languages seem to go through pretty much invariant stages with respect to negation.invariant stages with respect to negation. First, preverbal or initial negation.First, preverbal or initial negation. Then, more target-like internal negation.Then, more target-like internal negation.

Sounds like the L1A sequencesSounds like the L1A sequences; this made people ; this made people eager to try to apply the same explanations.eager to try to apply the same explanations.

However, almost all of these studies used However, almost all of these studies used English as the target language, and in fact English as the target language, and in fact some studies seemed to have “missed” the first some studies seemed to have “missed” the first stage. Bottom line: that “consensus opinion” is stage. Bottom line: that “consensus opinion” is pretty suspect.pretty suspect.

Meisel (1997)Meisel (1997) Closer investigation reveals that not all second Closer investigation reveals that not all second language learners go through an “initial language learners go through an “initial negation” stage, even if the L1 has preverbal negation” stage, even if the L1 has preverbal negation.negation.

And, unlike in L1A, where there And, unlike in L1A, where there isis an initial an initial negation stage, it does not seem to disappear at negation stage, it does not seem to disappear at the same time as the control of finite verbs.the same time as the control of finite verbs.

Whereas “initial negation” in L1A is usually Whereas “initial negation” in L1A is usually sentence-initialsentence-initial (before the subject), “initial (before the subject), “initial negation” in L2A is often negation” in L2A is often preverbalpreverbal (but (but afterafter the subject).the subject). That is to say, people were not careful with what they That is to say, people were not careful with what they were willing to call “initial negation” when they were were willing to call “initial negation” when they were jumping on the L2A-sequence-is-like-L1A-sequence jumping on the L2A-sequence-is-like-L1A-sequence bandwagon.bandwagon.

Meisel suggests that initial negation is actually a Meisel suggests that initial negation is actually a characteristic of a certain kind of characteristic of a certain kind of learnerlearner, a , a reflection of a reflection of a strategystrategy that (some) people use in L2A. that (some) people use in L2A.

Meisel (1997)Meisel (1997)

Rather than observing structure-Rather than observing structure-dependent negation placement based on dependent negation placement based on [±finite], the results tend to suggest [±finite], the results tend to suggest strategies based on linear order (i.e. strategies based on linear order (i.e. put negation after the verbput negation after the verb).).

Meisel concludes that any UG Meisel concludes that any UG involvement in L2A is much less clear involvement in L2A is much less clear given these differences between L1A given these differences between L1A and L2A.and L2A.

Concerning this Concerning this argumentargument

Notice that Notice that this is primarily an argument this is primarily an argument about about sequence of acquisitionsequence of acquisition. Roughly, the . Roughly, the idea is: idea is: Because the sequence of L1A and L2A Because the sequence of L1A and L2A do not match, and assuming L1A is driven by do not match, and assuming L1A is driven by UG, L2A can’t be also driven by UGUG, L2A can’t be also driven by UG..

In short, this seems to be an argument about In short, this seems to be an argument about whether the (L1) LAD is involved in L2A. It whether the (L1) LAD is involved in L2A. It doesn’t really fully reach the question of doesn’t really fully reach the question of whether UG whether UG constrainsconstrains L2A. L2A.

To show the UG does not constrain L2A, we To show the UG does not constrain L2A, we should should be looking for IL grammars that are be looking for IL grammars that are UG-illicit (regardless of how they are UG-illicit (regardless of how they are arrived at).arrived at).

This question will recur through much upcoming This question will recur through much upcoming discussion…discussion…

To argue for To argue for full full access…access…

Threads of argumentation:Threads of argumentation: Second language learners obey certain Second language learners obey certain universal principles which (appear to) universal principles which (appear to) work differently in the TL than in the work differently in the TL than in the learners’ L1.learners’ L1. (E.g., Kanno 1996 discussed earlier…)(E.g., Kanno 1996 discussed earlier…)

Second language learners’ IL knowledge Second language learners’ IL knowledge show evidence of a parameter setting show evidence of a parameter setting different from their L1, indicating different from their L1, indicating that the that the parametric optionsparametric options are still are still availableavailable

In favor of In favor of full full access…access…

A simple example of thread two, from Flynn A simple example of thread two, from Flynn (1996), is L2A between Japanese and English.(1996), is L2A between Japanese and English.

Japanese and English differ in their setting Japanese and English differ in their setting of the “head parameter”, which indicates of the “head parameter”, which indicates whether the object comes before the verb whether the object comes before the verb (Japanese, SOV, head-final) or after the verb (Japanese, SOV, head-final) or after the verb (English, SVO, head-initial).(English, SVO, head-initial).

L2 J-->E learners appear to very quickly set L2 J-->E learners appear to very quickly set this IL parameter correctly, suggesting that this IL parameter correctly, suggesting that they know that both head-initial and head-they know that both head-initial and head-final are final are possiblepossible settings for this settings for this parameter, although their L1 parameter is parameter, although their L1 parameter is committed to head-final.committed to head-final.


Flynn on Subjacency (thread one):Flynn on Subjacency (thread one): In Japanese, In Japanese, whwh-words are not “moved” to -words are not “moved” to the beginning of a the beginning of a whwh-question; Japanese -question; Japanese is a “is a “whwh-in-situ” language. Its -in-situ” language. Its whwh-words -words appear in the same position that the appear in the same position that the trace “appears” in English.trace “appears” in English.

Assumption: Subjacency is concerned Assumption: Subjacency is concerned onlyonly with with displacement displacement of of whwh-words. It is a -words. It is a principle which says that a principle which says that a whwh-word -word cannot be displaced out of certain kinds cannot be displaced out of certain kinds of islands (conjunctions, embedded of islands (conjunctions, embedded questions, complex noun phrases, …).questions, complex noun phrases, …).


Thus, Subjacency does not seem to rule Thus, Subjacency does not seem to rule out any out any whwh-questions in Japanese. It -questions in Japanese. It is possible to ask questions like:is possible to ask questions like: ‘‘You met the man that gave what to Mary?’You met the man that gave what to Mary?’ Cf. Cf. *What*Whatii did you meet the man that gave did you meet the man that gave ttii to Mary? to Mary?

Flynn takes this to mean that Flynn takes this to mean that Subjacency is essentially “inactive” Subjacency is essentially “inactive” in Japanese. It does not play a role in Japanese. It does not play a role in in whwh-question formation in Japanese.-question formation in Japanese.


Supposing that Subjacency is not active Supposing that Subjacency is not active in Japanese, Flynn considers L2A of in Japanese, Flynn considers L2A of English by Japanese speakers.English by Japanese speakers. Would these second language learners Would these second language learners nevertheless obey Subjacency in English?nevertheless obey Subjacency in English?

Do they still have access to this principle Do they still have access to this principle provided by UG even though it is not used provided by UG even though it is not used in their L1?in their L1?

Flynn’s experiments seem to indicate Flynn’s experiments seem to indicate that Japanese speakers learning L2 that Japanese speakers learning L2 English English dodo obey Subjacency, and obey Subjacency, and concludes that they must therefore concludes that they must therefore still have access to UG during L2A.still have access to UG during L2A.

Getting at the “IL Getting at the “IL grammar”grammar”

What do the L2 learners know?What do the L2 learners know? *Productions*Productions: We don’t have a great deal : We don’t have a great deal of success learning about the structure of success learning about the structure of linguistic knowledge in the of linguistic knowledge in the native native speakerspeaker domain by looking just at domain by looking just at productionsproductions. Things aren’t different for . Things aren’t different for L2 learners.L2 learners. No information on what is No information on what is ungrammaticalungrammatical—at —at best, information on what is best, information on what is dispreferred/avoided.dispreferred/avoided.

Performance errors happen, but that doesn’t Performance errors happen, but that doesn’t indicate a lack of indicate a lack of competencecompetence..

Grammaticality Grammaticality judgmentsjudgments

One way of testing people’s (whole) One way of testing people’s (whole) competence is to ask them to rate competence is to ask them to rate sentences in their second language.sentences in their second language.

Who did you say that bought John Who did you say that bought John dinner?dinner? 1-bad1-bad 2-a little weird2-a little weird 3-natural3-natural

I wonder what will John wear I wonder what will John wear tomorrow.tomorrow.1-bad1-bad 2-a little weird2-a little weird 3-natural3-natural

GJ tasks aren’t GJ tasks aren’t perfect, though…perfect, though…

As in any experiment, you may have As in any experiment, you may have biasesbiases…… Some people are hesitant to take an extreme Some people are hesitant to take an extreme position, may never rate a sentence 1 or 3.position, may never rate a sentence 1 or 3.

Some people may rate the sentences based on Some people may rate the sentences based on how much sense it makes, rather than on the how much sense it makes, rather than on the syntactic structure. And it’s hard to correct syntactic structure. And it’s hard to correct for that, because if you ask someone what’s for that, because if you ask someone what’s wrong withwrong with

What did you laugh after John bought for Sue?What did you laugh after John bought for Sue?

(or how to correct it), even native speakers (or how to correct it), even native speakers won’t be able to say.won’t be able to say.

GJ tasksGJ tasks

But we have the same trouble with But we have the same trouble with kids too… We can try to employ the kids too… We can try to employ the same kinds of tricks with adults…same kinds of tricks with adults… acting out a sentenceacting out a sentence identifying which picture best depicts identifying which picture best depicts the subject matter of the sentencethe subject matter of the sentence

judging whether a sentence is true or judging whether a sentence is true or false of a scene.false of a scene.

answering an ambiguous question to see answering an ambiguous question to see whwh-word scope.-word scope.

……

Locating theLocating thesource of the errorssource of the errors

Suppose that an adult L2 learner of E. Suppose that an adult L2 learner of E. ratesrates What did you laugh after John bought for Sue?What did you laugh after John bought for Sue?

as natural. as natural. Does that mean they don’t Does that mean they don’t know Subjacency?know Subjacency?

Well, not necessarily. They may also not Well, not necessarily. They may also not understand how to make complex clauses, understand how to make complex clauses, adverbial clauses, etc.adverbial clauses, etc.

One can only really say that people know One can only really say that people know or don’t know a principle of UG once or don’t know a principle of UG once they have the appropriate structures to they have the appropriate structures to apply them to.apply them to.

““How involved is UG in How involved is UG in L2A?”L2A?”

VeryVery (UG constrains IL) vs. (UG constrains IL) vs. notnot (L1 (L1 constrains IL)constrains IL)

To figure out which is right, To figure out which is right, we need to we need to look at UG constraints or parameters which look at UG constraints or parameters which are are not used in the learner’s L1not used in the learner’s L1. If there . If there is something that holds in all languages, is something that holds in all languages, say, the say, the -criterion, showing that L2 -criterion, showing that L2 learners respect the learners respect the -criterion doesn’t -criterion doesn’t tell us whether that is because UG required tell us whether that is because UG required it or because their L1 does. it or because their L1 does.

Two possible things to Two possible things to look atlook at

Parameter settingsParameter settings which vary which vary between L1 and L2…between L1 and L2… English:English: Bounding nodes for Bounding nodes for Subjacency are DP and IP.Subjacency are DP and IP.

Italian/French:Italian/French: Bounding nodes for Bounding nodes for Subjacency are DP and CP.Subjacency are DP and CP.

Universal principlesUniversal principles which are which are inapplicable in L1 but apply in inapplicable in L1 but apply in L2…L2… The ECP as used to control case The ECP as used to control case marker drop in Japanesemarker drop in Japanese

““Universal principles Universal principles inapplicable in L1?”inapplicable in L1?”

As our theories of syntax As our theories of syntax develop, finding such things develop, finding such things becomes harder and harder, becomes harder and harder, since the goal of theoretical since the goal of theoretical syntax is in general to say syntax is in general to say “All languages are really the “All languages are really the same except for some very same except for some very surface-y phenomena.”surface-y phenomena.”

whwh-movement-movement Circa 1981, English moved its Circa 1981, English moved its whwh-words, -words, Japanese didn’t, so Subjacency wasn’t Japanese didn’t, so Subjacency wasn’t relevant for Japanese.relevant for Japanese.

However, since then, the proposals have However, since then, the proposals have changed—all languages move their changed—all languages move their whwh-words -words to SpecCP, just some do it after SS.to SpecCP, just some do it after SS.

Evidence has appeared which shows that Evidence has appeared which shows that under the right conditions, Japanese under the right conditions, Japanese doesdoes respect Subjacency.respect Subjacency.

Thus: Looking at whether Japanese speakers Thus: Looking at whether Japanese speakers learning English respect Subjacency or not learning English respect Subjacency or not still hasn’t necessarily gotten away from still hasn’t necessarily gotten away from L1.L1.

Atrophied options?Atrophied options? The L2A literature has historically taken a The L2A literature has historically taken a fairly old, conservative view of UG. It fairly old, conservative view of UG. It tends to assume that UG provides tends to assume that UG provides options options from which languages from which languages choosechoose, and that , and that something that a language doesn’t choose something that a language doesn’t choose might become unavailable as a choice later.might become unavailable as a choice later.

That is, the underlying assumption seems to That is, the underlying assumption seems to be that English speakers be that English speakers don’tdon’t know the know the ECP, really. That Japanese speakers ECP, really. That Japanese speakers don’t don’t know Subjacency.know Subjacency. Modern syntacticians just don’t think of syntax Modern syntacticians just don’t think of syntax as working this way anymore. This kind of view as working this way anymore. This kind of view is a little bit closer to what people still is a little bit closer to what people still mostly believe about certain aspects of mostly believe about certain aspects of phonology, though. More in a bit…phonology, though. More in a bit…

ParametersParameters The bottom line is: it’s going to be hard The bottom line is: it’s going to be hard to make a convincing case that you’ve got to make a convincing case that you’ve got a principle of UG which is not known a principle of UG which is not known (utilized) by an L1 speaker. Perhaps, if (utilized) by an L1 speaker. Perhaps, if you are lucky, you might find something you are lucky, you might find something plausible now, but advances in syntactic plausible now, but advances in syntactic theory will do everything they can to theory will do everything they can to undermine your position.undermine your position.

However, languages However, languages dodo differ in the values differ in the values of the parameters (e.g., Subjacency of the parameters (e.g., Subjacency bounding nodes). bounding nodes). Thread two is the way to Thread two is the way to go.go.

ParametersParameters

We can also look at aspects of We can also look at aspects of parameter setting in L2A.parameter setting in L2A.

Part transfer Part transfer (what settings get (what settings get adopted as part of the initial state of adopted as part of the initial state of the the second language learner’s the the second language learner’s interlanguage grammar?)interlanguage grammar?), part , part accessibility/involvement of UG accessibility/involvement of UG (can (can second language learners “reset” these second language learners “reset” these parameters? If so, the lists of parameters? If so, the lists of optionsoptions provided by UG are still available—that provided by UG are still available—that is, UG is available/involved)is, UG is available/involved). .

Phonological parametersPhonological parameters

Describing adult native-speaker Describing adult native-speaker phonologicalphonological grammars requires grammars requires abstract structures not unlike the abstract structures not unlike the structures required for syntax.structures required for syntax.

Just like for syntax, differences Just like for syntax, differences between languages can be between languages can be characterized in terms of characterized in terms of phonological parametersphonological parameters..

And in And in thisthis domain, there might domain, there might actually actually be be something like something like “phonological options not used in “phonological options not used in the L1” to talk about.the L1” to talk about.

Some basic conceptsSome basic concepts

There is a fairly well-defined set There is a fairly well-defined set of possible sounds that languages of possible sounds that languages make use of.make use of.

Languages differ in which of these Languages differ in which of these sounds play a role in the language.sounds play a role in the language.

For example, some languages have a For example, some languages have a sound like the English sound like the English vv, some , some don’t.don’t.

The “unit of sound” is the The “unit of sound” is the segmentsegment..


There are a lot of different There are a lot of different things that go into determining things that go into determining a segment.a segment. Place of articulationPlace of articulation VoicingVoicing Manner of articulationManner of articulation AspirationAspiration Tenseness/laxness of tongueTenseness/laxness of tongue ……

Segment distinctionsSegment distinctions /p//p/ vs. vs. /t//t/ vs. vs. /k//k/ : place of : place of articulationarticulation

/p//p/ vs. vs. /b//b/, , /t//t/ vs. vs. /d//d/: ±voice: ±voice /t//t/ vs. vs. /s//s/: ±continuant: ±continuant /s//s/ vs. vs. /sh//sh/: ±distributive: ±distributive /e/ /e/ vs. vs. /i//i/: ±high: ±high /e/ /e/ vs. vs. /a//a/: ±back: ±back /a//a/ vs. vs. / o // o /: ±round: ±round ……


Languages differ in what they “pay attention to” Languages differ in what they “pay attention to” when differentiating segments from one another.when differentiating segments from one another.

English does not distinguish aspirated and non-English does not distinguish aspirated and non-aspirated consonants. The aspirated consonants. The pp in in pitpit is aspirated is aspirated ((pphh), the ), the p p in in spitspit. They “sound the same” to . They “sound the same” to speakers of English.speakers of English.

Other languages distinguish Other languages distinguish pp from from phph—so —so pit pit and and pphhitit could be different words, with different could be different words, with different meanings.meanings.

The distinguishable segments in a language are The distinguishable segments in a language are the the phonemesphonemes of the language. One parameter of of the language. One parameter of variation between languages is their variation between languages is their phonemic phonemic inventoryinventory..

R vs. LR vs. L

An oft-used example of this is the An oft-used example of this is the distinction between distinction between rr vs. vs. ll in English in English and the lack of said distinction in and the lack of said distinction in languages like Chinese, Japanese, and languages like Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.Korean.

In Korean, for example, both segments are In Korean, for example, both segments are usedused, but it is phonologically , but it is phonologically conditioned—between vowels, it is conditioned—between vowels, it is rr and and elsewhere it is elsewhere it is ll. You don’t get to . You don’t get to choose which one you use in a given choose which one you use in a given context. context. So there’s no So there’s no distinctiondistinction. . ((Sunhi-lulSunhi-lul = = […-[…-rulrul]]))

L1A and contrastsL1A and contrasts

Little kids start out being able to distinguish Little kids start out being able to distinguish contrasts between all possible segments, but contrasts between all possible segments, but quickly zoom in on the contrasts in their quickly zoom in on the contrasts in their environment, environment, losing losing the contraststhe contrasts… Looks like a … Looks like a critical period, difficult for UG in L2A…critical period, difficult for UG in L2A…

From Werker (1994):From Werker (1994): Hindi-EnglishHindi-English

ba ~ ba ~ dada

ddhha ~ a ~ tthhaa

Ta ~ taTa ~ ta

H adultsH adults FineFine FineFine FineFine

E infantsE infants (6- (6-8mo)8mo)

FineFine FineFine FineFine

E kids E kids (up to (up to 4)4)

FineFine BadBad BadBad

E adultsE adults FineFine PoorPoor BadBad

L2A and UGL2A and UG We can ask many of the same questions we We can ask many of the same questions we asked about syntax, but of phonology.asked about syntax, but of phonology.

Learners have an Learners have an interlanguage grammarinterlanguage grammar of of phonology as well.phonology as well. Is this grammar primarily a product of Is this grammar primarily a product of transfer?transfer?

Can parameters be set for the target language Can parameters be set for the target language values?values?

Do interlanguage phonologies act like real Do interlanguage phonologies act like real languages (constrained by UG)?languages (constrained by UG)?

Here, it it rather obvious just from our Here, it it rather obvious just from our anecdotal experience with the world that anecdotal experience with the world that transfer plays a big role and parameters transfer plays a big role and parameters are hard to set (to a value different from are hard to set (to a value different from the L1’s value).the L1’s value).

Phonological Phonological interferenceinterference

If L1’ers lose the ability to hear a If L1’ers lose the ability to hear a contrast not in the L1, there is a contrast not in the L1, there is a strong possibility that the L1 strong possibility that the L1 phonology phonology filtersfilters the L2 input. the L2 input.

L2’ers may not be getting the same L2’ers may not be getting the same datadata as L1’ers. Even if the LAD were as L1’ers. Even if the LAD were still working, it would be getting still working, it would be getting different data.different data.

If you don’t If you don’t perceiveperceive the contrast, the contrast, you won’t you won’t acquire acquire the contrast.the contrast.

Phonological featuresPhonological features

Phonologists over the years have come up Phonologists over the years have come up with a system of (universal) features with a system of (universal) features that differentiate between sounds.that differentiate between sounds. /p/ vs. /b/ differ in [+voice]./p/ vs. /b/ differ in [+voice]. /p/ vs. /f/ differ in [+continuant]./p/ vs. /f/ differ in [+continuant]. ……

What L1’ers seem to be doing is What L1’ers seem to be doing is determining which features determining which features contrastcontrast in in the language. If the language doesn’t the language. If the language doesn’t distinguish voiced from voiceless distinguish voiced from voiceless consonants, L1’ers come to ignore consonants, L1’ers come to ignore [±voice].[±voice].

Phonological features, Phonological features, filteringfiltering

Brown (2000): Presented pairs of nonwords Brown (2000): Presented pairs of nonwords to speakers of Japanese, Korean, Mandarin.to speakers of Japanese, Korean, Mandarin.

Japanese and Korean speakers didn’t Japanese and Korean speakers didn’t perceive the perceive the ll ~ ~ rr contrast, Mandarin contrast, Mandarin speakers did, although none of the speakers did, although none of the languages has an languages has an ll ~ ~ rr contrast. contrast.

However, Mandarin does have However, Mandarin does have otherother segments segments which differ in [+coronal] (which differ in [+coronal] ([[rr]]), so ), so Mandarin speakers Mandarin speakers dodo need to distinguish need to distinguish [±coronal] elsewhere.[±coronal] elsewhere.

Phonological features, Phonological features, filteringfiltering

Han (1992). Japanese distinguishes Han (1992). Japanese distinguishes geminate from non-geminate stops geminate from non-geminate stops (consonant length; (consonant length; kk vs. vs. kkkk, e.g., , e.g., black black owlowl vs. vs. black catblack cat). English doesn’t (). English doesn’t (*kkat *kkat vs. katvs. kat).).

English speakers of Japanese (even highly English speakers of Japanese (even highly proficient otherwise) either missed this proficient otherwise) either missed this contrast altogether or produced long contrast altogether or produced long consonants that were not native-like (too consonants that were not native-like (too short).short).

An interesting ideaAn interesting idea(courtesy of Carol Neidle)(courtesy of Carol Neidle)

If you were to learn French, you If you were to learn French, you would be taught conjugations of would be taught conjugations of regular and irregular verbs. regular and irregular verbs. RegularRegular - -erer verbs have a pattern verbs have a pattern that looks like this:that looks like this: Infinitive: Infinitive: donnerdonner ‘give’‘give’ 1sg1sg je donnje donnee 1pl1pl nous donnnous donnonsons 2sg2sg tu donntu donneses 2pl2pl vous donnvous donnezez 3sg3sg il donnil donnee 3pl3pl ils donnils donnentent

Some French Some French “irregulars”“irregulars”

Infinitive: Infinitive: donnerdonner ‘give’‘give’ 1sg1sg je donnje donnee 1pl1pl nous donnnous donnonsons 2sg2sg tu donntu donneses 2pl2pl vous donnvous donnezez 3sg3sg il donnil donnee 3pl3pl ils donnils donnentent

Another class of verbs includingAnother class of verbs including acheteracheter ‘buy’ is classified as ‘buy’ is classified as irregular, because the vowel quality irregular, because the vowel quality changes through the paradigm.changes through the paradigm. Infinitive: Infinitive: ceder ceder ‘yield’‘yield’ 1sg1sg je cje cèèddee 1pl1pl nous cnous cééddonsons 2sg2sg tu ctu cèèddeses 2pl2pl vous cvous cééddezez 3sg3sg il cil cèèddee 3pl3pl ils cils cèèddentent


Infinitive: Infinitive: donnerdonner ‘give’‘give’ 1sg1sg je donnje donnee 1pl1pl nous donnnous donnonsons 2sg2sg tu donntu donneses 2pl2pl vous donnvous donnezez 3sg3sg il donnil donnee 3pl3pl ils donnils donnentent

The way it’s usually taught, you just The way it’s usually taught, you just have to memorize that in the have to memorize that in the nousnous and and vousvous form you have “é” and in the form you have “é” and in the others you have “è”.others you have “è”. Infinitive: Infinitive: ceder ceder ‘yield’‘yield’ 1sg1sg je cje cèèddee 1pl1pl nous cnous cééddonsons 2sg2sg tu ctu cèèddeses 2pl2pl vous cvous cééddezez 3sg3sg il cil cèèddee 3pl3pl ils cils cèèddentent


However, the pattern makes perfect However, the pattern makes perfect phonologicalphonological sense in French—if you have a sense in French—if you have a closed syllable (CVC), you getclosed syllable (CVC), you get èè, otherwise , otherwise you getyou get éé..

[s[sd] (cède)d] (cède) [se.de] (cédez) [se.de] (cédez) So why is this considered irregular?So why is this considered irregular? Because in English, you think of the sounds Because in English, you think of the sounds inin cédezcédez asas [sed.de][sed.de], due to the rules of , due to the rules of English phonologyEnglish phonology.. Infinitive: Infinitive: ceder ceder ‘yield’ viewed from English‘yield’ viewed from English 1sg1sg je cje cèèdd(e)(e) 1pl1pl nous cnous cééd.dd.dõ(ns)õ(ns) 2sg2sg tu ctu cèèdd(es)(es) 2pl2pl vous cvous cééd.dd.de(z)e(z) 3sg3sg il cil cèèd(d(e)e) 3pl3pl ils cils cèèd(d(ent)ent)


Because in English, you think of the sounds Because in English, you think of the sounds inin cédezcédez asas [sed.de][sed.de], due to the rules of , due to the rules of English phonologyEnglish phonology..

Since in all of these cases, Since in all of these cases, EnglishEnglish phonology would have closed syllables, phonology would have closed syllables, there’s no generalization to be drawn—there’s no generalization to be drawn—sometimes closed syllables have sometimes closed syllables have éé and and sometimes they have sometimes they have èè..

What could we do?What could we do? Infinitive: Infinitive: ceder ceder ‘yield’‘yield’ 1sg1sg je cje cèèddee [sed][sed] 1pl1pl nous cnous cééddonsons[sed.dõ][sed.dõ]

2sg2sg tu ctu cèèddes [sed]es [sed] 2pl2pl vous cvous cééddezez [sed.de][sed.de] 3sg3sg il cil cèèddee [sed][sed] 3pl3pl ils cils cèèddentent[sed][sed]


If people are really “built for language” If people are really “built for language” and are able to pick up language and are able to pick up language implicitlyimplicitly, , then if people are then if people are providedprovided with the right with the right linguistic data, they will more or less linguistic data, they will more or less automatically learn the generalization.automatically learn the generalization.

Problem is: The English Problem is: The English filterfilter on the French on the French data is obscuring the pattern, and hiding data is obscuring the pattern, and hiding the generalization.the generalization. Infinitive: Infinitive: ceder ceder ‘yield’‘yield’ 1sg1sg je cje cèèddee [sed][sed] 1pl1pl nous cnous cééddonsons[sed.dõ][sed.dõ]

2sg2sg tu ctu cèèddes [sed]es [sed] 2pl2pl vous cvous cééddezez [sed.de][sed.de] 3sg3sg il cil cèèddee [sed][sed] 3pl3pl ils cils cèèddentent[sed][sed]


Something to try:Something to try: Provide Provide people with the people with the right data, see if they pick up the right data, see if they pick up the pronunciation. Perhaps: pronunciation. Perhaps: exaggerate exaggerate syllabificationsyllabification (draw attention to it). (draw attention to it). Perhaps try to instill this aspect of the Perhaps try to instill this aspect of the phonology first?phonology first?

Et voilàEt voilà. Chances are good that this will make . Chances are good that this will make these “irregulars” as easy to learn as these “irregulars” as easy to learn as regularsregulars!! Does it work? I have no idea.Does it work? I have no idea.

Infinitive: Infinitive: ceder ceder ‘yield’‘yield’ 1sg1sg je cje cèèddee “sed”“sed” 1pl1pl nous cnous cééddonsons “se—“se—dõ”dõ”

2sg2sg tu ctu cèèddes “sed”es “sed” 2pl2pl vous cvous cééddezez “se—de”“se—de” 3sg3sg il cil cèèddee “sed”“sed” 3pl3pl ils cils cèèddentent “sed”“sed”

Where we areWhere we are We’re concerned with discovering to what We’re concerned with discovering to what extent linguistic theory (=theories of extent linguistic theory (=theories of UG) bears on questions of L2A, with an UG) bears on questions of L2A, with an eye toward the question: eye toward the question: To what extent To what extent is knowledge of an L2 like knowledge of is knowledge of an L2 like knowledge of an L1?an L1? Do they conform to universal principles? Do they conform to universal principles? (ECP, Subjacency)(ECP, Subjacency)

No? UG is not constraining L2. Yes? No? UG is not constraining L2. Yes? Consistent with Consistent with UG constraining L2, but not UG constraining L2, but not evidence for evidence for it.it.

Do they have a parameter setting different Do they have a parameter setting different from the L1 (and all of the consequences from the L1 (and all of the consequences following therefrom)?following therefrom)?

Yes? UG is constraining L2. No? Inconclusive for Yes? UG is constraining L2. No? Inconclusive for the general case.the general case.

Documents

Week 5. Second Language Acquisition: introduction GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory