Week 8. Second Language Acquisition: introduction GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

Week 8.Week 8.Second Language Acquisition: Second Language Acquisition:

introductionintroduction

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

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

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

L1 acquisitionL1 acquisition We posited a genetic predisposition for We posited a genetic predisposition for

language, something which guides the kinds language, something which guides the kinds of languages kids learn (Universal Grammar):of languages kids learn (Universal 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 (they can complicated than the input data justifies (they can judge ungrammatical sentences in the same way judge ungrammatical sentences in the same way as other native speakers).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 getting or differences in environment, and without getting or making use of negative evidence.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 learning language than kids do learning their first language than kids do learning their first language (there may be a “critical period”).language (there may be a “critical period”).

Adult second language learners Adult second language learners rarely reach rarely reach a native-speaker-like levela native-speaker-like level of competence. of 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 it (“you don’t say it that way”) when taught in a classroom.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? Do we just Like learning calculus? Do we just learn the rules of the language and learn the rules of the language and apply them (sometimes forgetting apply them (sometimes forgetting some of the rules, never quite learning some of the rules, never quite learning all of them, etc.)?all of them, etc.)?

It’s very tempting to think that’s true.It’s very tempting to think that’s 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 the answers, whether they are related to the answers we got for L1A or not.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 kind Learners of a second language have some kind

of (systematic) linguistic knowledge.of (systematic) linguistic knowledge. They They have retained their L1 knowledge, and they have retained their L1 knowledge, and they have knowledge of a sort which approximates have knowledge of a sort which approximates (perhaps poorly) the knowledge held by a (perhaps poorly) the knowledge held by a native speaker of the learner’s L2.native speaker of the learner’s 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 this something different (…and to what extent this knowledge might be related to or influenced knowledge might be related to or influenced by L1 or L2 is yet to be determined).by L1 or L2 is yet to be determined).

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

omissionomission Adult knowledge is complicated, relies on Adult knowledge is complicated, relies on

the the Empty Category PrincipleEmpty Category Principle, which says , which says that an empty category (including a that an empty category (including a dropped Case marker) must be properly dropped Case marker) must be properly governed.governed.

The long and the short of this in Japanese The long and the short of this in Japanese is that you can drop a Case marker in is that you can drop a Case marker in object position but object position but you cannot drop a you cannot drop a Case marker in subject positionCase marker in subject 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 the English speakers (learning Japanese) know the ECP, because they know: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 from But this is a very different context of use from the use in Case marker drop. The question is:the use in Case marker drop. The 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?

Kanno 1996Kanno 1996

To discover the answer Kanno tested To discover the answer Kanno tested 26 college students in Japanese II on 26 college students in Japanese II on case particle drop.case particle drop.

Kanno looked at what the students Kanno looked at what the students would have been exposed to by the would have been exposed to by the textbook up to the point where they textbook up to the point where they took the test, to see if they were took the test, to see if they were taughttaught when not to drop the case when not to drop the case markers.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 case on their objects, and case can be on their objects, and case can be dropped on those objects too…dropped on those objects 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 had 69 of 110 such verbs in the book had the object case marker dropped.the object case marker 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 cases with drop), so there were many cases with just one argument (the object) with no just one argument (the object) with no case marker: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 can be marker can be droppeddropped, which looks a , which looks a lotlot like a like a subject marker being dropped.subject marker being dropped.

Tanaka-san (Tanaka-san (wawa) itsu kaimasita ka?) itsu kaimasita ka? toptop when bought Q when bought 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 a [nom] might be deleted, but with a reduction of the reduction of the emphasis and focusemphasis and focus conveyed by its inclusion.” conveyed by its inclusion.” ((NoNo hint that hint that sometimes—even usually—it is not sometimes—even usually—it is not allowed)allowed)

““If If oo [acc] is deleted, [the object] would [acc] is deleted, [the object] would simply lose a bit of its simply lose a bit of its emphasis and emphasis and focusfocus. On the other hand, the addition of . On the other hand, the addition of oo would give added emphasis and focus.”would give 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 particleNom subject can be dropped with a particle 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 not -words in general do not allow topic marking, so allow topic marking, so if the if the particle is dropped from a subject particle is dropped from a subject whwh-word, it could not have been a -word, it could not have been a topic drop.topic drop. subject wa subject wa whwh-phrase Ø verb Q?-phrase Ø verb Q? *subject Ø *subject Ø whwh-phrase acc verb Q?-phrase acc verb Q? propro whwh-phrase Ø verb Q?-phrase Ø verb Q? **whwh-phrase Ø -phrase Ø propro verb Q? verb Q?

(missing controls)(missing controls)

There are a couple of things that this There are a couple of things that this experiment lacks…experiment lacks…

Naturalness of a dropped case marker is Naturalness of a dropped case marker is tested, but never the naturalness of an tested, but never the naturalness of an overtovert case or topic marker on a case or topic marker on a whwh-phrase.-phrase.

WhWh-phrases are used because they do not -phrases are used because they do not permit topic marking—but do the students permit topic marking—but do the students know know thisthis??

Kanno’s resultsKanno’s results

students native speakers

NP wa NP Ø 2.40 2.60

NP Ø NP o 1.76 (0.64) 1.36 (1.24)

pro NP Ø 2.58 2.86

NP Ø pro 1.64 (0.98) 1.31 (1.55)

Kanno’s resultsKanno’s results

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Students NSs

NP wa NP —NP — NP opro NP —NP — pro

UG in L2AUG in L2A

The conclusion is that L2 learners of The conclusion is that L2 learners of Japanese have nevertheless (statistically Japanese have nevertheless (statistically significantly) significantly) gottengotten the rule about the rule about dropping subject case markers, despite dropping subject case markers, despite the lack of evidence from the textbook, the lack of evidence from the textbook, the instructor, or even English.the instructor, or even English.

It appears that UG is still constraining It appears that UG is still constraining language in language in some some way even in adult way even in adult second language acquisition.second language acquisition.

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 is minimal evidence, so variation [among languages] here is not surprising. However, the possible sounds are narrowly not surprising. However, the possible sounds are narrowly constrained, and the concepts may be virtually fixed. It is constrained, and the concepts may be virtually fixed. It is hard to imagine otherwise, given the rate of lexical hard to imagine otherwise, given the rate of lexical acquisition, which is about a word an our from ages two to acquisition, which is about a word an our from ages two to eight, with lexical items typically acquired on a single eight, with lexical items typically acquired on a single exposure, in highly ambiguous circumstances, but exposure, in highly ambiguous circumstances, but understood in delicate and extraordinary complexity that understood in delicate and extraordinary complexity that goes vastly beyond what is recorded in the most goes vastly beyond what is recorded in the most comprehensive dictionary, which, like comprehensive dictionary, which, like the most the most comprehensive traditional grammar, merely gives comprehensive traditional grammar, merely gives hints that suffice for people who basically know the hints that suffice for people who basically know the answers, largely innatelyanswers, largely innately.” Chomsky (2000, .” Chomsky (2000, New Horizons New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mindin 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 certainly Like in L1A, the input is almost certainly degeneratedegenerate, and the , and the negative evidencenegative evidence there there might be might be isn’t enoughisn’t enough to make the subtle to make the subtle complexities of language learnable, and for complexities of language learnable, and for negative evidence (in the form of negative evidence (in the form of correctioncorrection) ) to be of any use, L2 to be of any use, L2 learners have to make learners have to make errorserrors, yet for these subtle complexities, , yet for these subtle complexities, the the learners don’t seem to learners don’t seem to makemake the crucial the crucial errorserrors 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 is that Probably the simplest view of it is that

UG constrains the kinds of UG constrains the kinds of languages we can learnlanguages we can learn.. For the For the moment, assume we’re talking about moment, assume we’re talking about L1A.L1A.

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


UG shaped your L1UG shaped your L1, we take that to be , we take that to be essentially beyond dispute in some form… but essentially beyond dispute in some form… 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 L2UG constrains how you learn L2 ((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 somewhat standard terminology has A somewhat standard terminology has developed for these concepts…developed for these concepts…

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

Indirect AccessIndirect Access—L1 constrains L2A.—L1 constrains L2A. No AccessNo Access—UG is not involved in L2A.—UG is not involved in L2A.

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 the (parameters) of L1 are taken as the “starting point” in L2A.“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 some “starting point” in L2A, while some others start in an independent others start in an independent setting.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 hypotheses work The model these hypotheses work with is essentially that UG provides with is essentially that UG provides a a blueprintblueprint or a or a templatetemplate for for languages, which is used to create a languages, which is used to create a concrete concrete instantiationinstantiation of a language. of a language.

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

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

UG L1

L1A


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



UG L1


Indirect accessIndirect access supposes that the principles and supposes that the principles and parameters of L1 (but not the information in UG). parameters of L1 (but not the information in UG). are available in forming an instantiation of L2.are available in forming an instantiation of L2.

No accessNo access supposes that L2A does not even have supposes that L2A does not even have direct access to L1; presumably everything L2-direct access to L1; presumably everything L2-related is translated through L1, the mapping is related is translated through L1, the mapping is learned in another way.learned in another way.



UG L1

Access hypothesesAccess hypotheses The The full accessfull access

hypothesis supposes hypothesis supposes that the template is that the template is still available to still 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 L1 available (fixed in the L1 settings) but other parts settings) but other parts can still be used to can still be used to instantiate L2.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 general takes L2A to be a general learning process, not constrained by properties of learning process, not constrained by properties of UG.UG.

As such, we do not expect the IL of second language As such, we do not expect the IL of second language learners to learners to conformconform to the specifications of UG to the specifications of UG. We . We expect that the IL would be free to exhibit expect that the IL would be free to exhibit properties unlike any natural language (L1).properties unlike any 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 other , on the other hand, predicts that IL grammars of hand, predicts that IL grammars of second language learners, while not the second language learners, while not the grammar of the target language, grammar of the target language, will still will still conform to the restrictions UG places on conform to the restrictions UG places on natural languagesnatural languages. It will operate under . It will operate under the same principles, and it will have the same principles, and it will have parameters which are set to a setting parameters which are set to a setting which is possible in natural language.which is possible in natural language.


The The indirect accessindirect access hypothesis hypothesis predicts that second language predicts that second language learners will have an IL which is learners will have an IL which is essentially L1-essentially L1-plusplus. They are predicted . They are predicted not to be able to have principles or not to be able to have principles or parameter settings which differ from parameter settings which differ from the L1, but all of the parameter the L1, but all of the parameter settings and principles operative in L1 settings and principles operative in L1 should also be operative in the IL. should also be operative in the IL.


The The partial accesspartial access hypothesis hypothesis is the least well- is the least well-defined. It places itself somewhere between defined. It places itself somewhere between full full accessaccess and and no accessno access.. We We mightmight see that a second language learner’s IL shows see that a second language learner’s IL shows

evidence of parameter settings different from the L1 (or evidence of parameter settings different from the L1 (or not, depending on which parts of UG we are hypothesizing not, depending on which parts of UG we are hypothesizing L2A access to).L2A access to).

We We might might see evidence of principles not used in L1 but see evidence of principles not used in L1 but provided for in UG.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 make fallback position, the compromise we need to make if the facts don’t fit into one of the other hypotheses.if the facts don’t fit into one of the other hypotheses.

In favor of In favor of no accessno access……

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

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

In favor of In favor of no access…no access… Meisel (1997) looked at L1A and L2A of negation in Meisel (1997) looked at L1A and L2A of negation in

German, French, and Basque.German, French, and Basque. In L1A in the three languages, negation appears to In L1A in the three languages, negation appears to

go through similar stages.go through similar stages. First, it is placed externally (generally initially, sometimes First, it is placed externally (generally initially, sometimes

finally), unlike in the adult languagefinally), 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 appropriate Then, it appears sentence-internally, in an appropriate position with respect to the tensed verb position with respect to the tensed verb for the target for the target languagelanguage (differs by language). (differs by language).

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

In favor of In favor of no access…no access… 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 languages learners, regardless of target and first languages seem to go through pretty much invariant stages seem to go through pretty much invariant stages with respect to negation.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 English However, almost all of these studies used English as the target language, and in fact some studies as the target language, and in fact some studies seemed to have “missed” the first stage.seemed to have “missed” the first stage.

In favor of In favor of no access…no access… Closer investigation reveals that not all second Closer investigation reveals that not all second

language learners go through an “initial negation” language learners go through an “initial negation” stage, even if the L1 has preverbal negation.stage, even if the L1 has preverbal negation.

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

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 that (some) people use in L2A.L2A.

In favor of In favor of no access…no access…

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 put negation after the verbnegation after the verb).).

Meisel concludes that any UG involvement Meisel concludes that any UG involvement in L2A is much less clear given these in L2A is much less clear given these differences between L1A and L2A.differences between L1A 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, . Roughly, the idea is: the idea is: Because the sequence of L1A Because the sequence of L1A and L2A do not match, and assuming L1A and L2A do not match, and assuming L1A is driven by UG, L2A can’t be also driven is driven by UG, L2A can’t be also driven by UGby UG..

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

Concerning this Concerning this argumentargument

Whether or not we take this to show Whether or not we take this to show no no access to UGaccess to UG, we need to keep in mind , we need to keep in mind that:that:

the “invariant sequence” (at least in the the “invariant sequence” (at least in the acquisition of negation) in L2A is on acquisition of negation) in L2A is on shakier ground than previous research shakier ground than previous research seemed to suggest.seemed to suggest.

the contingencies between finiteness and the contingencies between finiteness and verb position with respect to negation verb position with respect to negation (suggesting that they “go together” in L1 (suggesting that they “go together” in L1 grammars) don’t seem to hold of L2A.grammars) don’t seem to hold of L2A.

In favor of In favor of full access…full access… First, note that pretty much First, note that pretty much any any empirical empirical

argument purportedly for argument purportedly for full access full access to UG in to UG in L2A cannot actually meet its goalL2A cannot actually meet its goal. At best, it . At best, it will show that will show that in the area studiedin the area studied there is there is evidence for access to UG (i.e. evidence for access to UG (i.e. partial accesspartial access).).

However, However, full accessfull access is a stronger position is a stronger position, so , so we want to take that as the null hypothesis if we want to take that as the null hypothesis if we see evidence for we see evidence for somesome access, adopting a access, adopting a partial accesspartial access view only if we see that there is view only if we see that there is also evidence for also evidence for no accessno access in other areas. in other areas.

In favor of In favor of full access…full 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.

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 that different from their L1, indicating that the the parametric optionsparametric options are still available are still available

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

A simple example discussed by Flynn (1996) is A simple example discussed by Flynn (1996) is L2A between Japanese and English.L2A between Japanese and English.

Japanese and English differ in their setting of Japanese and English differ in their setting of the “head parameter”, which indicates 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-final they know that both head-initial and head-final are are possiblepossible settings for this parameter, settings for this parameter, although their L1 parameter is committed to although their L1 parameter is committed to head-final.head-final.

In favor of In favor of full access…full access… Flynn on Subjacency…Flynn on Subjacency… 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 is -question; Japanese is a “a “whwh-in-situ” language. Its -in-situ” language. Its whwh-words -words appear in the same position that the trace appear in the same position that the trace “appears” in English.“appears” in English.

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

In favor of In favor of full access…full access… Thus, Subjacency does not seem to rule Thus, Subjacency does not seem to rule

out any out any whwh-questions in Japanese. It is -questions in Japanese. It is possible to ask questions like: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 to

Mary?Mary?

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

In favor of In favor of full access…full access… Supposing that Subjacency is not active in Supposing that Subjacency is not active in

Japanese, Flynn considers L2A of English by Japanese, Flynn considers L2A of English by Japanese speakers.Japanese speakers. Would these second language learners nevertheless Would these second language learners nevertheless

obey Subjacency in English?obey Subjacency in English? Do they still have access to this principle provided Do they still have access to this principle provided

by UG even though it is not used in their L1?by UG even though it is not used in their L1? Flynn’s experiments seem to indicate that Flynn’s experiments seem to indicate that

Japanese speakers learning L2 English Japanese speakers learning L2 English dodo obey obey Subjacency, and concludes that they must Subjacency, and concludes that they must therefore still have access to UG during L2A.therefore still have access to UG during L2A. But cf. Johnson & Newport later on…But cf. Johnson & Newport later on…

In favor of In favor of indirect indirect accessaccess??

The difference between The difference between indirect accessindirect access and and no accessno access is very subtle, if it is even a is very subtle, if it is even a real distinction.real distinction.

No accessNo access claims that UG is not involved at all, claims that UG is not involved at all, that second language learning is basically that second language learning is basically general problem-solving.general problem-solving.

Indirect accessIndirect access claims that UG is not involved claims that UG is not involved directly, only the “parts of it” which have been directly, only the “parts of it” which have been selected in L1.selected in L1.

In favor of In favor of indirect indirect accessaccess??

Surely the idea behind the Surely the idea behind the no accessno access hypothesis is that when using an L2, you hypothesis is that when using an L2, you essentially come up with a sentence in your essentially come up with a sentence in your L1 and then “convert” it using the rules you L1 and then “convert” it using the rules you learned about the L2 (or vice versa for learned about the L2 (or vice versa for perception).perception).

So, both hypotheses So, both hypotheses reallyreally say that you say that you know what you know about L1 and there is know what you know about L1 and there is no further contribution of UG. There is no no further contribution of UG. There is no possibility to choose a different parameter possibility to choose a different parameter setting for L2.setting for L2.

Partial accessPartial access? ? As mentioned previously, As mentioned previously, partial accesspartial access is is

really just a fallback position if there really just a fallback position if there seems to be some evidence for access in seems to be some evidence for access in one area of “UG” but conflicting evidence one area of “UG” but conflicting evidence for no access in another area.for no access in another area.

In a sense, this might mean this In a sense, this might mean this hypothesis is more likely to be right, but hypothesis is more likely to be right, but there is no way to argue for partial access there is no way to argue for partial access distinct from arguments for full or no distinct from arguments for full or no access in subdomains of grammar.access in subdomains of grammar.

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 of : We don’t have a great deal of

success learning about the structure of success learning about the structure of linguistic knowledge in the linguistic knowledge in the native speakernative speaker domain by looking just at domain by looking just at productionsproductions. . Things aren’t different for L2 learners.Things aren’t different for 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 dinner?Who did you say that bought John dinner? 1-bad1-bad 2-a little weird2-a little weird 3-natural3-natural

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

GJ tasks aren’t perfect, GJ tasks aren’t perfect, though…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 for syntactic structure. And it’s hard to correct for that, because if you ask someone what’s wrong that, because if you ask someone what’s wrong withwith

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

GJ tasksGJ tasks

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

subject matter of the sentencesubject matter of the sentence judging whether a sentence is true or false of judging whether a sentence is true or false of

a scene.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. ratesSuppose that an adult L2 learner of E. rates 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 know Does that mean they don’t know Subjacency?Subjacency?

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

Like with kids and quantifiers Principle B, Like with kids and quantifiers Principle B, one can only really say that people know or one can only really say that people know or don’t know a principle of UG once they have don’t know a principle of UG once they have the appropriate structures to apply them to.the appropriate structures 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 look at UG constraints or parameters which are which are not used in the learner’s L1not used in the learner’s L1. If . If there is something that holds in all there is something that holds in all languages, say, the languages, say, the -criterion, showing -criterion, showing that L2 learners respect the that L2 learners respect the -criterion -criterion doesn’t tell us whether that is because UG doesn’t tell us whether that is because UG required it or because their L1 does. required it or because their L1 does.

Two things to look atTwo things to look 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 L2…inapplicable in L1 but apply in 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 develop, As our theories of syntax develop, finding such things becomes harder finding such things becomes harder and harder, since the goal of and harder, since the goal of theoretical syntax is in general to theoretical syntax is in general to say “All languages are really the say “All languages are really the same except for some very surface-y same except for some very surface-y phenomena.”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 L1.still hasn’t necessarily gotten away from L1.

Kanno againKanno again Even Kanno’s experiment, neat as it is, doesn’t Even Kanno’s experiment, neat as it is, doesn’t

really escape L1 under this kind of view—if we really escape L1 under this kind of view—if we were right about how the ECP is formulated.were right about how the ECP is formulated.

The ECP controls The ECP controls thatthat-trace phenomena in English -trace phenomena in English (arguably), but it is actually a constraint against (arguably), but it is actually a constraint against ungoverned empty categories.ungoverned empty categories.

If E. speakers know the ECP, they know If E. speakers know the ECP, they know this.this. If the ECP controls case drop in Japanese because If the ECP controls case drop in Japanese because

these are empty categories, then these are empty categories, then if English if English speakers know the ECPspeakers know the ECP, then they’ll know not to , then they’ll know not to drop subject case markers.drop subject case markers.

In generalIn general The L2A literature tends to take a fairly The L2A literature tends to take a fairly

old, conservative view of UG. It tends to old, conservative view of UG. It tends to assume that UG provides assume that UG provides options options from from which languages 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 might become unavailable as a choice later.later.

That is, the underlying assumption seems That is, the underlying assumption seems to be that English speakers to be that English speakers don’tdon’t know the know the ECP, really. What they know is to behave ECP, really. What they know is to behave according to the way the ECP would according to the way the ECP would require require for embedded subject questionsfor embedded subject questions. . ??

ParametersParameters

The bottom line is: it’s going to be hard to The bottom line is: it’s going to be hard to make a convincing case that you’ve got a make a convincing case that you’ve got a principle of UG which is not known principle of UG which is not known (utilized) by an L1 speaker. Perhaps, if you (utilized) by an L1 speaker. Perhaps, if you are lucky, you might find something 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).

ParametersParameters

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

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

Documents

Week 8. Second Language Acquisition: introduction GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory