GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory by Z4Rv5z


									    GRS LX 700
Language Acquisition
  Linguistic Theory
           Week 9.
 Parameter settings and transfer
   Languages differ in the settings of parameters (and in
    the pronunciations of the words, etc.).
   To learn a second language (if the knowledge is
    comparable to that held by a native speaker of the
    target language) is to learn the parameter settings for
    that language.
   Where do you keep the parameters from the second,
    third, etc. language? You don’t have a single
    parameter set two different ways, do you?
       Almost certainly not. Also: “parameter resetting” doesn’t
        mean monkeying with your L1 parameter settings, it means
        setting your L2 parameter to its appropriate setting.
    Four views on the role of L1
   UG is still around to constrain L2/IL, parameter
    settings of L1 are adopted at first, then
    parameters are reset to match L2.
   UG does not constrain L2/IL but L1 does, L2 can
    adopt properties of L1 but can’t reset the
    parameters (except perhaps in the face of
    brutally direct evidence, e.g., headedness).
   IL cannot be described in terms of parameter
    settings—it is not UG-constrained.
   UG works the same in L1A and L2A. L1
    shouldn’t have any effect.
    Some parameters that have
      been looked at in L2A
   Pro drop (null subject) parameter
       empty subjects allowed? Spanish yes, English no
   Head parameter
       head-complement order in X-bar structure; Japanese
        head-final, English head-initial
   ECP/that-trace effect
       *Who did you say that t left? English: yes, Dutch: no
   Subjacency/bounding nodes
       English: DP and IP, Italian/French: DP and CP
   Verb movement
   Binding theory parameters
    Verb movement and negation

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

   English leaves verbs (but auxiliaries) in VP
     John does not eat chocolate.
     John is not dumb.

   So French has set the V-to-T parameter on,
    English has set it off (except for be and
Verb movement and adverbs
   This also predicts adverb order.
       In English, you can never have an adverb
        between the verb and its object.
          *John [eats often chocolate].
          John often [eats chocolate].

       In French, you put adverbs between the verb
        and the object.
          Jean mange souvent [— du chocolat].
          *Jean souvent [mange du chocolat].
        Interlanguage and UG
   A major question we’re asking is:
    Are IL grammars constrained by UG?

   That is, are people, as they learn a second
    language, “allowed to” posit
    rules/constraints in the IL that do not
    conform to UG—that is, that could not
    appear in any natural (native) language?
Why parameters seem to be a
    good place to look
   One crucial property of the parameters (in the
    Principles and Parameters model) is that a single
    setting of the parameter can have effects in
    several places in the grammar of a language.

   So verb-movement (V to T), which is set to “yes”
    in French, is responsible for:
       The relative position of negation and the finite verb
       The relative position of manner adverbs and the finite
Why parameters seem to be a
    good place to look
   In general, we have to say that (full) knowledge
    of the L2 is going to involve setting the
    parameters to the appropriate settings for the
    target language.
   So, we can also look for the cluster of effects
    that are supposed to arise from a single
    parameter setting.
   Is it the case that once a second language
    learner gets the verb-adverb order right, s/he
    also gets the verb-negation order right? If only
    one kind of verb (finite vs. nonfinite) moves to T,
    is it the finite verb?
                  White (1991)

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

   In French (where V moves to T):
       S Adv V order is disallowed
       S V Adv Obj order is allowed.
   In English (where V does not move to T):
       S Adv V order is allowed
       S V Adv Obj order is disallowed.
               White (1991)
   Given this, it should be sufficient for a
    learner to learn the one which is allowed
    (e.g., in English that S Adv V order is
    allowed)—the V-to-T parameter can then
    be set (to off for English), and then the
    impossibility of the one which is disallowed
    (e.g., *S V Adv Obj order in English)
    should follow automatically if they’ve set
    the parameter in their IL.
               White (1991)
   White’s study involved native speakers of
    French learning English.
   Her subjects were children in grades 5
    (average age 11) and 6 (average age 12)
    with very little prior English exposure and
    have very little English exposure outside the
   The children entered a 5-month intensive
    ESL program where their schooling was
    devoted entirely to ESL.
                White (1991)
   The subjects were divided into two groups, based
    on whether the ESL instruction included specific
    teaching on English adverb placement (the other
    group was taught question-formation instead).
   Three months in, students took a “pretest” on
    adverb placement, after which the adverb group
    was trained on adverbs. After the teaching period,
    students took a test, then another at the end of
    the ESL program (about 5 weeks later). Finally,
    the (originally) 5th graders were retested a year
                 White (1991)
   Grammaticality judgment: Cartoon story with
    captions; if student thought caption was incorrect,
    they drew arrows to repair the word order.
   Preference task: Students were given a sentence
    in two possible orders and asked to respond if
    both were good, neither was good, or only one
    (and which one) was good.
   Manipulation task: Students were given cards with
    words on them and told to line them up to form a
    sentence; then asked if they could form another
    with the same cards, until they couldn’t continue.
            White (1991) results

   Grammaticality judgment task:
   Adverb group went from very high acceptance to SVAO to
    very low (native-speaker-like) levels at the first post-test,
    and remained there for the second one. The question
    group remained high throughout.

   Adverb group when from moderate use of SAV to high
    (nearly native-speaker-like) levels at the first post-test, and
    remained there for the second one. The question group
    remained at moderate use throughout.
   The effect of instruction was pretty dramatic in the first
    and second post-tests. Explicit instruction helped.
    (SVAO score, SAV score) (Preference task—same).
    5                                 12
3.5                                   8
2.5                                   6
    2                        Post-2
    0                                 0
        AdvG   QG    Contr                 AdvG   QG   Contr
             White (1991) results
   A couple of things to notice:
   The question group was getting basically positive evidence
    only (adverb position was not explicitly taught). And they
    didn’t fare well on the tests.
   The adverb group was getting explicit negative evidence and
    it seemed to help a lot.

   Even the adverb group, while rejecting *SVAO, would not
    accept SAV as often/reliably as the native speakers—an
    apparent failure of predicted clustering.
   White suggested essentially that for L2’ers verb raising is
    optional, but this doesn’t really get at the *SVAO result.
            The one-year-later test
   …A startling result when testing those kids who were helped so
    dramatically by instruction: the knowledge they gained didn’t
    last. Again, it doesn’t feel like a new parameter setting.

    (SVAO score)               5
                               3                            Pre
                              2.5                           Post-1
                                    AdvG        Unins
                         White (1991)
   In fact, White also observed that while her Adverb group
    correctly ruled out *SVAO sentences in English after explicit
    instruction, they seemed to have incorrectly generalized this to
    also rule out SVAPP:
       Mary walks quickly to school.
       Mary quickly walks to school.

   A 1992 article by Schwartz and Gubala-Ryzak discusses this
    and points out that this is not something that is possible in a
    natural language via parameter setting—this behavior can’t be
    the result of mis-set parameters, it must be some kind of
    prescriptive rule. White, in her response, basically agrees with
    respect to her particular subjects.
                 White (1991)
   In any event, White’s (1991) study didn’t show
    the strong support for parameter setting that it
    might have.
   White’s study also seems to show that negative
    evidence seems to only have a very short-term
    effect on learning.
   This leads us (and later White [1992] too) to
    guess that what the kids were learning was
    prescriptive rule-type knowledge, and not some
    kind of reorganization of their grammatical
    system (by setting a parameter).
                 Types of input
   What White (1991) was trying to test was the effects of
    different kinds of input; negative input via explicit
    instruction on adverbs vs. positive input via exposure
    (without concentrating on adverbs specifically). In her
    “positive evidence” (question) group, very little advance
    was made—is positive evidence ineffectual?

   White speculated that the kids in the question condition
    might not have actually heard many adverbs, after
    listening to some tapes of the classes. Perhaps they just
    didn’t have enough positive evidence?
   White and Trahey set out to test this by
    getting together another group of students
    and subjecting them to a “input flood” of
    adverb material—no explicit teaching of
    adverbs, but lots of examples of proper
    adverb placement in English. Then they
    ran basically the same tests on the kids as
    in the other experiment, including the “one
    year later” experiment. (Trahey 1996)
                         Flooding results
                         preference task
         The effect of the input flood appears to have been an
          increase in the flood group’s use of SAVO, but no real
          change in anything else (in particular *SVAO).
16                                              10

10                                              6
4                                               2
0                                               0
         ASVO    SAVO       SVAO         SVOA        ASVO     SAVO       SVAO        SVOA

            Pre Post-1 Post-2 1yrlater               Flood Adverb   Uninstructed   Control
   The flooding experiment seems to have shown:
   That the knowledge gained by flooding seems to be more
    persistent than the knowledge gained by explicit instruction
    (i.e. adverb group).

   That acceptance of SAVO and rejection of SVAO appear to
    be independent—the flooding group learned that SAVO was
    allowed and retained this knowledge, but still didn’t reject
    SVAO (actually a well-known persistent error in L2 English
    from French). This isn’t expected if the “knowledge” is a
    parameter setting that is supposed to have both effects.
   In earlier research, White actually did some
    tests going both directions, and found that
    native English speakers learning French
    (that is, going the other way) appear to
    “catch on” to the allowability of SVAO,
    while—as we’ve seen—native French
    speakers learning English seem to hang on
    to SVAO indefinitely. Again, if this is a
    binary parameter, this appears to be a bit
    unexpected—is it easier to set one way
    than another?
         Hawkins et al. (1993)
   Hawkins et al. (1993) looked at this a little
    bit more closely (with the assistance of
    advances in theoretical syntax since
    White’s original study), looking in particular
    at English speakers learning French.
   In particular, the question Hawkins et al.
    were asking was: Do English speakers
    learning French really manage to set the V-
    to-T parameter, given that it seems to be so
    difficult the other way?
           Hawkins et al. (1993)
   They found some evidence for a staged
    progression, where
     The least advanced of their subjects could
      correctly place the verb with respect to negation
      (but not with respect to adverbs)
     The more advanced subjects could correctly place
      the verb with respect to both negation and
     The rate correct for tous ‘all’ placement (cf. The
      students all went home) was lower than for the
      other two.
         Hawkins et al. (1993)
   Hawkins et al. suggest that this is
    compatible with a view in which the
    English speakers never really do set the
    V-to-T parameter to on, but instead rely on
    other mechanisms by which the English
    speakers can “fake” French.
             Hawkins et al. (1993)
   First stage: L2’ers seem to have the relative position of
    negation (pas) and the verb correct.
   Hypothesis: They are treat pas it as if it were attached to
    the verb to begin with, rather than in the canonical
    “negation” slot; hence the verb will always appear to its
    left), regardless of whether the verb raises.
   Some evidence: *Ne mange pas-t-il de… accepted (vs.
    grammatical Ne mange-t-il pas de…); *Ne voir pas son
    amie est un supplice pour lui… accepted (vs. grammatical
    Ne pas voir…).
   And: This means the relative position of verbs and adverbs
    is not necessarily predicted to be correct. This basically has
    nothing to do with verb movement in the IL.
                Hawkins et al. (1993)
   Second stage: English speakers start to allow SVAO order in
    French (without the difficulty encountered by French
    speakers in disallowing it).
   Hypothesis: It is a generalization of Heavy NP Shift, already
    possible in English, which allows postposing of “heavy” NPs,
    such as:
       The boy ate — quickly
        [the hot soup his mother had made especially for him].
       *The boy ate quickly it.
   That’s a way to get a grammatical SVAO sentence in English
    under special circumstances. So, perhaps these L2’ers are
    “shifting the object rightward” (not moving the verb to T).
       Evidence(?): About 40% of I group accept both SVAO and SAVO.
             How are we doing?
   It seems like the case for a UG-constrained IL grammar
    (“full access”) is not very strong at this point, despite White
    and Trahey’s best efforts. We’ve seen several things
    which did not seem to “set a parameter value” (explicit
    negative evidence, positive evidence even if in a flood),
    one of which was so temporary as to suggest that the
    knowledge was basically prescriptive. We’ve seen that
    even in cases where it looked like a parameter value was
    “set”, closer inspection revealed that it didn’t act
    parameter-like—it didn’t show the cluster of properties.

   We have yet to really see any reason to believe that a
    parameter can be set in L2A.
   This clustering aspect of parametric
    settings is very important—if a L2’ers IL
    shows one “symptom” of a parameter
    setting but fails to show others, then this is
    quite good evidence that the parameter
    was not set, but that there is something
    else going on
       or, alternatively, that something else is
        blocking the other “symptoms” which should
    The null subject parameter
   Adult languages differ in whether they
    require overt subjects or not.
   English does:
       *Go to the movies tonight.
   Italian and Spanish do not:
     Vado al cinema stasera.         (Italian)
     Voy al cine esta noche.         (Spanish)
      ‘(I) go to the movies tonight.’
        The null subject parameter
   There is a significant cluster of properties that
    seems to go along with be a “null subject”
    (a.k.a. “pro drop”) language..
       Subject pronouns can be omitted in tensed
            (And generally are except to indicate contrast)
     Expletive subjects are null. (it rains).
     Subjects may be postposed. (ha telefonato
     There is no that-trace effect.
            White (1985, 1986)
   Compared two groups of subjects learning English:
      32 native speakers of (Latin American) Spanish and
       2 native speakers of Italian
      37 native speakers of Québec French

   Did a test of grammaticality judgments, as well as a
    question formation test:
      Mary believes that Fred will call his mother.
      Who does Mary believe that Fred will call?
      Mary believes that Fred will call his mother.
      Who does Mary believe will call his mother?
          Null subject parameter
   Spanish (+NS) L1 learning English (–NS)
       An error constituting transfer of +NS would be
        omitting a subject in an English sentence, which
        requires a subject.
   English (–NS) L1 learning Spanish (+NS)
       Transfer of –NS? Trickier—have to look for context
        where Spanish would definitely drop the subject, and
        see if English speakers incorrectly retain the subject.
        Even then, does that mean the Spanish learner
        doesn’t have the parameter down, or just hasn’t
        worked out the pragmatics of where a subject should
        be dropped?
     Null subject
       parameter                     Percent correct at
                                      identifying ungrammatical
 White (1985), GJ                     (U) as ungrammatical
                                      and grammatical (G) as
Sentence type
                 Spanish French      Spanish is +NS, French
                                      is –NS,
Subjectless U   61       89           English –NS
                                     Probable methodological
Subjectful G    90       97           problems with VS, SV,
                                      and that-trace sentences.
VS U            91       96              VS order best with
                                          unaccusatives and
SV G            81       85               needs a discourse
                                          context. For that-t
that-trace U    23       35               sentences, vocabulary
                                          not controlled for and
other mmts G    79       79               100% could be achieved
                                          by a yes-machine.
     Null subject parameter
    White (1985), Q formation
                               that-     other
                    correct    trace     errs     Spanish (+NS)
Spanish (n=22)      17         71        12       English (–NS)
                                                  were more
                                                  likely to make
French (n=30)       20         42        38

 Elizabeth believes that her sister will be late.
 Who does Elizabeth believe (*that) t will be late?
         Null subject parameter
   So, these +NS Spanish speakers accepted
    subjectless English sentences around 40% of
    the time (vs. 10% for French speakers), they
    produced that-trace errors 70% of the time (vs.
    40% for French speakers).
   There is some effect at least of the ±NS setting
    of the L1.
   Is it transfer of the parameter value? Well, if so,
    there should be “clustering”—is there?
       Seems like “no”—VS rejected by both groups. Error in
        methodology? Should have been unaccusative? Not
        actually a consequence of the NS parm after all?
         Null subject parameter
             Phinney (1987)

   English->Spanish and Spanish->English

       Perhaps questionable methodology (written,
        exam in one case, class composition
        assignment in the other, Spanish speakers
        had English in school—perhaps not entirely
        learned as an adult, English speakers only
        had exposure in college), but…
             Null subject parameter
                 Phinney (1987)
            % omission of    ESL1      ESL2         SSL1   SSL2
            pronoun subjects
            referential      13        6            83     65

            pleonastic       56        76           100    100

   Omission of pleonastic pronoun subjects.
       can’t be omitted in English, must be omitted in Spanish.
   English->Spanish (SSL) always omitted pleonastic.
   Spanish->English (ESL) sometimes omitted pleonastic.
       Spanish: Carrying over [+NS] from L1.
       English: Not carrying over [–NS] from L1.
            Null subject parameter
                Phinney (1987)
                            ESL1     ESL2      SSL1      SSL2

           referential      13       6         83        65

           pleonastic       56       76        100       100

   Why would [+NS] be transferred and not [–NS]?
   Perhaps there is a default (first setting) of the null subject
    parameter: [+NS]. (cf. last week)
       Learners of a [–NS] language need to change that parameter.
       Learners of a [+NS] language already have it right.
             Null subject parameter
                 Phinney (1987)
                             ESL1      ESL2      SSL1      SSL2

            referential      13        6         83        65

            pleonastic       56        76        100       100

   If [+NS] is the default, occurrence of overt pleonastic
    pronouns could serve as evidence that the language is [–
    NS]; the non-default (marked) value can be learned.
       Since the more obvious “is the subject missing?” predicts a default
        the other way—assume [-NS] until contrary evidence arrives.
    A supplement: White, Travis,
         Maclachlan (1992)
   wh-question formation Malagasy->English L2’ers.

   Malagasy: subject-object asymmetry from English
    appears to be reversed (which can be explained by
    reference to the syntax of this VOS language):
       *Who does Rasoa believe [t will be buying rice]?
       Who was [that t will be buying rice] believed by Rosoa
   In fact only the subject can be extracted in simple wh-
       Who t buys rice for the children?
       *What does the man buy t for the children?
       What is bought t for the children by the man?
                  WTM 1992

   Question: Do M->E                      E     M
    L2’ers get the            <Complex DPs *     *
    English restrictions?     <Adjuncts    *     *
   The restrictions differ   <Subject CP  *     √
    in both directions;       <Subject DP  *     *
    just learning object      <Object CP   √     *
    extraction is ok in       <Object DP   √     *
    English won’t be          Subject t    */√   √
    enough.                   Object t     √     *
                     WTM 1992
   38 adult M speakers taking English.
   Broken by course level and professor ratings
    into high intermediate (18) and low intermediate
   Grammaticality judgment task, and question
    formation task:
       Sam believes that Ann stole his car.
       *What does Sam believe the claim that Ann stole?
       What does Sam believe that Ann stole?
                    WTM 1992
   Results: High intermediates were nearly as good
    as the controls at accepting grammatical
    sentences and rejecting ungrammatical ones (and
    avoiding violations when forming questions).

   One place a big difference appeared is in
    accepting/producing that-trace violations
    (compared to controls) in production, yet in GJ
    task, controls actually accepted about 30% of the
    that-trace violations—so maybe this is a
    preference issue (controls prefer not to “violate
    that-trace”, L2’ers haven’t got that preference yet)
          WTM 1992 conclude…

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

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

   Japanese is head-final (SOVIC)
     [CP [IP   S [VP O V ] I ] C ]

   English is head-initial (CSIVO)
     [CP   C [IP S I [VP V O ] ]

   This is a parameter by which languages
    differ—but it should be pretty obvious to
    the L2 learner.
       Word order parameters
    Clahsen and Muysken (1986)
   Arguing for a non-UG-based view of L2A: L1A of
    German and L2A of German are different.
   (L1) kids get SOV order right away.
   L2 learners coming from Romance use SVO
    order (not just V2), but this isn’t even transfer,
    since L2 learners coming from Turkish also use
    SVO order (not SOV).
   To the extent that people learn the SOV German
    order, it’s due to (unnatural) rules transforming
    underlying SVO structures to the SOV forms.
Word order parameters (*UG)
   Clahsen & Muysken
   Used naturalistic production data.
   They suggest that L2 learners extract the
    “canonical” order (SVO) and stick with that
    (later learning to move non-finite verbs to
    the end).
   White: But how do they arrive at the
    canonical order? How can they tell that the
    Adv-V-S-O order is non-canonical?
        Word order parameters
         Clahsen & Muysken
   L2 learners do seem to have assumed SVO,
    producing things like Adv-SVO, SV±FinO, …
    “canonical order”??
   Most languages are uniform with respect to
    headedness—but German isn’t. CP is head initial,
    while VP is head-final (IP could be either).
   German has mixed headedness (CSIOV)
     [CP   C [IP S I [VP O V ] ]
   Learner of German could easily assume German
    is head-initial—that is, misanalyze it as SVO.
   The V-to-T parameter seems to be hard to “re-
    set”—perhaps it even can’t be re-set.

   The null subject parameter has given us less
    than striking results—they don’t move directly

   Possible that except for obvious differences in
    word order, misanalysis (failure to re-set) occurs.
     Binding Theory: once more
    1)   John saw himself.
    2)   *Himself saw John.
    3)   *John said Mary saw himself.
    4)   *John said himself saw Mary.
    5)   *John saw him.
    6)   John said Mary saw him.
    7)   John said he saw Mary.

   Binding Theory. Principle A: Anaphors (like himself) need
    an “earlier” antecedent within its binding domain. Principle
    B: Pronouns (like him) cannot have an “earlier” antecedent
    within its binding domain.
   Parameter: Binding domain = sentence containing
      Binding Theory parameter:
       the domain for anaphors
24)   Sam believes [that Harry overestimates himself]

25)   Sam-wa [Harry-ga zibun-o tunet-ta to] it-ta]
      Sam-top Harry-nom self-acc pinch-past-that say-past
      ‘Sam said that Harry pinched (him)self.’
         More advances in BT
   This parameter of binding domain has been
    studied rather extensively in both theoretical
    linguistics and second language acquisition.

   Eventually, it was noticed that anaphors which
    seem to be able to get their referent “long-
    distance” tend also to be monomorphemic—this
    is particularly clear for languages that have both
    kinds of anaphors, like Dutch zich (LD) and
    zichzelf (local), Norwegian seg (LD) and seg
    selv (local), etc.
         More advances in BT
   One thing this tells us is that local vs. long-
    distance is not a parameter differentiating
    languages—it’s some kind of parameter
    differentiating anaphors, even in the same
    language. Some languages only have one
    kind (e.g., English, which has only
    complex pronoun+self anaphors), but
    some languages have both.
        More advances in BT
   One fact about LD anaphors which seems
    to be pretty robust is that LD anaphors are
    subject-oriented—they can get their
    reference from a long-distance subject, but
    not from anything else outside of their
         More advances in BT
   English himself (type 1)
      Fredi asked Johnj about himselfi,j.
   Russian sebja ‘self’ (type 2)
      Ivani sprosil Borisaj o sebjei,*j.
      ‘Ivani asked Borisj about selfi,*j.’
   Japanese zibun ‘self’ (type 3)
      Johni wa Maryj ni zibuni,*j no ayasin o
      ‘Johni showed Maryj pictures of selfi,*j.’
         More advances in BT
   So there are two things about LD
    anaphors that differentiate them from local
    anaphors pretty reliably:
     LD anaphors are monomorphemic and
     Local anaphors are neither.
         More advances in BT
   The last differentiation has to do with the
    “distance” a LD anaphor can go to find its
    referent. It turns out that some languages
    with LD anaphors differentiate finite and
    nonfinite (=with an infinitive) clauses, and
    LD anaphors cannot look outside a finite
    clause, only outside a nonfinite clause.
    Examples follow.
        -LD, +LD-finite, +LD±finite
   English himself (type 1)
     Fredi believes Johnj to have hurt himself*i,j.
     Fredi believes that Johnj hurt himself*i,j.

   Russian sebja ‘self’ (type 2)
     SaSai poprosila Marinuj narisovat’ sebjai,j.
      ‘Sashai asked Marinaj to draw selfi,j.’
     SaSai prosit, Ctoby Marinaj narisovala sebja*i,j.
      ‘Sashai requests that Marinaj draw self*i,j.’
   Japanese zibun ‘self’ (type 3)
       Alicei wa Suej ga zibuni,j o aisite iru to omotte iru
        ‘Alicei thinks that Suej loves selfi,j.’
         More advances in BT

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

       Incidentally, there is a theoretical explanation for
        why LD parameters are both monomorphemic and
        subject-oriented (roughly, they connect not to a prior
        noun phrase, but to a verb which agrees with its
             L2 research on BT
   There has been quite a bit of research into
    L2’ers’ knowledge of BT, and it also provides an
    area with “clustered” properties.
   As expected, L2’ers weren’t always perfect;
    learning English,
       many achieved (correct) type 1 (local) binding,
       many others (generally an effect of transfer) spoke
        English as if it were a type 3 (LD±fin) language.
       some seemed to show an effect of ±finite on whether
        an anaphor could be long distance—sounds a bit like
        type 2 (LD-fin).
           MacLaughlin 1998
   In an experiment to try to test this question
    explicitly, MacLaughlin looked at speakers
    of type 3 languages (5 native speakers of
    Chinese, 10 native speakers of Japanese)
    learning English (type 1) in various
    settings. What she was specifically looking
    to do is to classify each learner as “type
    1,” “type 2,” or “type 3” to see in particular
    if there are any that show up as type 2.
             MacLaughlin 1998
   The significance of seeing a L2’er with a type 2
    system is that it is neither a property of the L1
    (hence it couldn’t have arisen due to transfer from
    the L1) nor a property of the L2 (hence it couldn’t
    have arisen simply due to positive evidence from
    the L2). Rather, it is an option made available by
    UG but taken by neither the L1 nor L2. This is a
    strong type of evidence for the availability of UG
    in the L2A process, since it shows that the
    parameter options are still accessible.
              MacLaughlin 1998

   The test itself was of the form:

   Tom thinks that John hates himself:
       Himself can be John     Agree___ Disagree___
       Himself can be Tom      Agree___ Disagree___

   Several types of sentences were tested, including
    sentences with embedded finite clauses and
    embedded infinitival clauses with both subjects
    and non-subjects as potential antecedents.
                MacLaughlin 1998

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

          Type 1 (E)    Type 2 (R)    Type 3 (J)    Other
          80    100     80    100     80    100     80    100
E         18    16      0     1       0     0       0     1
L2        6     4       7     4       2     5       0     2
C         3     2       1     1       1     1       0     1
J         3     2       6     3       1     4       0     1
            MacLaughlin 1998
   There are two parameters relevant to the type that a
    learner is assigned to… We can see that type 2 is a not
    surprising place for some learners to arrive at on the
    way to the target type 1.

                   NL       T3       T2       T1      TL
Anaphor type
Monomorphemic    +       +      +
Polymorphemic    +                            +       +
AGR (finite tense blocks LD relation)
                 -       -      +             +       +
   So, we’ve finally got something that
    appears to be on the “UG side”—
   The parameter of the anaphor and the
    parameter (AGR) concerning the opacity
    of finite tense seem to be able to be “re-
    set” and moreover we see the predicted
    intermediate point when only one but not
    the other has been set to the target
           White’s (2003) critique
   The Type 2 learners are the surprising ones. They
    supposedly consider their anaphors to be
    monomorphemic, but have set the AGR parameter.
   The thing is: we don’t have any independent evidence
    that the “Type 2’ers” take the anaphors to be
   White notes that monomorphemic anaphors in L1s
    don’t show person/number agreement. Do the “Type
    2’ers” use himself, themselves, herself correctly? We
    would expect not, if these are really Type 2 learners. A
    separate study seems to indicate that J->E learners
    are quite accurate. A full study remains to be done.
        ECP: that-trace effects

   The setting of the head parameter should be
    obvious in the primary data. Does the head come
    before or after the complement?
   The setting of the Null Subject parameter should
    also be obvious. Are there pleonastic pronouns in
    it’s raining?
   ECP (that-trace) and Subjacency (bounding
    nodes) are parameters which require much more
    subtle evidence in order to be correctly set.
          ECP: that-trace effects
   We know that the positive evidence won’t lead a
    learner to the generalization that that is
    disallowed when a subject is extracted from an
    embedded sentence.
       John arrived yesterday.
       Mary said John arrived yesterday.
       Mary said that John arrived yesterday.
       Who arrived yesterday?
       Who did Mary say t arrived yesterday?
       *Who did Mary say that t arrived yesterday?
           ECP: that-trace effects
   that-trace is ok in Dutch.
       Wie denk je dat hem gisteren gezien heeft?
        who think you that him yesterday see has
        ‘Who do you think t saw him yesterday?’
   The parameter is supposed to be a property of C;
    in Dutch C (dat) is a proper governor, and so a
    trace in subject position in properly governed. In
    English, C (that) is not a proper governor, hence
    the that-trace effect.
   If UG is available, Dutch->English learners should
    be able to set the parameter properly on C
    eventually. If not, we’d expect that to be forever
    treated like dat.
            ECP: that-trace effects
   Dutch->English learners given a preference task (how
    is the sentence with that compared to the sentence
    without that?). (White 1990). Some effect.
   They seem to get the differential behavior between
    subjects and objects, not expected based on Dutch—
    except was this checked??
                 Control (n=30)          Dutch group (n=62)

                 +that   –that    same   +that   –that   same

      subjects   0       98.5     1.5    6       82.5    11.5
      objects    9       81       10     12.5    61      16.5
     Subjacency and bounding
   A much more subtle parameter is the setting
    of bounding nodes for Subjacency.
   Subjacency: A single movement cannot
    cross two bounding nodes.
   English: Bounding nodes are DP and IP.
   French/Italian: Bounding nodes are DP and
   Subjacency and bounding
 *Whati [IP did Mary believe
 [DP the story [CP ti that [IP John saw ti ]]]]?

 *Whati [IP did Mary wonder [CP whether
 [IP John would do ti ]]]?
                Bounding nodes

   French->English: Do they learn that IP is a
    bounding node?
   White (1988): Grammaticality judgments from
    intermediate adult learners. Suggests that at
    least one group hasn’t quite gotten IP yet—but
                 control   group 1     group 2
    CNP          96        80          81

    wh-island    91        65          80
   So, parameters seem like one of the best places
    to look for evidence that UG still plays a role in
   Languages differ in the value of parameters.
   During L1A, one setting is picked.
   If only L1 can be consulted while learning L2, then
    we might expect only that setting to be available.
    (Transferred—and perhaps even kept, with
    additional mechanisms to derive deviations).
   If a L2 learner can reset a parameter (from either
    a transferred setting or a default one), then this
    means that the options are still there.
                       

                   
               


To top