Linguistic Theory - L2 Morphology vs. Sunctional Projections

Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory Morphology   L2 morphology v. functional projections In L1A, we observe that kids don’t always provide all of the morphology that adults do. Traditionally, it was assumed that kids are learning the morphology and the syntax and that at some point they got it (say, when they provide correct morphology 90% of the time when it was required). Morphology German and L1A CP   A major recent development in the study of how kids come to know the (by now, known to be fabulously complicated, but yet relatively language-independent) system of syntax was in the observation that morphological errors are by no means random. In particular, in a large number of languages, what seems to happen is that kids produce nonfinite forms of the verb—but along with that comes the syntax associated with non-finiteness. C+I John ate   So, even though kids will sometimes use nonfinite verbs, they know the difference between finite and nonfinite verb and know how the grammar treats each kind. They are using T correctly. They just sometimes pick the wrong (nonfinite) one. Now, adult L2’ers also drop a lot of morphology, will produce nonfinite forms… This raises the question (in the general ballpark of “how much is L2A like L1A?”) as to whether second language learners show this effect as well.   IP I′ — — VP V′ DP lunch Functional categories  C′ DP — So, in German. When a 2-year-old uses a finite verb, it goes in second position; when a 2year-old uses a nonfinite verb it remains at the end of the sentence (after the object). Functional categories  Rephrasing a bit, what we’re talking about is essentially the structural complexity of the learner’s (L1A/L2A) knowledge (at a given point).  It has been pretty well established by theoretical linguistics that adult native languages are quite complex, containing functional phrases like AgrP, TP and CP, and there is a lot of support for this idea that most if not all parametric differences stem from properties of the abstract functional morphemes (often reflected in surface morphology). Functional categories   Functional categories Verb movement (if it conforms to the rules of adult native-speaker verb movement, anyway) serves as evidence for this complex functional structure, since the verb moves into a functional head (T, for example). The evidence we just reviewed suggests very strongly that kids learning German and French produce sentences which comply with the rules of adult syntax (that make reference to this complex functional structure). Kids seem to “know about” the TP and the CP and the rules that pertain thereto.  The question we’re about to look at is whether adult second language learners also have this same complex structural knowledge in their IL. Do L2’ers “know about TP” in other words?  Note that if L2’ers can usually produce sentences which are grammatical in the TL but yet don’t “follow the rules” which are associated with that structure (i.e. that only finite verbs move to T), we do not have evidence that their mental representation of these sentences includes the higher functional phrases like TP. Prévost and White Prévost and White (1999, 2000)   Prévost and White (1999, 2000) investigated this very question, and here’s what they found.  Like kids do during L1A, second language learners will sometimes omit, and sometimes provide, inflection (tense, subject agreement) on the verb.  However, it is different from L1A in that lack of finite inflection on the verb does not seem to correlate with being treated syntactically as an infinitive. Prévost and White try to differentiate two possibilities of what their data might show, given that second language learners sometimes use inflected verbs and sometimes don’t.   Prévost and White   Possibility 1 (impairment) suggests basically no correlation between verb movement and inflection. Possibility 2 (mispronouncing a finite verb by using its nonfinite form) predicts that When the finite form is pronounced, the verb will definitely be (and act) finite—it will move.  When the nonfinite form is pronounced, it might act finite or nonfinite.  Impairment Hypothesis. The learners don’t really (consistently) understand the inflection or how to use it. Their knowledge of inflection is “impaired”. Their trees don’t contain the functional XPs. Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis. The learners will sometimes pronounce finite verbs in their infinitive form (the verbs act finite, the functional XP’s are there, but the learner couldn’t find the right inflected form in his/her lexicon in time, so s/he used the nonfinite form). The nonfinite form is essentially a default. Prévost and White  P&W looked at spontaneous speech data from two adults learning L2 French (from Moroccan Arabic, after a year) and two adults learning L2 German (from Spanish and Portuguese, after 3 months). Monthly interviews followed for about 2 years. Prévost and White found…    Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in non-finite contexts. When verbs are marked with inflection, they systematically (overwhelmingly) appear before negation (i.e., they move). Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts (used finitely, moved). Prévost and White  P&W’s data supports the hypotheses that: (These) second language learners know the difference between finite and nonfinite verbs. They know that finite verbs move, and that nonfinite verbs do not move. The only real errors they make are essentially lexical retrieval errors (errors of pronunciation), pronouncing verbs which are abstractly finite in their infinitive form. One question: Why the infinitive? Is it really an unmarked form universally? Does it depend on what the citation form is? Is it due to the language-particular morphology.   A(F) Z(F) A(G) Z(G) Oblig. Fin +Fin -Fin 767 243 755 224 389 45 434 85 Oblig. Nonfin -Fin +Fin 278 17 156 2 76 7 98 6   L2A and L1A  One thing this tells us is that, despite possible appearances to the contrary, second language learners’ interlanguages are quite systematic and complex, and the L2 learners have the same kind of abstract structural knowledge incorporated into their IL that we can argue for in the case of L1 learners. L2A and L1  We don’t know really to what extent “UG” played a role, based only on this—after all, we know that the L1 had the full structural complexity of a natural language, including the distinction (perhaps abstract) between finite and nonfinite, and including (perhaps abstract) subject agreement, etc. There’s no reason that knowledge of the distinction between finite and nonfinite couldn’t simply carry over (“transfer”) to the IL during L2A. Morphology ≠ syntax   This suggests that morphology is rather distinct from syntax. It is possible to have the syntax right and the morphology wrong. And to some extent, morphology is not provided by UG, must be learned, and moreover must be retrieved. The view of Distributed Morphology under which morphology is a separate system given the task of pronouncing a syntactic structure (and which allows for the sort of defaults we seem to see) seems well suited to describe this. Morphology ≠ syntax  Various other studies describe a similar dissociation; obligatory subjects, subject case, and verb position are all governed by syntactic features/parameters attributed to functional projections. And while L2’ers seem to get these right, they are inconsistent with the morphology. (See White ch. 6; Lardière, White, Schwartz, Prévost, …) Schwartz (2002)   Last year at the BUCLD, Bonnie Schwartz presented data of this sort looking at the gender agreement and definiteness properties of Dutch DPs, with the aim being to determine whether child L2 acquisition was more like child L1 acquisition or more like adult L2 acquisition. What she found was that in terms of overgeneralizing morphology (overuse of uninflected adjectives), adult L2’ers did it, but neither child L1’ers nor child L2’er did. But in terms of word order, both kinds of L2’er went through a word order stage not attested in child L1’ers’ development. Schwartz (2002)    Jeff Lidz brought up the question of whether this might be due not so much to morphology, but to a phonological effect. Either in terms of an input filter (like the French discussion earlier) or in terms of a production constraint. Phonological problems could in many ways mimic morphological problems. Language attrition  It is a very common phenomenon that, having learned an L2 and having become quite proficient, one will still “forget” how to use it after a period of non-use.  While very common, it’s not very surprising—it’s like calculus. If L2 is a skill like calculus, we’d expect this. child L2 is like child L1 wrt morphology child L2 is like adult L2 wrt syntax  Again, a dissociation between morphology and syntax.  Why? Morphology is surface-evident and frequent, why is there such difficulty? thoughts re: Schwartz (2002)  Schwartz concluded that thoughts re: Schwartz (2002)  Harald Clahsen brought up an interesting point with respect to processing: there are processing results that indicate that adult L2’ers “need longer” to process incoming data. While I’m not sure exactly what studies he had in mind, taking that as given, perhaps the problem with morphology is that it just “comes too fast.” In the same kind of way that phonological filters might keep morphological marking out of the “input data”, processing constraints might also have this effect. L1 attrition  Much more surprising is the fact that sometimes under the influence of a dominant L2, skill in the L1 seems to go.  Consider the UG/parameter model; a kid’s LAD faced with PLD, automatically sets the parameters in his/her head to match those exhibited by the linguistic input. L1 is effortless, fast, uniformly successful… biologically driven, not learning in the normal sense of learning a skill. So how could it suffer attrition? What are you left with?  UG in L2A   Italian→English  Italian is a “null subject” language that allows the subject to be dropped in most cases where in English we’d use a pronoun   (Possible to use a pronoun in Italian, but it conveys something pragmatic: contrastive focus or change in topic) English is a “non-null-subject” language that does not allow the subject to be dropped out, pronouns are required (even sometimes “meaningless” like it or there). Not required that a pronoun signal a change in topic. Italian, null subjects     Reverse errors unattested   Q: Perchè Maria è uscite? ‘Why did Maria leave?’ A: *Perchè Ø è venuto a prederla. ‘Because (Gianni) came to pick her up.’ That is, they don’t forget how to use null subjects so much as they broaden the contexts in which they can use overt pronouns. Q: Perchè Maria è uscite? ‘Why did M leave?’ A1: Lei ha deciso di fare una passeggiata. A2: Ha deciso di fare une passenggiata. ‘She decided to take a walk.’ Monolingual Italian speaker would say A2, but English-immersed native Italian speaker will optionally produce (and accept) A1. (Sorace 2000) Postverbal subjects      We’ve looked at the questions concerning whether when learning a second language, one can adapt the “parameter settings” in the new knowledge to the target settings (where they differ from the L1 settings), but this is even more dramatic—it would seem to actually be altering the L1 settings. It behooves us to look carefullier at this; do attrited speakers seem to have changed parameter settings? Q: Chi ha starnutito? ‘Who sneezed?’ A1: Gianni ha starnutito. A2: Ha starnutito Gianni. Native speakers would say A2 due to the narrow focus; attrited speakers will produce/allow A1 as well. L1 attrition    It seems that the acceptability of overt pronouns (in the L1 “attriters”) broadens compared to their L1, the acceptability of null pronouns becomes more restricted. Pronouns in a null subject language are marked—they are restricted to particular discourse contexts ([+topic shift], according to Sorace). What seems to happen is that the pronouns revert to the unmarked case ([±topic shift] like in English). L1 attrition  Same goes for postverbal subjects—it is a marked option for languages, and the L1 seems to be retreating to the unmarked.  Like with pronouns, it seems to be not a question of grammaticality but a question of felicity. L1 attrition L1 attrition  Certain areas of the L1 grammar are more susceptible to this kind of attrition then others.   Sorace notes that the observed cases of attrition of this sort seem to be the ones involved with discourse and pragmatics, not with fundamental grammatical settings. (The attrited Italian is still a null-subject language, for example—null subjects are still possible and used only in places where null subjects should be allowed).  Language mixing (Spanish-English)  No, yo sí brincaba en el trampoline when I was a senior. ‘No, I did jump on the trampoline when I was a senior.’  La consulta era eight dollars. ‘The office visit was eight dollars.’  Well, I keep starting some. Como por un mes todos los días escribo y ya dejo. ‘Well, I keep starting some. For about a month I write everything and then I stop.’ So, we’re left with a not-entirelyinconsistent view of the world. Parameter settings in L1 appear to be safe, but the discourse-pragmatic constraints seem to be somehow susceptible to high exposure to conflicting constraints in other languages. But it isn’t random…  *El viejo man *The old hombre *The viejo hombre  *She sees lo.  Certain mixes are not considered to be possible by fluent bilinguals. How can we characterize what mixes are possible vs. impossible?    The old man El hombre viejo Prior efforts    Several proposals have been offered to account for what are good mixes and what aren’t, but it appears to be a hard problem. Very famous attempt by Poplack (1980, 1981): The equivalence constraint. Codes will tend to be switched at points where the surface structure of the languages map onto each other. The free morpheme constraint. A switch may occur at any point in the discourse at which it is possible to make a surface constituent cut and still retain a free morpheme. Poplack  Looking at the constraints on code-switching of this sorts can help us understand the nature of (at least fluent) bilingual language representation.  One odd thing about Poplack’s constraints is that it implies that part of UG is dedicated to mixing. The Free Morpheme Constraint and Equivalence Constraint are only constraints on mixing two grammars. Is UG built specifically for bilinguals? Problems for Poplack  Equivalence and Free Morpheme Constraints: Accounts for *estoy eatiendo, but leaves unexplained:     Problems for Poplack?     *El no wants to go *He doesn’t quiere ir. *No nitekititoc not 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’) Amo estoy trabajando not be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’ The students habian visto la pelicula italien. *The student had visto la pelicua italien. *Los estudiantes habian seen the Italian movie. Motrataroa de nin kirescataroa n Pocajontas Ref-treat-vsf about this 3s-3os-rescue-vsf in P. ‘It deals with the one who rescues P.’ Problems for Poplack  *Tú tikoas tlakemetl 2sg 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf (‘You will buy clothes’)  El kikoas tlakmetl he 3S-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf ‘He will buy clothes’ MacSwan 1999  Perhaps the most currently comprehensive and promising account, building on recent developments in syntactic theory.  One of the basic premises is that language parameters are properties of lexical items (not of a language-wide grammar). E.g., verb-movement is due to a property of the tense morpheme in French, not shared by the tense morpheme in English. MacSwan 1999  The broad (“minimalist”) approach to grammar takes language to consist of two primary components.  Computational system (builds trees), language invariant. Lexicon, language particular. Functional elements of the lexicon encode the parameters of variation.  MacSwan 1999  MacSwan’s proposal is that there are no constraints on code mixing over and above constraints found on monolingual sentences.   MacSwan 1999  The model of code mixing is then just like monolingual speech—the only difference being that the words and functional elements are not always drawn from the lexicon belonging to a single language.  Where requirements conflict between languages is where mixing will be prohibited. (His only constraint which obliquely refers to code mixing is the one we turn to next, roughly that within a word, the language must be coherent.) We can determine what are possible mixes by looking at the properties of the (functional elements) of the lexicons of the two mixed languages. Clitics, bound morphemes  Some lexical items in some languages are clitics, they depend (usually phonologically) on neighboring words. Similar to the concept of bound morpheme. John’s book. I shouldn’t go.  Clitics essentially fuse with their host.   Clitics, bound morphemes  Clitics generally cannot be stressed.    *John’S book *I couldN’T go. Clitics generally form an inseparable unit with their host. Shouldn’t I go? Should I not go?  *Should I n’t go?   Spanish no      It turns out that Spanish no appears to be a clitic (despite spelling conventions). ¿Qué no dijo Juan? ‘What didn’t J say?’ *¿Qué sólo leyó Juan? (‘What did J only read?’) *¿Qué meramente leyó Juan? (‘What did J merely read?’) *Juan no ha no hecho la tarea. (‘J hasn’t not done the task.’) Nahuatl amo  In Nahuatl, amo ‘not’ does not appear to be a clitic.  Amo nio amo niktati nowelti. Not 1s-go not 1s-3Os-see my-sister ‘I’m not going to not see my sister.’ Spanish-Nahuatl mixing    *No nitekititoc not 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’) Amo estoy trabajando not be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’ Now, we can begin to make sense of the difference in possible mixes at the point of negation between Spanish and Nahuatl. MacSwan 1999     English-Spanish   This also explains Spanish-English (well, Spanish-anything) *El no wants to go MacSwan proposes essentially that it is not possible to code-mix within a (word-like) phonological unit. Essentially a restriction on what are “pronouncable” trees. Idea: phonology operates as a set of ordered rules which are ordered differently in different languages—you can’t run both sets of rules at once, hence the result if you tried would be unpronounceable. Since Spanish no fuses with the following verb, it can’t be followed by a Nahuatl verb. Since Nahuatl amo does not fuse with the following verb, it is free to be followed by a Spanish verb. Agreement  In languages that code agreement between subject and verb, it also appears that mixing is only possible where the agreement relationship is not disrupted.  *He doesn’t quiere ir.  What about English-Spanish? *He doesn’t quiere ir.  English negation: agreement appears on do. Spanish negation: agreement appears on the verb.  *He doesn’t wants to go.    You can’t have extra agreement: one subject, one agreement. They need to match. Agreement    *Yo nikoas tlakemetl I 1s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf (‘I will buy clothes’) *Tú tikoas tlakemetl you 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf (‘You will buy clothes’) Él/Ella kikoas tlakemetl He/She 3s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf ‘He/She will buy clothes’ Agreement     Also relevant: Spanish marks and agrees with gender but Nahuatl does not distinguish masculine from feminine.  Spanish pronouns have gender specification. The Nahuatl verb does not. They can only be compatible (match) if there is no Nahuatl agreement morpheme. Spanish-Catalan-Greek   Spanish and Catalan both have two genders, masculine and feminine. Greek has three genders, masculine, feminine, neuter. Spanish-Catalan-Greek      Predicts: Mixing subjects and verbs between the three languages is only possible between the gender-compatible languages. Mixing and L2A?  Code mixing as discussed so far is generally a property of the speech of fluent bilinguals (often native bilinguals) and reflects properties of universal language knowledge.  We can now return to our old question and ask: Does the knowledge of second language learners also have the restrictions on code mixing? To the extent that this is “part of UG”, is this aspect of UG active for L2’ers? For the future—I’m not aware of studies on L2A. Ni-k-koa-s ‘I will buy’ Ti-k-koa-s ‘You will buy’ Ø-k(i)-koa-s ‘He/she wlll buy’  Yo vull mengar el dinar (S-C) Jo queiro comer la cena (C-S) *Ego vull mengar el dinar (G-C) *Ego queiro comer la cena (G-S) … Some major views on L1A/syntax     Radford/Guilfoyle/Noonan: kids lack functional elements initially, have only lexical elements. Wexler: kids have access to all the same grammatical elements that adults do. Rizzi: kids have “truncated trees” Vainikka: kids “grow trees” L1A: Case errors  Kids will sometimes make case errors with the subject (until around 2). Me got bean. In English, accusative (me) is the “default.”  Very often taken to indicate a subject not in SpecIP (a.k.a. SpecAgrSP). No IP? (Radford) Sometimes IP and above (Rizzi, Vainikka)? No AgrSP? (Wexler)   L1A: Null subjects  Kids will also often drop out subjects, even in languages where null subjects are not allowed.     Hyams (1986): Mis-set parameter; they’re speaking Italian initially. Kids who are learning null subject languages drop more subjects than kids who are learning non-null subject languages. Bloom: Long sentences are harder, drop what you can. The beginning of a sentence is more susceptible. Wexler/Hyams: Kids drop more subjects with nonfinite verbs. PRO. Sometimes topic drop with finite verbs, where “topic” isn’t yet grasped. L1A: Optional Infinitives    L1A: Finite vs. nonfinite    During Optional Infinitive stage, kids with OI’s treat finite verbs like finite verbs and nonfinite verbs like nonfinite verbs. German (Poeppel & Wexler): V2 for finite verbs, final V for nonfinite verbs. French (Pierce): Verb before pas for finite verbs, verb after pas for nonfinite verbs. In many languages, kids will allow nonfinite verbs in root clauses sometimes, early on (up to a little after 2). NS/OI? Wexler (1998) suggests that there’s a strong correlation between lack of OI’s in 2-year-old speech and being a null subject language. True? Or are OI’s just extra-rare in null subject languages (correlation with more elaborate inflection?). Some stories about OIs     Rizzi: until maturation of Root=CP, trees truncated sometimes below tense. Wexler/Schütze: Syntax intact, but something prohibits the same (subject) DP from licensing both TP (finite tense) and AgrP (Nom case). Radford: Kids don’t use functional categories at this point (yet, leaves the “finite verbs act finite” data unexplained). Legendre et al: Kids minimize the number of functional projections, basically same outcome as Schütze & Wexler. L1A: Principles B and P    Even older kids seem to allow co-reference in apparent violation of Principle B: Mary saw her. Chien & Wexler, then Thornton & Wexler, show that when quantifier binding is available (and thus requires coindexation), Principle B is respected. Principle P is slow in coming (matures?), which says coreference --> coindexation. L1A: A-chains, passives    L1A: A-chains etc.  Some possible reasons for skepticism on this:  L1A: Negation outside of IP  Snyder, Hyams, Crisma (1994): French kids get auxiliary selection right with reflexive clitics:  Le Kids are also purportedly slow to master passives and unaccusatives. Borer & Wexler (1987): This is maturation of the ability to represent “A-chains”—more specifically, the ability to move an object-type thing into a subject-type position (non-local assignment of θ-roles). Babyonyshev et al. (1998) show kids have trouble with the genitive of negation. Kids for a while seem to have trouble with negation outside the IP, and repair their utterances so that it remains inside (usually in an adult-ungrammatical way).  chienj si’est [ t i mordu t j ]. VP-internal subjects  Korean negation misplacement seems to differentiate unergative/transitive from unaccusatives. (not previously discussed)   L1A: Syntax   In general, the errors kids are making seem to be very systematic. They seem to know many aspects of the grammatical system, allowing us to pinpoint (if we look closely enough and ask the right questions) what parts don’t seem to be working.     A-chains (or “dethematization of an external arg.”). Using a [D] feature twice to check functional features. Allowing negation in C. Requiring coreference to imply coindexation. What kind of bread do you don’t like? Where he couldn’t eat the raisins? L2A: What can we say?   Certain things are required to explain L1A. Kids don’t get negative evidence    or if they do, it is inconsistent, it is noisy, and moreover sometimes when we try to give them negative evidence, they ignore it. The kids must be able to learn a system that assign * to some sentences, based only on positive evidence. Conclusion: Universal Grammar constrains the kinds of languages there can be, those languages cannot generate certain kinds of sentences (hence: *). L2A: What can we say?      L2A: What can we say?  L1A: Languages differ from one another. Something needs to be learned from the environment. Yet much of the grammatical system seems common across languages. Languages can be thought of as varying not in the system (the principles) but in the parameters. The kids, who learn their native language so fast, must have some help setting the parameters. A Language Acquisition Device (LAD) designed to choose among the options made available by UG.    L2A: UG-accessibility L2A: Transfer    In general, it seems that the evidence points to the interlanguages being allowable human languages. This could either be influence from UG (constraining possible languages) or because the IL is a variation on L1. Can we tell? Look at parameter settings: Does IL represent a different option from L1? If the IL is UG-constrained, what is the initial starting assumption? Is it some kind of general default setting for all the parameters (likely to be a “subset” grammar from which all other grammars can be learned via position evidence alone)?  Is it just carrying over the parameter settings from L1?  Some combination of these?  L2A: Interlanguage = L1+prescriptive rules? L2A: Tricks     In order to look properly at parameters, we need to know what they are. And what a “default” setting might be. This turns out to be hard. Pro-drop parameter. Default: Drop subjects? Subset learnable? Correlated with anything else? Binding Theory Governing Category? Default? Language-wide? Strictly predictable from morphology? L2A is generally much harder, more conscious, slower, less successful. What’s different about L2A? Did UG disappear? Did the LAD disappear? Question: What is the state of the L2’ers knowledge about the L2? Does this conform to what UG would allow?    Is the IL just L1 plus some prescriptive rules (LLK)? (Fundamental Difference) Or does the IL actually show resetting of parameters? Resetting should entail: cluster of properties comes with new value (again requires that we know what the parameters, values, clusters are) If we can find a non-L1, non-L2, but UGavailable option in the IL, that also suggests parameter setting. Pro-UG   UG? MacLaughlin (1998) and Japanese to English via Russian anaphors. Kanno (1996) and JSL learners seeming to know how to drop case markers without instruction.   L2A: Is there a difference between kids and adults?       L2A is harder as you get older. L1A is quite possibility bounded in time. Evidence for CPs seem to point to different CPs for different subsystems… CPs exist in vision, maybe we can find a brain correlate? Yet some people may manage to overcome this and become indistinguishable from a native speaker. Some plasticity remains? What disappears/deteriorates? UG? LAD? White (1991), ESL kids coming from French don’t seem to learn that the verb doesn’t raise (at least over adverbs). Hawkins et al. (1993), FSL people seem to be “faking” French—early stage treating negation as part of the verb, start to allow SVAO in addition to SAVO (recruiting HNP shift). Some things we know about native languages  The differences between knowing one language and another are primarily knowing…  Different vocabulary  Different parameter settings (perhaps in the lexicon of the language)       Different roots Different morphology and rules of morphological combination Does the language allow null subjects? Does the verb move to T? Does the language allow complex onsets in its syllables? Different cultural conventions     Standard way to refuse, an invitation, apologize, … Idiomatic meanings for words and word groups Cultural literacy for metaphors and allusions Prescriptive rules Modeling the human capacity for language   L2A UG provides the parameters and contains the grammatical system that makes use of them. LAD sets the parameters based on the PLD. Responsible for getting language to kids.  Perhaps the LAD operates in L1A but not in adult L2A, that the language input needs to find its way into the interlanguage some other way. intake LAD LAD UG UG PLD NPAH Subjacency NPAH Subjacency Critical period  Lenneberg (1967). Critical periods are rampant in the natural world.     Critical period  CP for developing binocular vision in macaque monkeys, cats. CP for imprinting in birds Delay in cataract surgery can fail to yield sight.   And in language-related domains too…    Genie, kept from language input until 13;7 Young kids can recover from CNS damage in ways adults seem not able to.    Johnson and Newport. Found negative correlation between age of initial exposure to language and eventual performance. Tested subjects’ judgments concerning violations of Subjacency (limits possible wh-questions, putative universal principle). Rapid drop-off of performance after initial age around 14. White and Genesee, Birdsong cite small number of late learners who do seem to reach a level where they are indistinguishable from native speakers.    So, it seems like there is at least a sensitive period, but certain people (who work hard, care a lot, have high verbal “aptitude”?) can overcome the obstacle.  What actually are the marked and unmarked things? (This may have more to do with non-acquisition oriented theoretical linguistics) L1A doesn’t use negative evidence. If there is parameter transfer into IL from L1, logical subset relations might require negative evidence to reach correct parameter setting. Providing people with negative evidence seems to help—but only in the short term (without prolonged practicing), it may not yield any permanent “parameter resetting.” OI’s in adults? No, L2A≠L1A  Are “unmarked” things easier/quicker to learn than “marked” things? Does teaching the “marked” things give you the “unmarked” things for free? LAD? Plasticity in possible language knowledge (locked in place)? L2A: Negative evidence useful? L2A: Markedness?  Lateralization? Maybe, but probably finished too early. Myelinization (limits plasticity)? Maybe, but probably finished too late. But maybe. In the model of acquisition, what goes away?  Critical period  If exists, best candidate for cause is brain development.   Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in non-finite contexts. When verbs are marked with inflection, they systematically (overwhelmingly) appear before negation (i.e., they move). Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts (used finitely, moved). —Prévost & White A(F) Z(F) A(G) Z(G) Oblig. Fin +Fin -Fin 767 243 755 224 389 45 434 85 Oblig. Nonfin -Fin +Fin 278 17 156 2 76 7 98 6 UG access and transfer   To what extent do second language learners know what “languages are like”? (Do they still know what all the possibilities are?) To what extent do second language learners assume that the language they’re learning is like the language they already know? Input to intake  For intake to work (in any kind of automatic way), the data must be available. But the L1 can potentially filter out useful information.  Infants start with but lose the ability to distinguish non-native contrasts. French “irregulars” cédez vs. cède. Phonological features, distinctions, l/r in Mandarin vs. Japanese; geminates in E→J.   Markedness and what languages are like   Typological universals reduce the number of possible languages. Marked implies unmarked      having a dual implies having a plural having purple implies having green having wh-inversion implies having wh-fronting having yes-no inversion implies having wh-inversion being able to form relatives on OPREP implies being able to form relatives on IO Markedness and what languages are like      Markedness and what languages are like  Sonority hierarchy     J/K/T→E. All wh-fronted; some had wh-inversion (wh-inv→whfronting). Some yn-inv, ~all had wh-inv. Some other (wh-inv). (yn-inv→wh-inv). IL seems to obey typological universals—it’s a language in the relevant sense. Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Eckman): Difficulty in learning area of L2 from L1 if they differ and L2 version is more marked. Some evidence that teaching marked structures is hard, but gives you unmarked structures for free. Language attrition  a>i>r>l>n>s>t Syllables as sonority waves; languages differ on steepness requirements between margin and nucleus. Most evidence that we have so far points to a big role for transfer in phonological parameters and not a lot of parameter resetting. Yet, the evidence in the phonology might be more readily available. Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989).  L1 attrition—altering L1 parameter settings? Null subjects: Italian speakers immersed in English will sometime produce/accept overt subjects where monolinguals would not. Broadening the contexts in which they can use overt pronouns (not forgetting how to use null subjects). Conclusions?     LAD probably atrophied (critical period): Meisel 1997. Universal constraints (also active in L1) constrain IL—would be true even if we were just talking about “speaking L1 with L2 words” (Kanno 1996) L2 learners (even kids) don’t seem to set the verb movement or null subject parameters for the target language (predicted clustering not observed) (White, Trahey, Hawkins et al.). Parameters of binding theory if correctly analyzed do seem to be being reset. One piece of positive evidence we’ve got. Possibly also the Hulk results about Dutch/French. Bottom line:  Especially with respect to L2A, there are a lot of things left to discover because careful and theoretically informed experiments still need to be done.  Many of the experiments that are in the literature rely on misleading simplistic notions (a monolithic UG subsuming the LAD, a single once-and-for-all CPH, a one-stage-ata time view of acquisition, a subset relation for adverb placement or binding domain definitions)…