the acquisition of pronouns and word order in non-native Spanish

330 Pages·2003·1.63 MB·English

by  Cristobal Lozano

UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR AND FOCUS CONSTRAINTS:
THE ACQUISITION OF PRONOUNS AND WORD ORDER
IN NON-NATIVE SPANISH

Cristóbal Lozano-Pozo

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Language and Linguistics
University of Essex
2003
To the memory of my mother
i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My most sincere gratitude goes to Roger Hawkins for his supervision and guidance
over the past three years at the University of Essex. Without his professional advice
and very humane attitude the completion of this thesis would have been highly
unlikely, if not impossible.
I am also grateful to other lecturers and researchers at Essex, from whose expertise
and advice I have greatly benefited: Martin Atkinson, Vivian Cook, Wyn Johnson,
Andrew Radford and Phil Scholfield, as well as Juan de Dios Luque Durán at the
University of Granada.
I am indebted to several researchers in different institutions who gladly sent me
information, bibliography and articles, which arrived at light-speed compared to the
interlibrary loans: Michael Brody, Elaine Klein, Heather Marsden, Elena de Miguel,
Jean-Marc Dewaele, Tammy Hertel, Kathalin Kiss, Mario Montalbetti, Ana-Teresa
Pérez-Leroux, Gemma Rigau, Antonella Sorace, Elena Valenzuela and many others.
I would also like to thank all the teachers and generous people who helped me collect
data during my fieldwork trip in Athens (University of Athens and Estudio Español).
Parts of this work were presented at RCEAL University of Cambridge, University
Durham, Eurosla 11 at the University of Paderborn, SLADG at the University of
Essex, University of Granada, University of Alicante and University of León. I am
grateful to the audiences there for their insightful comments.
Thanks must also go to my friends Alejandra, Ana, Daniel, Gabi, Fernando, Florencia,
Irene, Fraibet, Maria, Meyunhee, Montse, Panos, Rad, Rafa and Simon. Their
companionship, excellent meals and economic help have been an antidote against the
(many) moments of despair and lack of inspiration during the PhD process. My
gratitude also goes to my family, especially to my father for his generous support. I
also express my heartfelt appreciation to Sole, who has taught me the syntax of life
and how to acquire its pleasures beyond the (supposedly) critical period.
This research was funded by the ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council),
award number R004299342.
Needless to say, any errors and oversights are my own.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................2
CHAPTER 2. UG CONSTRAINTS AND DISCURSIVE CONSTRAINTS.......6
2.1 UG CONSTRAINTS: PRINCIPLES OF UG............................................................6
2.2 DISCURSIVE CONSTRAINTS: PARAMETERISABLE FOCUS0...............................10
2.2.1 Topic vs. Focus.....................................................................................10
2.2.2 The representational nature of the [+Focus] feature..........................15
2.2.3 Three types of focus: interpretive differences......................................18
2.2.3.1 Neutral focus....................................................................................19
2.2.3.2 Contrastive focus..............................................................................20
2.2.3.3 Presentational focus..........................................................................21
2.2.4 Three types of focus: syntactic differences...........................................23
2.2.4.1 Neutral focus: no structural position................................................23
2.2.4.2 Contrastive focus: the CP domain....................................................24
2.2.4.3 Presentational focus: the TP domain................................................30
2.2.5 Parameterisation of the focus head, Foc0............................................36
2.2.5.1 Contrastive focus: feature strength...................................................36
2.2.5.2 Presentational focus: feature strength..............................................40
2.2.6 Cross-linguistic evidence for Foc0.......................................................43
2.3 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 2..............................................................................44
CHAPTER 3. POSSIBLE PATTERNS OF L2 ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT
AND L2/L3 INFLUENCE.........................................................................................46
3.1 CONVERGENT VS. DIVERGENT L2 INTUITIONS...............................................46
3.2 THE NATURE OF L1/L2 INFLUENCE ON L3 ACQUISITION................................59
3.2.1 Singleton (1987)...................................................................................60
3.2.2 Klein (1995)..........................................................................................61
3.2.3 Dewaele (1998, 2001)..........................................................................64
3.2.4 Hufeisen (1999)....................................................................................67
3.2.5 Other studies........................................................................................68
3.2.6 Conclusion on L1/L2 influence on L3..................................................68
3.3 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 3..............................................................................69
CHAPTER 4. THE DISTRIBUTION OF NULL AND OVERT
PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS....................................................................................71
4.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................71
4.2 THE (APPARENT) FREE DISTRIBUTION OF OVERT AND NULL PRONOMINAL
SUBJECTS...................................................................................................................72
4.3 CONSTRAINTS ON PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS....................................................77
4.3.1 Overt Pronoun Constraint....................................................................77
4.3.2 Contrastive Focus Constraint..............................................................80
4.4 PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS AND FOCUS..............................................................82
iii
4.5 THE SYNTAX OF NULL AND OVERT PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS...........................90
4.6 A REVIEW OF THE L2 LITERATURE ON PRONOUNS.........................................95
4.6.1 Pérez-Leroux and Glass (1997, 1999).................................................97
4.6.2 Kanno (1997, 1998a)..........................................................................102
4.6.3 Marsden (1998)..................................................................................107
4.6.4 Conclusion on the literature review...................................................110
4.7 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 4............................................................................111
CHAPTER 5. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY #1: OVERT/NULL PRONOMINAL
SUBJECTS 113
5.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................113
5.2 METHOD......................................................................................................115
5.2.1 Subjects...............................................................................................115
5.2.2 Instrument...........................................................................................115
5.2.3 OPC contexts......................................................................................119
5.2.4 CFC contexts......................................................................................119
5.3 DATA ANALYSIS..........................................................................................121
5.4 RESULTS......................................................................................................121
5.4.1 OPC results........................................................................................122
5.4.2 CFC results........................................................................................125
5.5 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................128
5.5.1 OPC contexts......................................................................................128
5.5.2 CFC contexts......................................................................................129
5.5.3 The role of input.................................................................................133
5.6 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................134
5.7 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 5............................................................................135
CHAPTER 6. THE DISTRIBUTION OF SV AND VS WORD ORDER.......136
6.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................136
6.2 THE (APPARENT) FREE ALTERNATION OF SV AND VS.................................137
6.3 NEUTRAL FOCUS CONTEXTS: SV AND VS DISTRIBUTION.............................137
6.3.1 The Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH)...................................................139
6.3.2 Cross-linguistic evidence for UH.......................................................148
6.3.3 Classification of unaccusatives..........................................................155
6.3.4 A list of core unaccusatives in Spanish..............................................159
6.4 PRESENTATIONAL FOCUS CONTEXTS: SV AND VS DISTRIBUTION................160
6.5 CONCLUSION ON NEUTRAL VS. PRESENTATIONAL CONTEXTS......................168
6.6 A REVIEW OF THE L2 LITERATURE ON UNACCUSATIVES..............................170
6.6.1 De Miguel (1993)...............................................................................171
6.6.2 Sorace (1993a)...................................................................................175
6.6.3 Balcom (1997)....................................................................................180
6.6.4 Hertel and Pérez-Leroux (1999)........................................................183
6.6.5 Montrul (1999)...................................................................................184
6.6.6 Hirakawa (1999)................................................................................186
6.6.7 Hertel (2000)......................................................................................188
6.6.8 Sorace & Shomura (2001)..................................................................191
6.6.9 Conclusion on the literature review...................................................194
6.7 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 6............................................................................195
CHAPTER 7. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY #2: SV/VS WORD ORDER.........196
iv
7.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................196
7.2 METHOD......................................................................................................197
7.2.1 Subjects...............................................................................................197
7.2.2 Instrument...........................................................................................198
7.2.3 Neutral focus contexts........................................................................201
7.2.4 Presentational focus contexts.............................................................202
7.3 DATA ANALYSIS..........................................................................................203
7.4 RESULTS......................................................................................................204
7.4.1 Unergatives, neutral focus context.....................................................205
7.4.2 Unaccusatives, neutral focus contexts...............................................207
7.4.3 Unergatives, presentational focus contexts........................................210
7.4.4 Unaccusatives, presentational focus contexts....................................212
7.5 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................214
7.5.1 Neutral focus contexts........................................................................214
7.5.2 Presentational focus contexts.............................................................216
7.5.3 Optionality..........................................................................................216
7.5.3.1 MSIH (Prévost & White, 2000).....................................................220
7.5.3.2 VF (Eubank, 1996) and LIH (Beck, 1998).....................................226
7.5.4 Optionality vs. near-nativeness..........................................................233
7.5.5 Optionality and optimal language design..........................................238
7.5.6 The role of input.................................................................................244
7.5.7 The privileged language in parametric transfer................................245
7.6 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................246
7.7 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 7............................................................................247
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSION.............................................................................248
APPENDICES..........................................................................................................251
8.1 LINGUISTIC TESTS .......................................................................................251
8.1.1 Linguistic background questionnaire.................................................251
8.1.2 Spanish placement test (University of Wisconsin, 1997)...................253
8.1.3 English placement test (Allan, 1992).................................................258
8.1.4 Instructions for acceptability judgement tests (AJTs)........................260
8.1.5 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 1, pilot................................261
8.1.6 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 1, version 1.........................264
8.1.7 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 1, version 2.........................267
8.1.8 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 2, pilot................................270
8.1.9 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 2, version 1.........................275
8.1.10 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 2, version 2.........................278
8.2 DATA: EXPERIMENTAL STUDY #1................................................................281
8.2.1 Raw data.............................................................................................281
8.2.2 Descriptives........................................................................................283
8.2.3 One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnoff fit test..........................................284
8.2.4 t-test (within groups)..........................................................................285
8.2.5 One-way ANOVA, independent groups (between groups).................286
8.2.6 Two-way ANOVA, repeated measures...............................................288
7.1.1.1 OPC contexts..................................................................................288
7.1.1.2 CFC contexts..................................................................................290
8.3 DATA: EXPERIMENTAL STUDY #2................................................................292
8.3.1 Raw data.............................................................................................292
v
8.3.2 Descriptives........................................................................................294
8.3.3 One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnoff fit test..........................................295
8.3.4 t-test (within groups)..........................................................................296
8.3.5 One-way ANOVA, independent groups (between groups).................298
8.3.6 Two-way ANOVA, repeated measures...............................................300
7.1.1.3 Unergative, neutral context............................................................300
7.1.1.4 Unaccusative, neutral context........................................................302
7.1.1.5 Unergative, presentational contex..................................................303
7.1.1.6 Unaccusative, presentational context.............................................305
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................307
vi

TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: SCENARIOS 1-4 (IN A POSITIVE SCALE)..........................................................48
FIGURE 2: SCENARIOS 1-4 (IN A NEGATIVE-POSITIVE SCALE)........................................50
FIGURE 3: NATIVE-LIKE REPRESENTATION....................................................................52
FIGURE 4: NEAR-NATIVE REPRESENTATION...................................................................53
FIGURE 5: OPTIONAL REPRESENTATION........................................................................54
FIGURE 6: NATIVE-LIKE OR NEAR NATIVE REPRESENTATIONS?.....................................56
FIGURE 7: KNOWLEDGE OF NATIVE CATEGORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN ADVANCED L2A
..............................................................................................................................58
FIGURE 8: MEAN PERCENTAGE OF PS BY GROUP...........................................................63
FIGURE 9: L1-L2-L3 INTERACTIONS.............................................................................66
FIGURE 10: THE PRO-DROP PARAMETER PROPERTIES....................................................73
FIGURE 11: PRODUCTION RATES OF OVERT/NULL PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS IN OPC
CONTEXTS.............................................................................................................99
FIGURE 12: PRODUCTION RATES OF OVERT/NULL PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS IN CFC
CONTEXTS...........................................................................................................101
FIGURE 13: ACCEPTANCE RATES OF OVERT/NULL PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS IN OPC
CONTEXTS...........................................................................................................104
FIGURE 14: ACCEPTANCE RATES OF OVERT/NULL PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS IN RDP
CONTEXTS...........................................................................................................105
FIGURE 15: ACCEPTANCE RATES OF OVERT PRONOUNS IN JOINT AND DISJOINT
CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................108
FIGURE 16: ACCEPTANCE RATES OF NULL PRONOUNS IN JOINT AND DISJOINT
CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................109
FIGURE 17: OPC CONTEXTS: ACCEPTANCE RATES OF OVERT AND NULL PRONOMINAL
SUBJECTS.............................................................................................................123
FIGURE 18: CFC CONTEXTS: ACCEPTANCE RATES OF OVERT AND NULL PRONOMINAL
SUBJECTS.............................................................................................................126
FIGURE 19: A CORE SET OF SPANISH UNACCUSATIVES................................................160
FIGURE 20: GRAMMATICAL AUX ESSERE WITH UNACCUSATIVE VERBS......................178
FIGURE 21: UNGRAMMATICAL AUX HABERE WITH UNACCUSATIVES..........................178
FIGURE 22: UNACCUSATIVE HIERARCHY (SORACE & SHOMURA, 2001).....................191
FIGURE 23: UNERGATIVES, NEUTRAL FOCUS CONTEXT...............................................206
FIGURE 24: UNACCUSATIVES, NEUTRAL FOCUS CONTEXT...........................................209
FIGURE 25: UNERGATIVES, PRESENTATIONAL FOCUS CONTEXT..................................211
FIGURE 26: UNACCUSATIVES, PRESENTATIONAL FOCUS CONTEXT..............................213
FIGURE 27: TWO SOURCES OF DEFICITS IN L2A...........................................................218
FIGURE 28: WHY IS THERE LACK OF OPTIONALITY IN PRONOMINAL CFC CONTEXTS?.234
1
Abstract

A recent controversy in second language acquisition research concerns the extent to
which adult non-native intuitions differ from adult native intuitions at advanced and
near-native levels of competence (end-states). Two (apparently) contradictory
findings pervade the L2 literature: while some studies reveal that learners can indeed
achieve native-like intuitions, other findings show that they display near-native and
optional intuitions. In short, there is a debate about whether adult non-native
interlanguage grammars converge with (or diverge from) adult native grammars.
The first type of studies (convergence) focuses on constructions that are claimed to be
part of the innate principles of Universal Grammar (UG), which typically represent a
poverty-of-the-stimulus (POS) phenomenon. The second type (divergence) normally
focuses on parameterisable functional features where the L1 and L2 values differ.
In this study I test whether this is the expected trend in advanced non-native Spanish
acquisition, i.e., that learners show convergent knowledge where UG principles are
involved, but divergent knowledge where parametric values differ between the native
and the target language.
In particular, I investigate the distribution of overt and null pronominal subjects in
Spanish, which is constrained by a principle of UG, the Overt Pronoun Constraint
(OPC), and by a language-specific constraint, the Contrastive Focus Constraint
(CFC). Similarly, the distribution of Subject-Verb (SV) and Verb-Subject (VS) word
order is constrained by two principles of UG, namely, the Unaccusative Hypothesis
(UH) and the Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH), and by a
language-specific constraint, presentational focus.
Results from two experiments (pronominal distribution and word order distribution)
reveal that English learners of L2 Spanish and Greek learners of L3 Spanish show
convergent (native-like) intuitions with respect to the principles of UG (OPC and
UH/UTAH), while showing divergent (near-native and optional) intuitions in cases
where the strength of the parameterisable focus head differs between their L1 and
their L2/L3 Spanish (contrastive and presentational focus environments).
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 2

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION

Current approaches to post-childhood second language acquisition (L2A)1 are trying
to account for three well-attested phenomena (Hawkins, 2001a):

(i) Why is knowledge of language underdetermined by the input? That is, why
do learners seem to be sensitive to constructions they have not been exposed
to?
(ii) Why is some input not properly represented? That is, why do learners seem
not to be sensitive to constructions they have abundantly been exposed to?
(iii) Why does the L1 influence the L2 in some cases but not others? That is, what
linguistic areas are more vulnerable to L1 influence in L2A?

Two intriguing (and somewhat contradictory) findings pervade recent L2A research.
Some studies report that at advanced levels of proficiency post-childhood learners can
achieve convergent (native-like) competence despite the input being underdetermined,
showing similar mental representations to adult native speakers (observation i above).
However, other studies show that learners achieve divergent (near-native, optional
and/or indeterminate) competence despite abundant input and long immersion in the
target language (observation ii) probably due to L1-L2 parametric differences
(observation iii).
The first observation (native-like representations) concerns constructions that are
claimed to be part of Universal Grammar (UG) and that are typical ‘poverty-of-the-
stimulus’ (POS) phenomena (i.e., they are not present in the input the learners are
exposed to). Such constructions are universal invariants and learners seem to show
sensitivity to them, even though they may not necessarily be instantiated in their L1.
This is the case of pronominal constructions in L1 English – L2 Japanese (Kanno,
1997; 1998; Marsden, 1998) and L1 English – L2 Spanish (Pérez-Leroux & Glass,
1997, 1999).

1 While the acronym SLA is widely used in the literature to refer to second language acquisition, I will
use the acronym L2A to differentiate it from L3A, third language acquisition, which is one of the
objects of enquiry in the current study.