Learnability and second languages: A book of readings 9783110874150, 9783110130881

Citation preview

Learnability and Second Languages

STUDIES ON LANGUAGE ACQUISITION This series will focus on both first language acquisition and second/ foreign language learning. It will include studies on language acquisition in educational settings, first/second/foreign language loss, and early bilingualism. High quality dissertations and other individual works will be considered for publication, and also collections of papers from international workshops and conferences. The primary goal of the series is to draw international attention to current research in The Netherlands on language acquisition. Editors

of SOLA .

Guus Extra, Tilburg University Ton van der Geest, Groningen University Peter Jordens, Nijmegen University Also published

in this

series:

1. Guus Extra and Ton Vallen (eds.) Ethnic Minorities and Dutch as a Second Language 2. B. Weltens, K. de Bot and T. van Els (eds.) Language Attrition in Progress 3. Sascha W. Felix Cognition and Language Growth 4. Ludo Verhoeven Ethnic Minority Children Acquiring Literacy 5. Allan James and Jonathan Leather (eds.) Sound Patterns in Second Language Acquisition 6. Bert Weltens The Attrition of French as a Foreign Language

James Pankhurst, Mike Sharwood Smith and Paul Van Buren (eds.)

Learnability and Second Languages A Book of Readings

¥ 1988 FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht - Holland/Providence Rl - U.S.A.

Published

by:

Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 A M Dordrecht, The Netherlands Distributor

for the U.S.A.

and

Canada:

Foris Publications USA, Inc. P.O. Box 5904 Providence Rl 02903 U.S.A. Sole distributor

for

Japan:

Toppan Company, Ltd. Sufunotomo Bldg. 1-6, Kanda Surugadai Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 101, Japan

CIP-DATA

KONINKLIJKE

BIBLIOTHEEK,

DEN HA AG

Learnability Learnability and second languages : a book of readings / James Pankhurst, Mike Sharwood Smith and Paul Van Buren (eds.). - Dordrecht [etc.] : Foris. - (Studies on language acquisition : 7) With ref. ISBN 90-6765-389-6 SISO 803.3 UDC 800.73 Subject heading: language acquisition.

ISBN 90 6765 389 6 © 1988 Foris Publications - Dordrecht No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in The Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht

Contents

1. Learnability and second languages: an introduction James Pankhurst, Mike Sharwood Smith and Paul Van Buren . . . .

1

2. L2 acquisition: logical problems and empirical solutions Mike Sharwood Smith

9

3. Universal grammar and language transfer Lydia White

36

4. The relation between linguistic theory and second language acquisition: a biological perspective Mary-Louise Kean

61

5. Syntax and stylistics: more on the pro-drop parameter Juana M. Liceras

71

6. Late-learned rules in first and second language acquisition Helen Goodluck and Barbara Birch

94

7. Configurationality and the subset principle: the acquisition of V1 by Japanese learners of English Helmut Zobl

116

8. The acquisition of verb categories and word order in Dutch & German: evidence from first and second language acquisition P. Jordens

132

9. Linguistic intuitions in interlanguage development: the problem of indeterminacy Antonella Sorace

167

References

191

1 Learnability and second languages: an introduction James Pankhurst, Mike Sharwood Smith and Paul Van Buren

The idea the 1986

for this

Language

largest meeting

book of readings was born as a result of

Acquisition

Research

Symposium

(LARS), the

in the series to date to be held in Utrecht. The

contributors to the book have attempted to clarify various actual and

potential

interfaces

between

linguistic

theory

and non-

native grammatical development. The present collection of papers, while

remaining

faithful

to

selected and supplemented to

the

conference

form an

theme

have been

up-to-date introduction to

new currents

in second

language acquisition. These currents, we

believe, may

be

summarised

notion

as 1

'language

learnability

others with regard to

second, i.e.

ment

of

aptly

(Pinker

1979,1984).

This

investigations

as

discussed by Pinker and

non-native language develop-

kind of book is urgently needed

nowadays since enough has been done in this unified set serious theory

of readings

and

which will

considered

and

the

look

research

into the

at

that

decade to

warrant a

enable the reader to take a contemporary

second language

proceeds from it. It is, in our

opinion, no coincidence that the most vigorous trend in this move to exploit

the links between linguistics and non-native language

development, is one which can be tradition.

A

psychological workings of

linguistic in

that

the human

theory of language

seen as

approach it

seeks

part of

the Chomskyan

which is not only explicitly to

explore

facts

about the

mind but is also explicitly linked with a

acquisition

seems

to

provide

a ready-made

*We would like to acknowledge the assistance of various people in the preparation of this volume, not least the contributors themselves for their patience in awaiting the final appearance of this book, but also Heleen Kruse, our editorial assistant, who did some necessary groundwork in the preparation of this volume.

2

Learnability and Second Languages

basis

for

developing

knowledge

develops

a

separate

within

the

theory

mind

of

of

how

the

grammatical

second

language

learner. Putting together

a set

of readings like this also gives us

the opportunity to correct some misunderstandings that inevitably arise as

a result

of a cursory reading of papers in the area of

language acquisition w h i c h follow the Chomskyan in fact,

very rare

approach. It is,

to find a discussion of universal grammar in

relation to acquisition written by a scholar who this

tradition

and

which

does

interpretations about what this enterprise is

all about.

1965

and

it

is,

newest branch

than to

this

available

in

the

to read

perhaps,

introduction, rather topic of

uninformed

of the generative

anything relevant since

appropriate

examine the

critics.

inevitably negative ones and

in this short

various treatments of

literature,

fundamental facts about this approach that attention

part of

Some of these misinterpretations are a

result, one fears, of a failure Chomsky

is not

not suffer some important mis-

to simply list some appear to

escape the

Most of these statements are

begging indulgence

of the informed

reader, we list them below: In this theoretical 1:

It is (or

2:

not the

approach: case that

grammatical knowledge of a native

any other) language is innately given.

It is not the case that universal grammar is a

basic set of

rules that exists as a central core in any natural language. 3:

It is

not the

case that every single aspect of grammatical

development can be accounted

for

within

the

framework of

universal grammar. 4:

UG theory

cannot, without

stration, be taken to

be a

further argumentation and demonmeans of

predicting the actual

developmental history of a learner's grammar.

Introduction

3

W e also add the observation that researchers working in this area are by and large quite aware

of the

limitations of

the current

methodology used to investigate grammatical knowledge and seeking to develop the elicitation techniques up to a of

sophistication.

Rephrasing

the

above

m u c h greater level caveats

in positive

terms, we can say that the contributions to this volume should be read w i t h the following general principles in mind: 1:

Language acquisition

of whatever

between the learning mechanisms the

theory

presumes

to

be

kind involves and

the

given

interaction

environment: what

in advance are various

principles w h i c h constrain the form w h i c h grammars of natural languages may actually take. 2:

The grammar that a given hypothesis)

contain

learner

elements

develops

will

(again by

that strictly conform to the

principles of universal grammar: this might be called 'core grammar 1 this

may

(Chomsky 1981b,

differ

for

each

exposure to samples of that certain

aspects

of

UG

Kean

language language

apply

another way, each grammar that apply

1986,

since will

while

selects from

its

1986). However, the learners' show

others

do

them that not. Put

UG those principles

to the particular language type evidenced by the

data. 3:

Even assuming a fully active UG in second language acquisition, there will be a considerable amount of grammatical development that will have to take place without the help

of UG since UG is simply not relevant. UG does not

determine, for example, how given language

many cases

there will

be in a

and what particular form they will take. For

anyone learning Polish, for example, this touches on a major problem area for all types of learner. 4:

Since UG ition, any

theory involves claim

about

no claim

about real time acquis-

developmental

sequences crucially

involving UG will need to be independently motivated.

4

Learnability and Second Languages Turning now to the contents of this volume, the opening con-

tribution by notion

of

Sharwood second

concerning

possibilities exploited to

Smith

provides

language

set u p

an

introduction

learnability

the

way

a research

and

linguistic

logical

theory

can

in the

current literature

Sharwood

(very Smith

m u c h in 1986).

but

from

a

as expressed

in the form of a set of acquisitional line w i t h

The

through a straightforward

be

programme to study it. Sharwood

Smith reinterprets the m a i n positions on this issue strategies

to the

various

proposals in

strategies

extrapolation

consideration

of

V a n B u r e n and

are derived not so m u c h from

various

experimental data

logical ways in w h i c h a

language learner might initially make sense of the L2 data.

In a

sense it is an attempt to find various alternative definitions of the learner's initial state so that experiments may be set see

which

one

holds

true

possible strategies do learner's LI

not

competence in

about the L2,

others

do

of

which

involve

learners. Some logically

any

contribution

the formation assume

u p to

some

from the

of initial hypotheses

kind

of crosslinguistic

influence and yet others involve no access to U G and learning via a

set

of

inductive

principles

quite

different

from

those

attributed to the attainment of the mother tongue. White,

in

her

study,

factors in second language been called

details

she sees as critical focuses on

what has

Plato's problem, namely how do learners come to know

so m u c h on the basis of so little, in precise

terms using

interacts w i t h

constraints

by

which,

may still have development

access

proceeds

'so little' here being defined

the notion

the input (L2 data)

of parameter-setting whereby Universal Grammar,

hypothesis, to. in

White a

way

This

is

because

the

L2

a set of

the second language learner claims

that

language development despite the fact sible.

what

acquisition and

that

is that

second language

different from first UG

is

still acces-

learners may initially

assume

parameter-settings for L2 that they have learned in the course of acquiring

their

first

language

and m a y not necessarily notice

that the L2 input provides no confirmation of making this

claim, White

these settings. In

is making special use of the theory of

markedness whereby certain default

settings

provided

within UG

Introduction

5

are disconfirmed

by the input, i.e. positive evidence in LI data

that effectively violates the this

way,

her

approach

unmarked (default)

defines

an

area

assumption. In

of conflict between

certain Ll-based assumptions about L2 and the actual facts of L2. Kean's

contribution

is

theory and second language perspective.

Taking

on the relation between linguistic

acquisition

linguistic

seen

theory

to

from be

a biological a

"functional

biological model", Kean looks critically at the popular view that UG

is

a

biological

endowment w h i c h is available "intact" from

birth. The neurolinguistic evidence

for studies

of dyslexia and

Down's syndrome in fact suggests that UG matures after birth such that the neural architecture associated w i t h in the

brain is

ment because it comes variation

in

linguistic capacity

quite different at different stages of develop-

the

to

vary

"in

substrate"

puts it, the brain of a

consequence

to ontogenetic

(of linguistic capacity). As Kean

child is

not a

mini-adult brain either

structurally or functionally. This would be in line w i t h evidence on the effect of

experience on

the visual

cortex. The question

is: how m i g h t interlanguage competence reflect UG principles? For example do

invariant

principles

such

as

structure dependence

emerge in LI development and remain unchanged? Secondly of LI onto IL would produce structures in not

always:

the

mix

line w i t h

"copying"

UG; however

might produce non-UG languages. These are

interesting and relevant questions

that

second

language theory

has to find answers to. Liceras

focusses

her

She looks critically at various

aspects

actual, observed

attention on the pro-drop parameter.

a study

associated

by Sharon

with

interlanguage

the

Hilles tying

pro-drop

development

in the

parameter with

(Hilles

1986): the

fact that the emergence of expletives and lexical material in AUX coincides w i t h the decline in missing pronouns in Jorge, a

the English of

young native-speaker of Spanish, does not, according to

Liceras, prove that expletives presence of

subject pronouns.

based in production alone and technique admittedly

actually

trigger

She also

casts doubt

not

also

on

the obligatory

judgement

on a study tasks, a

difficult to use w i t h younger subjects. She

6

Learnability and Second Languages

reports a study of her own which involved a grammaticality judgement task as well as story-telling and which looked at two French and two English adults, acquiring a pro-drop language (Spanish). The subjects turned out to have fully acquired prodrop itself but not certain other aspects associated with it. She suggests that subject-verb inversion and that-t may not be properties identified by learners with the pro-drop parameter and therefore may need to be acquired independently. This study, like the ones that follow, underlines the precision which careful applications of linguistic theory can bring to questions about acquisition and, at the same time, the complexity involved in translating hypotheses about grammatical structure into to hypotheses about real-time development. As part of the general investigation into similarities and differences between LI and L2 development Goodluck and Birch discuss a study of three grammatical phenomena which LI research has shown to be acquired relatively late. As they had predicted Chinese and Spanish learners of English did not recapitulate the developmental patterns evidenced in LI English acquisition. This leads them to emphasize a number of important factors that separate LI and L2 development even allowing for the possibility that there may be some fundamental similarities such as accessibility to UG. This study therefore provides a valuable reminder of what they call the 'singularity' of second language acquisition. Zobl's paper provides an interesting application of the subset principle (Berwick 1985; Wexler and Manzini 1987) whereby first language learners are supposed to develop representations for given grammatical phenomena by always choosing the narrower grammar over the wider grammar so that positive evidence alone may trigger a change. The subset principle entails the basic idea that if a wider grammar is adopted as a first assumption, whereas the grammar to be attained is actually a narrow one, then the learner will never encounter evidence to force him or her to change to a narrower grammar. The subset principle does not at face value seem to work in second language acquisition and this

Introduction might be L2

7

construed as

acquisition

selected by

with

worrying for those who w i s h to see LI and

very

Zobl is

structures by with a

as

Japanese learners

norms),

principle. Zobl

related.

The

case

in point

of English verb-complement

where learners

appear to begin

and proceed to a narrower grammar (in line

wider grammar L2

closely

the acquisition

i.e.

in

comes u p

apparent

violation

of

the

w i t h a subtle and interesting

subset argument

involving the development of the learner's parsing ability

in L2

and the consequent admissal of relevant evidence from outside the immediate grammatical appropriate

area

adjustments

principle is, if one However,

under

to

consideration

the

learner's

follows the

interested

readers

alternative interpretation

argument in

are

triggering the

grammar. The subset the paper, saved.

encouraged

presented

by

Van

to

examine

Buren

an

(Van Buren

1988). Jordens, in different

in

that

characterised outcome

of

in

and

L2 the

learning

volume, looks at the

acquisition

approach

strategies

Sharwood Smith,

of verb

uses an analysis of LI Dutch

are qualitatively

does not proceed in the way

parameter-setting

inductive

acquisition

L2

acquisition

Clahsen and Muysken 1986, at the

to this

his contribution

claim by Clahsen that LI

see

but

is

Clahsen

the 1982,

this volume). Looking

categories and word order, Jordens development

by

de

Haan

(de Haan

1986) to reinterpret Clahsen's data and, as a result, casts doubt on the alleged

qualitative

categories

language

supposedly building

of not the

being new

distinction

acquisition able

grammar.

to

apply

Jordens

between the

each category

to bear on

the

data.

Put

principles

of

acquisition

two basic

principles to

that the different

w i t h the

kind of prior

of learners is able to bring

another

way,

remain

differences may be accounted for

same

argues

developmental patterns have to do rather linguistic knowledge

the

as a result of L2 learners

the

by

the

grammar building

same

looking

and

at

observable

differences in

available building material. Sorace's

contribution

provides

methodological problems associated

a

with

timely

reminder of the

eliciting

learner

(and

8

Learnabllity and Second Languages

native speaker) competence. In particular, she argues against the use of dichotomous judgment tests ( forcing a yes/no answer to a question about the grammaticality of some item) as used informally by many (generative) linguists attempting to account for some grammatical phenomenon in a given language and also used, wrongly as Sorace argues, in second language acquisition research. It is, of course, a great advantage to be able to administer such tests to learners, an opportunity not readily available in first language learners, at least in the early stages, since they are generally considered to be too immature to cope with such sophisticated metalinguistic tasks. Keeping in mind what she sees to be the general indeterminacy of linguistic competence, i.e., the uncertain status of the phenomenon in question, Sorace is of the opinion that a test of judgment should be twofold in that there should be a test asking for judgments and a separate test asking learners to assess the certainty with which they made those judgments. Sorace provides a useful discussion of the problems of inconsistency in a given subject's responses over the whole test and the use of ranking scales to avoid a forced judgment. Hopefully, the various contributions to this volume will provide the reader with both the essential features of current L2 learnability research as well as some specific examples of the various interesting theoretical and methodological problems that have to be faced with when applying linguistic theory to second language development.

2 L2 acquisition: logical problems and empirical solutions Mike Sharwood Smith

1.

INTRODUCTION

The following

discussion will

that have concerned second with

the

specific

aim

deal with

of

explicating

language (L2) learnability. As concepts

in

the

field,

a number of key issues

language researchers a

namely

the

preliminary

in the eighties notion

of second

step,

some basic

'interlanguage 1 , and

construction' will be explained. This will then be discussion of

the application

development, show what kinds

'creative

followed by a

of linguistic theory to real-time of logical

possibilities arise and

would therefore guide research, and introduce a set of terms that can provide the basis for elicitation work. Reference

will be

studies using

this frame-

made to actual instantiations of such a

framework but the thrust of the discussion will be to look at the logical arguments and how they can be knitted together to shape a programme of research into second language development. Thus far, it

is

approach

safe have

inconclusive,

to

say

that studies working generally within this

provided show

results

promise

and

sophistication with which second

which,

although

generally

have considerably advanced the language questions

relating to

grammar may be formulated and investigated.

*This is an adapted version of a paper given at Essex University on 25th February, 1988 in the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition series. Acknowledgements are due to Martin Atkinson and others who contributed to the discussion and hence, indirectly, to the revised version.

Logical problems and empirical solutions

10

The baseline

assumption that

will be

adopted here is that

second language acquisition has by now been shown to be complex

and

poorly

understood

habit formation or indeed on the conscious learning vocabulary

items,

but

with

a highly

process not depending simply on

the

learner

of rules and

typically

exhibiting

creative forms not directly sanctioned by the evidence.

1.1. Interlanguage The notion of interlanguage dates back the field

of second

late sixties when

language acquisition was in its infancy. It

most generally refers to learners of

to the

a second

the systematic

linguistic behaviour of

or other language, in other words learners

of non-native languages. It calls our attention to ity of

viewing learner

learners

of

German",

features which

can be

language such for

example,

the possibil-

as "the German of English as

possessing

systematic

studied in their own right rather than as

imperfect reflections of some norm, in this particular that

norm

"educated

native

speaker German". The term was made

popular by a seminal paper by Larry Selinker claimed that

IL was

the outcome

that characterised second apart from

case call

(1972) in

which he

of a set of special strategies

language

learning

and

hence

set it

the language produced by first language learners. For

Selinker, and others more recently, the crucial fact in determining the

qualitative difference between first and second language

acquisition mechanisms was the fact of typical

cessation

native-speaker

of

norms

(definition adapted

development despite

'developing g r a m m a r 1 ,

prior

repeated

from Selinker

follows, IL grammars will be

fossilisation, namely the the attainment of

as

a

special

the possibility

grammars and interlanguage grammars

and

practice

1972). In the discussion that

treated

that is,

to

exposure

case

that child

have something

of a (LI)

essential in

common, will be kept open (see Bialystok and Sharwood Smith 1985, Kean: this volume).

Michael Sharwood Smith

il

1.2. Creative Construction Creative construction is a term coined in the Dulay and

seventies by Heidi

Marina Burt to describe the organising principles that

create grammars

from

primary

linguistic

input.

The

idea was

implicated in their successful attempt to discredit the view that L2 learning was basically overcoming LI habits or, non-behaviourist mother

tongue

conformed to

terms, (i.e.

a

process

LI)-based

the information

and Burt, and later Steven creative construction

of

to put

gradually

structures

into

it in

transforming ones

which

coming from the environment. Dulay

Krashen,

took place

pursued

the

line

that L2

without recourse to the mother

tongue: this meant that all Ll-patterns observed in L2 production ought to be attributable to performance constraints, i.e. falling back on Ll resources

out

of

sheer

expediency

rather

than as

something which actually reflected representations of the L2 data in the learner's mind (cf. Wode 1986). Creative a term

which globally

construction was

reflected the basic Chomskyan approach to

Ll acquisition: however, until very recently, no attempt was made by the

proponents of

frame specific

this approach

research questions

to use in L2

Chomskyan models to

research (see Schwartz

1986). The claim

that was

advanced by

Robert Lado in the sixties

was that almost all learning difficulty between Ll

originated in difference

and L2 and that this could be explained as a question

of old, interfering habits to be unlearned. In creative

construction

theorists,

relegated Ll 'transfer' to the area pointed

to

evidence

of

common

as

has

contrast to this,

just been indicated,

of performance orders

of

errors. They

development across

learners w i t h different Ll backgrounds - the well-known order" familiar

and they claimed that this evidence of the

Ll in

demonstrated the irrelevance

the creation of new grammars

(Brown 1973, Dulay et

al. 1982). If Ll background was important, they developmental

"morpheme

from Roger Brown's early work on Ll acquisition-

order

would

background of the second various observed

vary

systematically

language learner.

orders for

argued, then the

L2 acquisition

with

the

Ll

A comparison between and similar

(though

12

not identical) LI orders

Logical problems and empirical solutions observed

by

Brown

and

others seemed

sufficient to suggest that LI and L2 acquisition were the outcome of the same basic process, i.e. creative construction. Nowadays, as a result of the failure of the creative construction theorists to convincingly substantiate their claims, most researchers have backtracked somewhat on the subject of LI influence and approach the issue with more caution, i.e. viewing LI influence as something which does not happen automatically and with all aspects of interlanguage, and which, when it does happen, may have subtle, unpredictable consequences by sheer virtue of the complexities involved, complexities that a deeper understanding of the linguistic problems have made us appreciate more fully (see Gass and Selinker 1983, Kellerman and Sharwood Smith 1986).

2. A NEW ROLE FOR LINGUISTIC THEORY

One characteristic of the research in the seventies is the modest role played by linguistics. More recently, since there has been much more in the (Chomskyan) linguistics literature about the acquisitional implications of various rules and principles (cf Hornstein & Lightfoot 1982, Newmeyer 1983, 1987). This has excited interest in second language research. Some of the intriguing theoretical questions this line of inquiry allows us to formulate will now be sketched out. 2.1. The role of UG in IL development: logical possibilities. Christian Adjemian was the first to make a really specific proposal to adopt a Chomskyan approach to IL development (Adjemian 1976). He suggested that IL (grammatical) systems were "natural" in the special, theoretical sense used by Chomsky (Chomsky 1965): they involve grammars that allow the user to

Michael Sharwood Smith

13

generate an infinite range of novel basic

design

characteristics

sentences and

of

grammars

acquiring their Ll. IL grammars differ their "permeability" that the

they have the

created by children

from LI

grammars only in

to invasion from the Ll system: that is, in

developing grammar

is not

sealed off

from inside and

sensitive only to L2 input but is subject to infiltration from an "alien" system (see also

Liceras

expresses

basic

some

of

the

1986). tenets

theory but it suggests more directly the concepts

and tools

a

that ILs

of generative

definition, designed to investigate

In

sense

this re-

of creative construction be analysed using

linguistics w h i c h are, by

natural

languages.

It also

leaves the door open (via the notion of permeability) for looking at possible Ll effects on the actual creation of L2 grammars. If certain important aspects of grammatical be

explained

using

a

Chomskyan

acquisition can

framework, then other aspects

about w h i c h (this) generative theory has less (or nothing) to say may therefore, handle.

A

by a

large

process of

number

of

elimination, also

problems,

for

be easier to

instance

various

morphological, semantic and pragmatic features of the language to be

acquired,

(compatible)

will

in

fact

need

to

be

handled

using other

approaches.

The issue

of how

theoretical linguistics

can be tied into

acquisition research that was raised by Adjemian in 1976 has been addressed again,

over the

last few

Government and Binding theory

years, using

EST and later

(Chomsky 1981). This has allowed L2

researchers to frame a number of specific, theoretical questions, like the one concerning the supposed naturalness of other questions a:

to what

IL grammars:

include:

degree does

linguistic "markedness"

as defined by

the theory play a role in development? b:

to what degree do the grammatical "parameters" learner's Ll

(selected from

the total repertoire available

for natural languages and set in defined by L2 grammar?

the theory,

of the

specific ways),

again, as

influence the shape of the emerging

14

Logical problems and empirical

solutions

2.2. Learnability theory Using linguistic theory to grammars especially advanced

stages

validity

of

look

at

the

complexity

of IL

as they have evolved in the intermediate and

of

consider

the

of the stimulus" argument

(cf.

acquisition,

Chomsky's

"poverty

us

forces

to

discussion in Hornstein and Lightfoot 1982; see also Pinker 1979, 1984). This

argument was

originally put forward w i t h respect to second language acquisi-

Ll acquisition but it can be applied to

tion as well albeit with certain interesting To

summarise

the

argument

for

qualifications.

second language

research:

however rich the communicative context of utterances addressed to the language

learner and however helpful the native speakers are

or teachers may be, there human

languages

input nor even by given to

that

are

subtle

cannot

the usual

be

and

type of

language learners,

complex

features of

provided by the usual kind of correction and explanation

that is, even in a formal classroom

where there may be a lot of metalinguistic explanation. Hence the input

tends

provide in thesis,

to

be

structurally impoverished: whatever it does

semantic or

furnish

the

pragmatic terms, learner

work out certain subtle terise the

with

principles and

native-speaker grammar,

determined" by the environmental The conclusion that is perspective under

it does

not, by hypo-

enough relevant evidence to constraints that charac-

i.e. the

grammar is "under-

input.

usually drawn,

discussion, is

given the particular

that acquisition of particular

crucial aspects of grammar takes place via an interaction between a) the evidence provided by the input and b) a set of grammatical principles available to all normal language part of

our genetic

potential

learners w h i c h forms

endowment, i.e. Universal Grammar (UG). The

contribution

of

a

possible

third

source,

namely

previously learned languages, will be dealt w i t h shortly. It is

relevant now

to consider

how linguistic and psycho-

linguistic research might interact. The aim

of linguistic theory

is to investigate the nature of the hypothesised principles of UG

Michael Sharwood Smith and how

they

language,

are

apart

15

instantiated from

in

having

unique instantiation of UG:

particular

its

languages. Each

own vocabulary, represents a

in other

words, UG

structural options

in the

make-up of

some aspects of UG

simply

do

not

allows for many

a natural grammars. Also,

apply

to

certain grammars.

Hence, there may be some constraint w h i c h is valid for a given L2 that was not applicable in the case of movement rules, constraining relevant

for example,

movement

for

L2.

would

One

the LI.

whereas LI then

be

The L2

irrelevant

for

over

operate

develops, and affected

time

how

by

the

other

of

UG

as

the

working

native

(see

but

and

individual's of

these

principles of

grammar gradually

principles

non-native

White

1985,

might be

competence

possessed by the learner and which represent different tions

LI

related aim in second language research,

should then be to investigate the way in w h i c h the UG

may have

may not: UG principles

systems

instantia-

1986, this volume, Flynn 1986,

Liceras 1986, etc.). The question who clearly

then is,

create novel

where do

second language acquirers,

utterances, get

the necessary

inform-

ation for them to bridge the information gap and develop grammars that respect those constraining principles? There are a number of possible answers to this question of second language learnability and all

of them have to do ultimately w i t h the vexed question of

how we define the second language learner's "initial Rutherford

state"

(see

1986).

One possibility may be that common principles typical of all languages, i.e. "universal grammatical" principles UG)

have

been

activated

during

learner's first natural grammar, principles are

acquisition

and that

to

some or

make the

all of these

transferred to the L2 in the form they have taken

in the LI grammar. In this initial template

for the

have to restructure those w h i c h turn

LI

(principles of

way,

the

L2 system, aspects

of

LI

grammar

as it the

serves

as an

were. Learners then Ll-based

IL grammar

out to be specific to the LI in the light of incoming

L2 evidence available to, and perceived by them. principles of

This means that

UG which, for example, rule out structure-indepen-

16

Logical problems and empirical solutions

dent operations, come to be in IL, as it were, same

time,under

this

scenario,

UG

is

by proxy.

At the

no longer active and

therefore does not help the learner in creating new areas

of the

IL n o t based on LI. Without the LI template, the L2 learner would have to

build an

IL using

some other

principles, perhaps just

those principles of hypothesis formation and testing that are not allowed free rein in first language (grammatical) acquisition. In this view,

then, IL

development is, in that it is influenced by

UG, "parasitic" on the LI grammar. be that

IL conforms

system in

the learner's

input calling

The consequence

of this must

to UG until some adjustment to the Ll-based developing grammar

the Ll-based

(as a

result of L2

system into question) actually leads

to a violation of UG. That is, the learner changes the IL some newly

constrained by feature w h i c h

UG and,

by so

could never

whole, would then cease Chomskyan sense UG.

Such

doing, allows

appear in

to

in a

'non-natural'

any LI. The IL, taken as a

possess

a

natural

grammar

in the

of the word: it would have elements that violate

violations

precisely

to fit

perceived input following some general hypothesis not

because

would

UG

be

would

tolerated

no

longer

by be

the

L2

active

acquisition process. In a similar vein,

H e l e n Goodluck

the potential

calls

development of

what she

learner

in

the L2

discusses

'wild' grammars in

first language acquisition but in this case the non-conformity to UG

is

attributed

language development

to

maturational

The empirical consequences that utterances

factors

typical

of

the

nonconformist

reflecting non-natural

of

child

grammatical

intuition

view are

(anti-UG) patterns ought

then to appear regularly in IL production and, tests

of

(Goodluck 1986).

(the

more

normal

importantly,

technique

for

eliciting IL competence) should show tolerance for such constructions.

The

possibility

also

exists

strained hypothesising will allow tured and

change into

rules that

that the learner's uncon-

Ll-based rules

to be restruc-

are not possible according to

UG. Another logical possibility is that L2 in

the

same

way

as

Ll

systems

and

systems are acquired

that the constraints on

Michael Sharwood Smith

17

possible shapes that the L2 grammar may take are imposed directly (and not via transfer). W e might In other

term this

the recreative view.

learner "recreates" the L2 grammar as if he

words, the

or she were a native learner of the language active

and

not

only

this:

the

structure of his or her LI. The L2 ignored and

plays no

part in

learner's native

the developing

Adjemian's terminology, there would IL.

The

first

and

second

be no

scenarios

is interesting

match

up

with

IL grammar. Using

just

on to

first to

developmental

discussed

Even assuming

that L2

an

open

the third logical

data

as

their

totality

to

reflected in spontaneous.

learners had direct access to UG, it

question

originally implied, developmental in

are

consider the way these

learner performance whether elicited or completely

stills remains

language is

"permeability" in the

possibilities

sketched out in figure one.Before going possibility, it

because U G is still

learner is insensitive to the

the

as

to

whether,

(IL) grammars must also conform

constraints

imposed

grammars at every stage of development. The grammars (or child grammars,

as Adjemian

for that

by

universal

position

that

IL

matter) literally conform

to U G at every single step on the way means in effect holding the view that every new adjustment to complete scan so that it elicit

of that

remains

data

from

grammar triggers a

grammar and any necessary

natural. a

the mental

This

learner

at

would

reorganisations

mean

that

any time and still find that,

whatever the spontaneous performance suggests, the grammar always

conforms to

way

with

conformity

principle which,

in real

underlying IL

UG. However, it is worth considering

the possibility that there may be the

one could

to

room for

universal

some deviation along grammar as the guiding

time development,

can nevertheless be

temporarily overridden, ignored or abandoned during periods where internal restructuring of the grammar is complicated in (cf.

Sharwood

Smith

1985

allowing for this logical would

be

to

try

and

forthcoming).

possibility

in

a

The

an active

UG in

for

research programme

and capture as many interesting

developmental

phenomena as possible without abandoning the potentially notion of

some way

motive

fruitful

interlanguage growth. This, then, is

another way of looking at the way an active UG works in

(first

18

Logical problems and empirical solutions

î

Î

L2 input

L2 input

I. Parasitic development (UG not active in IL grammar)

II. Recreative development (UG active in LI & IL grammar)

Figure 1: Parasitic versus recreative development and) second language acquisition. be

called

intermittent

The process

reorganisation.

in question might

In other words, at any

given stage of development, the IL grammar may still be conceived of as

a system

but nonetheless

as a system w h i c h is not neces-

sarily a unified whole in terms of conformity stage of

to UG.

A t a given

development, learners would produce systematic patterns

some of w h i c h would be hard to account for within a U G framework. UG, in

this view,

could function as a corrective mechanism that

would restructure the grammar internal

inconsistencies.

acquisition but fashion w i t h would not

would

from UG

sometimes

work

temporary toleration

immediately

filter

time

would

to

time

still in

be a

all

in

L2

gradual piecemeal

of violations

out

to eliminate active

of UG, i.e. it

inconsistency

from the

start. Intermittent deviance, deviance in the learner's i.e. his

or her

periodic

theoretical

it needs to be emphasised, refers to systematised intuitions

IL competence, "crisis"

w h i c h in points

about the L2,

this scenario undergo in

development

where

Michael Sharwood Smith

19

internal restructuring

takes place

loff-Smith

UG

1986).

speaking, there

If

have to

the grammar have to

is

according to

still

be moments

be brought

active,

UG (cf. Karmithen,

logically

where recalcitrant areas of

into line:

the learning device,

for one reason or another, should perceive areas of inconsistency in the grammar that,

so

to

speak,

is

currently

driving both

intuitions about the L2 as well as actual language production and reception (cf. Felix 1984). A close study of

learner development

would have to look for evidence of sudden shifts in IL intuitions that would suggest such

crisis

points.

By

such a

definition,

longitudinal investigation would have to use tests that zeroed in on relatively stable learner

intuitions.

Arguments supporting the run as

follows. Suppose

intermittent

current system, which might well be naturalness, various

nevertheless

reasons,

acquired rule learner) and conformism

e.g.

an

to one

view might part of the

general direction of

upset some other part

overgeneralisation

of

some

(for newly

or intrusion from another grammar possessed by the that

and

these

readjustments

inconsistency

(see discussion

in

the

typically

created non-

system

as a whole. This

a familiar

learning pattern

in Kellerman 1985, Sharwood Smith and Kellerman:

forthcoming). The normal consequence

of

readjustments,

even if

solely in conformity w i t h UG as regards the particular

domain being readjusted, areas of

would

non-naturalness: this

on the attainment of grammar could

paradoxically

account for

allow

all

kinds

tend

to engender

situation would only be remedied

an end-state,

i.e. w h e n

the developmental

all incoming (perceived and analysed)

primary data with mechanisms all of would

in the

typically

"U-shaped" turn away from the norms

they were

deviance

that readjustments

of

w h i c h conformed

to UG: this

peripheral phenomena but still only

those compatible w i t h what we understand to be the constraints on natural

languages.

If

developing

non-conformity, it would not be basis

for

unacceptable

theories

about

circularity

IL

naturalness in

grammars

appropriate the

to

may

use

contain

them

as a

since this would create

argumentation:

occurs in developmental grammars is "natural".

anything that

Logical problems and empirical solutions

20

The notion that all developmental grammars may (or always do) radically diverge from end-state grammars applies to both LI and L2 situations. However, it is even more plausible when L2 developmental grammars are considered since the possibility arises that crosslinguistic influence may in some cases add to the degree of nonconformity. Not only would there be: a:

externally triggered

adjustments of

some particular domain

of the IL grammar to account for newly perceived data, b:

internal readjustments as a result of a creative overextension of some current rule,

but also something specific to L2 acquisition, namely: c:

the recruitment by the acquisition device of parts of another grammar, for example (but not necessarily) the Ll.

All of these processes may have the effect of introducing (further) inconsistency across the various domains in the developing grammar. The whole notion of developmental nonconformity rests on the idea that there is, initially, a certain amount of opacity between these domains as far as the acquisition device (LAD) is concerned. LAD is capable, so to speak, of cutting off the branch it is sitting on, i.e. introducing conformist changes in one domain that (at least temporarily) undermine conformity elsewhere. The migrant worker data reported in the literature provide us with examples: Felix (1985) discusses a violation of the Structure Preserving Constraint. Actually, it is in fact instructive to consider Emonds proposals in a typological perspective rather than as simply a violation of one constraint:1 if the IL grammar belongs to the class of grammars having a) underlying SVO and b) move alpha then, if it were a truly conformist grammar it would not allow rightward movement of V into final position in sub-clauses; the test of its conformity would be to see if that were indeed the case: for ll am indebted to Paul van Buren for this point.

Michael Sharwood Smith example, we in

would expect

grammaticality

enough

21

to

take

no acceptance of V-final constructions

judgement

tests.

It

of non-conformity since learners may be ing their

is

not,

incidentally,

learner spontaneous performance as confirmation

L2 capacities

systematically

(for the sake of improved

and borrowing LI constructions they

know

overload-

communication)

perfectly

well

to be

deviant. It

may

causes

of

be

noted

that

nonconformity

cognitive

problem-solving

claims go against the

we can conceive of three different

without

even

procedures

tendency to

conformist developmental

invoking that

both

general

(op. cit.)

are here called

grammars. In fact, even crosslinguistic

traditional language

Germanic

Felix

develop what

effects from the interaction of relatively least in

the

languages,

proximate systems

(at

typology) like D u t c h and English,

may

produce

unusual

effects.

For

example, a recent investigation carried out by the present author into

the

preposition-stranding

learners of

English (briefly

Smith 1985)

revealed a

rejected pied-piping,

behaviour

of

27

D u t c h school

reported in V a n B u r e n and Sharwood

percentage of

learners who consistently

i.e. the movement of the PP

(prepositional

phrase) "intact", without extraction of the complement NP "On what

am I

sitting")

One conformist expectation would be a

return to an unmarked grammar (Mazurkewich 1984 and 1982) and

a consequent

refusal to

this would

go against the overwhelming evidence of the input English) where stranding predominates. the

extent

that might

their

data-driven

we

however, U G

was operating

atrophied, then we sentences w i t h

would

least where there was

them

,i.e. had not

non-stranded

grammar contained

actual

expect

expect

of

evidence that

'move alpha'.

stranding

development

In view of grammatical to

strand

not been them

to

be to

(conversational the input and development is exclusively. If switched

off or

actually reject

(i.e. 'pied-piped') prepositions, at

showed

their current developmental

In actual

school subjects) did reject stranding stage

pace Stowell

accept stranding at all (not

allowing "What am I sitting on", for example):

to

(as in

fact 40%

(of the 27

where learners

at a later

more tolerance (only 20% rejected

(see Van Buren and Sharwood Smith op. cit.).

22

Logical problems and empirical To conclude, it

could

conceivably

be

the

solutions

case

that all

developing grammars and particularly L2 ones tend to be radically nonconformist because of capacity restrictions on the acquisition

device: revisions

iately across the board to ensure all

the

time.

theoretical Goodluck

This

would

position

take

1986

,

Zobl

Felix

that

L2

100%

conformism

the formulation of a

nonconformism

into

1985).

account

(see

It also means that

through a non-conformist

of some aspect of the grammar unlike

LI learners of the same language mean

that

learners going

their acquisition

stage in

carried out immed-

anything like

require

1984,

evidence pointing to L2

cannot be

the working of

acquisition

is

cannot be different

acquisition (see also Goodluck's

taken ipso in

essence

discussion of

facto to from

LI

wild Ll grammars

referred to above) . Note that in

the

there is an important methodological

notion

plausible it

of

intermittent

reorganisation

disadvantage

view,

however

might seem as a working explanation of how UG might

work: it has to do w i t h the interpretation of IL data. Violations of

UG

in

IL

as

reflected

researcher w i t h a view are less

helpful: they

the view that UG

is

learner

data

elicited by the

facts about

IL competence

can be interpreted either as support for

no

alternatively, w i t h

in

to uncovering longer

this third

active

in

view that

L2

acquisition or,

it is active but does

not work instantaneously across the whole system. As indicated by the Hilles

example, the

developmental patterns time, to

problem can longitudinally,

be resolved i.e.

over

by looking at a

period of

see to what extent UG violations remain in the IL while

the IL as a whole still seems to be developing and to what extent UG violations

have a

w h e n compared w i t h

limited life span in the developing

other

phenomena,

especially

those

system also in

conflict w i t h the input. It may

be seen from the two basic views sketched above, the

parasitic 'initial template' view Ll influence

only plays

and the

recreation view, that

a role in the first view. But it is not

the case that Ll influence automatically implies an For example,

there is

inactive UG.

the possibility that internal UG-inspired

Michael Sharwood Smith reorganisation is

23

held up because of Ll influence - a version of

an idea put forward by a Schumann 1978,

few researchers

Wode 1978

in the

seventies

(see

and Zobl 1978). It might, then, be the

case the Ll influence (or

influence

from

any

other linguistic

system possessed by the learner) may exert a counter-force to UG. In particular, Lydia White

has

manner that

UG is

suggests that

argued

of UG

Ll

influence

in a

still active in L2 acquisition

despite the fact that its operation certain instantiations

for

is initially

constrained by

in Ll carried over to L2 (see, for

example, White this volume, Liceras 1986). Mary-Louise Kean makes this point

clearly

(in

Kean 1985)

learner brings a different UG to different, that

is, only

by pointing

the task

out that the L2

of developing

an L2,

in the very specific sense of being no

longer unset: it has been set in Ll terms. To take the example of Jorge discussed by Sharon Hilles w i t h reference to the setting of the

pro-drop

English a

parameter,

UG that

Jorge

has had

brings

to

the

This implies that, for Jorge, a natural grammar drop (null

subject), his

example, and this features

of

Ll Spanish

includes

that

all

particular

should have pro-

being the prime (and only)

the

associated morphosyntactic

UG parameter, unless the evidence

disconfirms this assumption and, attends to

acquisition of

the pro-drop parameter set as [+PD].

of course,

assuming that Jorge

this evidence (Hilles 1986). What m i g h t be called the

'reconstructive' view involves three developmental phases: Phase 1: initial application deemed

to

be

configurational

of Ll

relevant", grammars,

instantiations of

UG "where

e.g. number of bounding nodes in plus

or

minus

pro-drop

(null

subject), etc., etc. Phase 2:

recreative application

relevant,

i.e.

on

the

of UG in areas where Ll is not basis

of

(perceived)

positive

evidence. Phase 3:

reorganisation, revising

the evidence demands imposed by UG.

it,

the effects of Phase 1, where

within

the

absolute constraints

24

Logical problems and empirical

"Where

deemed

relevant"

simply

means

"as

perceived input". Since UG contains principles of alternative

grammars, for

solutions

indicated to cover

example grammars

by

the

a range

w i t h and without

movement rules, some of the principles of UG will not be relevant for a

particular Ll

(e.g., no

movement rules

ergo no bounding

nodes), but L2 evidence will make it clear that they are relevant for L2:

in this case, the learner will process them according to

the recreative

view (above).

The reconstructive

view is illus-

trated in Fig 2 : Principles of UG (interacting w i t h input)

usincj Ll input v Note: UG ensures conformity=> within the grammar as it develops

Ll grammar

using L2 input

using Ll grammar

IL grammar

L2 input Fig 2. A third view: the reconstructive view (UG active in Ll and IL grammar) In

this

third

view,

IL grammatical development, where it

departed from Ll would still be constrained by UG and then

contrast

with

view, where U G plays

the

this would

first, parasitic or initial template

no active

role in

reorganisation, i.e. in

Phase 3. It should kind discussed

be noted, at this juncture, that questions of the above only

emerge when

one has

a very specific

Michael Sharwood Smith

25

theoretical model in view so this is a demonstration of complexities and

properly. The advantage of the

study

of

IL

is

using UG

that

and associated

theoretical questions

whether L2

The three

m a i n views

(working) hypotheses see also

roles of re-expressed

Clahsen and

seen

within a

LI and UG that have as

three general

Bley Vroman, Schachter

Muysken 1986), the Recreative

Mazurkewich), and

the Reconstructive

advanced by White, Flynn, Liceras, Sharwood Smith

no longer

active in

Parasitic Hypothesis

carried over

holds that

second language acquisition and that

traces of conformity to UG in IL may of LI

be

investigations, i.e., respectively, advanced by

and V a n Buren and others). 1 The UG is

then

be

for IL

(as advanced by

Hypothesis (as

can

on the

the Parasitic Hypothesis (as Hypothesis

in the

perspective.

just been outlined above can

and others;

acquisition proceeds

to LI acquisition. Any observed differences

between IL and child (LI) language larger explanatory

so find interesting

to ask in connection w i t h the more general

and crucial question of similar way

concepts in

one can apply a quite sophisticated

linguistic model to IL problems and in doing

same or

both the

sophistication of addressing theoretical issues

into the

be traced

back to features

developing grammar. The Recreative

Hypothesis holds that UG is active in second language acquisition and that grammatical development unfolds very m u c h along the same lines as it does for first language acquirers. The Reconstructive Hypothesis holds

that UG

is still active but in a different way

in that the learner sets parameters way that

have been

shared by

LI and

L2 in the

set for LI: this entails complications where

there is no evidence in the input for resetting the IL parameters so

that

IL

is

aligned

with

native-speaker

L2.

These three

hypotheses, all of w h i c h had their supporters, can be worked into a more

sophisticated framework and a preliminary example of this

will be given in the following section.

1

M a z u r k e w i c h 1984, White 1986, this volume, Flynn 1986, Liceras 1986, Bley Vroman 1986, Schachter 1986,1988 Van Buren and Sharwood Smith 1986.

26

Logical problems and empirical solutions

3. STRATEGIES A N D SCENARIOS IN IL DEVELOPMENT

The

idea

of

studying

the

learner's

initial

and

later

hypotheses about the nature of the L2 system(s), as was mentioned earlier, was not

really

standard creative was because

considered

in

any

construction framework

development

was

viewed

detail

within the

of the seventies: This

as

highly

piecemeal: the

learner develops certain native-like forms, inflections, articles etc, in

a certain

developmental order,

the precise explanation

for w h i c h remains a mystery: it was sufficient that such an order could be said to exist since influence

exerted

by

it

pointed

teachers

or

course of acquisition and it also mother tongue

to

the

teaching

lack

of real

techniques on the

underlined the

irrelevance of

influence.

W i t h i n the

more iL-oriented

oneself questions about how

approach, one

a given

is freer to ask

IL system

has arisen: this

approach encourages investigators to scan different areas of what they consider to be the logical

aspects

of

current

the

grammar

grammar

and

(including

the phono-

lexicon) and to look for

patterns without special reference to native-speaker norms. These patterns may

be viewed

as the

outcome of the learner's current

assumptions, beliefs or hypotheses

(tacit or otherwise) about the

nature of

the language he or she is acquiring. Something of this

idea

eventually

was

approach in

developed

in

creative

construction

that they began to look at the stage-by-stage growth

of 'mini-systems' like negation an

the

IL-based

approach

needs

and question-formation. to

view

these

However,

various stages of

development not as sequences up to various "target" forms etc.) scattered along the route to a (hypothetical)

(A,B,C,

"native" end-

state but as developmental stages where native-like forms have no privileged

status

and

where

the

interest

is,

focussed on the developmental forms themselves. of

so-called

Sharwood Smith

'developmental 1986),

which

scenarios' is

what

(see

will

if

anything,

The construction be

van

Buren

and

discussed now,

provides a way of looking at system in IL development rather than

Michael Sharwood Smith

27

system in the attainment of linguistic nativeness 64).

IL

development

like

child

language

building grammars out of perceived input as it as is

(cf Ellis 1985:

development

means

comes along, not,

the case w i t h a linguist, assembling large amounts of data

known to reflect the native-speaker norms and only then coming to conclusions about the grammar underlying that data (White 1982). 3.1. Developmental

scenarios

The key to understanding interlanguage lies in the coherence and plausibility of the research is

explanatory

undertaken. Research

framework

to date

n o t i o n of strategy. What is necessary strategies

may

be

were a repertoire etc) but, tion,

fitted. of

the

(transfer,

between

yet to

strategies

generally

these suggestions were not precision

until

attempted

to

markedness as

use

overgeneralisation,

the

some

how

they

communicative domains that

precede

L2-based strategies but

expressed w i t h

investigators

a basis

strategies,

be spelled out. There have been sugges-

tions both in the learning and in the Ll-based

m u c h of the

structure into which

the learning versus communication distinc-

relationships

interacted, were

has made

is a

w h i c h IL

In Selinker's original model, there

strategies

apart from

within

a very

h i g h level of

turned (back) to linguistics and

version

of

the

notion

of linguistic

for defining the early IL hypotheses that

learners typically make (see also Bickerton 1984 for a discussion of the

notion of a "bioprogram"). What we take to be the initial

hypotheses a learner has and those

that are

expressed as claims about developmental

follow them

may be

scenarios.

It is instructive to consider further the difference between developmental

scenarios

understood in

the seventies..

deviant

or

non-deviant

learners' performance. then,

an

investigator

and

the

developmental

The latter

forms

(F1,F2,F3,

sequences

as

involve a sequence of etc.

appearing

in

From observations of learner performance, may

infer

a

predictable

development which can form the basis of further

sequence

investigations.

of

28

Logical problems and empirical solutions There is no ready-made explanation attached to the n o t i o n of

a developmental sequence. A developmental scenario

involves just

that, i.e. an explanatory framework for some developmental order. In

fact,

a

developmental

theoretical

framework

is

scenario

for

predicting

mental orders. It is not just a post-hoc sequences: some

best

understood

and explaining

as a

develop-

explanation of observed

observed regular developmental sequences may not

have a single, unified explanation but may have

as a

come about

result of an interaction of many poorly understood processes: the morpheme order literature is rich in example Cancino,

Rosansky and

and Burt 1982).

A

developmental development

consideration

sequences of

particular scenario come

from

a

of

(such

negation)

examples of

Schumann 1978,

may

some

this (see, for

H a t c h 1979, Dulay

structurally

transitional indeed

be

stages

related in

suggestive

of

the some

but the idea for a scenario may just as well

linguistic

or

psycholinguistic

theory

as

from

observation of learner performance. A

scenario,

suggests, stages

for

for

then,

is

example,

given

a

that

reasons.

"story" learners

The

about development which progress

behaviourist

through given

approach

to

L2

learning advanced by Lado provided us w i t h a

single scenario: we

could

structures

expect

a

beginning w h i c h use.

Those

maximal

use

would decline

Ll-based

of

Ll-based

w i t h increasing

structures

that

structures would appear early and where across the

two languages,

there was

explanation was 'interference'

transfer' or

formed

priate. Creative scenario but w i t h

new

L2-specific

construction theory less

of

an

associations

first

claims

which

might

were based

on something

w i t h the application of

more than linguistic

where appro-

likewise provided a single

explanation

explanatory force concerning about

Ll-transfer, sow h i c h declined as

since developmental

sequences were simply attributed to a mysterious The

no s u c h match

"erroneous" Ll-based structures would

appear instead. The overriding the learner

the

matched corresponding L2

called

'negative

in

experience of L2

'black box'.

really be said to approach

possible scenarios

and which

general learning theory came markedness

theory,

in this

Michael Sharwood Smith case, markedness

29

in a

more traditional, non-Chomskyan sense. It

was and still is suggested

that

learners

may

have

an inbuilt

preference for unmarked forms (rules/structures). This means that they will opt for unmarked versions of these aspects of admit of

L2 share a marked quickly develop

form in an IL

some

area of

w i t h the

form,

the

learner

quickly opt for the

will

because not

when

1977).

the

LI

has a

Fred Eckman

gives us the

of the devoicing of word-final stops, which

he claimed to be more common across languages (Eckman

learner will

follow the LI pattern but

unmarked version.

phonological example

IL, the

marked form. This conformity is

coincidental, in this explanation, marked

IL which

markedness in defiance of the input. Hence where LI and

Where

the

LI

and hence unmarked

has the unmarked form and L2 the

marked one, the learner will begin w i t h the deviant unmarked form in conformity w i t h the LI: hence German learners of English would begin w i t h a German rule devoicing final stops

as in

[bret] for

'bread'. English learners of German would more readily assume the voiceless unmarked

stops form

of more

normal

German

since

"attractive'.

they

will

find the

The implication is then that

this kind of markedness has psychological reality and that marked forms

come

psychological

to

be

marked

complication

because

markedness

hitherto

reflects

unexplained.

This

some hypo-

thesised "unmarked" tendency in L2 acquisition leads logically to a

developmental

strategy

and

scenario

this

is

to

in

which

the

learner

has

a fixed

select the unmarked option either in

agreement or in defiance of the situation in

the target language

as reflected in the input he or she is exposed to (cf. Hyltenstam 1977). The learner, in other evidence that

signals the

words,

presence of

data. In this way, the strategy preference for

initially

may

certain, allegedly

be

filters

out any

the marked option in the defined

as

an initial

simpler forms. Hence early IL

systems in this view would be created partially

on the

basis of

the input and partially on the basis of an inbuilt preference for unmarked options and unmarked systems in general. What should be continually emphasized is the fact scenarios crucially depend on what is understood by In other words, the researcher investigating a given

that such

"markedness". IL develop-

30

Logical problems and empirical solutions

mental scenario

has to

select one

amongst a number of possible

approaches to markedness. Hence, an appeal to a particular theoretical

viewpoint

in

(the

relevant branch of) linguistics is a

necessary prerequisite to a project of Rutherford

1984).

Note

that

this kind

there

is

explanation for why given forms should the

Greenbergian

sense.

The

no

(see papers in

real psychological

be marked

great

or unmarked in

advantage of the Chomskyan

approach to markedness is that it is tied u p w i t h positive

and

negative

the notions of

i.e. to a learnability

evidence,

theory

w h i c h has a great degree of coherence and is testable. 3.2. Developmental

strategies

As I have just explained, a the

learner

adopting

a

developmental scenario

preference

example, linguistically unmarked

strategy

(or

less

involves

favouring,

marked)

for

systems. It

should be clear that there is a hierarchical relationship between "scenarios" and "strategies" such ordinate term.

In other

that

scenario

scenario under investigation, one or more scenario

may

be

is

words, given a particular

outlined.

This

explicit study of a particular

allows

the super-

developmental

strategies within that for

a more coherent,

scenario.

In 1985, Van Buren and Sharwood Smith proposed a preliminary set of three scenarios and a number of strategies linked to these scenarios

(see V a n Buren and Sharwood Smith 1986).

This proposal

is set out below, using a slightly revised terminology). As implied

earlier, a theory that defines what is learnable

(Pinker 1984) in competence terms is essentially a theory of what constitutes

evidence

linguists we observe first

and

second

to

the

the

learner.

As linguists or psycho-

environmental

language

conditions

acquisition

takes place and we can

establish to some degree what events might be of

those

events

occur

and

hence

acquisition device. A theory of second to

provide

a

framework

dimension of processing and

for

are

under which

relevant and which

potential input to the

language learnability has

investigating the crosslinguistic

acquisition since,

in this context,

Michael Sharwood Smith

31

information is

potentially available

from a

other

source

grammar, namely

than

extrapolation

impossible.

The

'evidence'

can

be

from universal

learned previously.

first

contribution

third source, i.e. or

the native language system and

has been from

from a

environment

information from

any other system which simple

the

language

of

the

This makes

learnability theory

different

sources

of

investigated under two different assumptions

related to the notion of 'learning strategy', that is, strategies adopted by

not so m u c h the learner (qua single, undifferentiated

individual)

but

as

the

relevant

developmental

mechanisms

(Sharwood Smith forthcoming): a:

The Singular Learning Strategy

assumption,

b:

The Multiple Learning Strategy

assumption

This

means

that

we

can

assume,

for example, that all second

language acquisition follows essentially the same course: this is the Singular

Learning Strategy Assumption. Alternatively, we can

assume that there is

individual

variation:

learners

differ in

their approach to grammar creation. This is the Multiple Learning Strategy Assumption. It should be 'success' in

noted

to invoke varying strategy

that

we

are

not

even

talking about

learning. In other words we do n o t necessarily have degrees

variation.

In

of

success

theory,

a

achieving exactly the same level of

as

given

a

characteristic of

set

of learners all

language development

can be

hypothesized to have approached the task of learning in different ways. Hence, strategy variation means

of

distinguishing

cannot

Viewed another way, this means that acquisition on

the

relevant

there being

modules)

second language

see

cognitive

discussion

into

an assumption

first language

for a discussion of et.al

made

the part of first language acquirers

terms of some of possibility of

be

on

1982.:ch.4).

the sole

first and second language acquisition.

and

need

not

of

'complete'

(at least in exclude the

strategy variation (

learning strategy variation affective variables in Dulay

32

Logical problems and empirical solutions In V a n Buren and

was proposed

Sharwood Smith

involving a

third

which,

in

effect,

scenarios, five strategies. were,

respectively,

Crosslinguistic Scenario

the

(CLS)

subsumed

assumption.

together with

combines the two and, w i t h i n those Using

an

Primary

Scenario

(IPS):

modular approach

'scenarios' were outlined

Two fundamental learning a

(1985) a

multiple learning strategy

adapted

Language and,

under

the

the

terminology they

Scenario (PLS), the Inductive

scenarios

strategies w h i c h are listed below together

Principle

were

the five

w i t h their associated

scenario: 1. The Input-driven Strategy

(PLS)

2. The Unmarkedness Strategy

(PLS)

3. The Equivalence Strategy

(CLS)

4. The Non-equivalence Strategy

(CLS)

5. The Free Generalisation Strategy.(IPS) The

Primary

Language

Scenario

assumes

that

the learner

basically attends to the primary linguistic

data, the

without

he or she happens to

reference

possess.

In

other

to

any

other

grammar

words,

there

is,

initially

at

L2 input, least, no

crosslinguistic influence operative in the his or her IL grammar: the L2 is, as it were, treated as "another LI". The

Input-driven

Strategy

equates

the

second

language

acquirer w i t h the standard (Chomskyan) view of the first language acquirer, i.e. one who accepts in equal measure positive evidence in the input confirming the presence of unmarked structures and positive disconfirming Any systematic order of factors

(ripe

for

evidence (evidence of marked development

investigation)

would such

then

structures).

be

decreed by

as frequency, semantic

transparency or whatever happens to makes data salient. The Unmarkedness Strategy implies evidence

for

unmarked

structures

in

evidence for marked structures whether grammar or

not: there

is a

that the

learner accepts

L2 but initially they

bias towards

are

in

rejects

the native

unmarked values. This

implies a certain "blindness" to data (see Kean 1985).

Michael Sharwood Smith

33

The Crosslinguistic Scenario influenced in

implies

that

the

learner is

some particular way by the properties that charac-

terise his or her LI or any other language other

than the

L2 in

question. The Equivalence

Strategy implies

that the learner makes an

initial assumption of L1/L2 structural equivalence

and initially

that disconfirms this. LI parameters define the

rejects evidence

first settings of L2 parameters. The Non-equivalence learner

(i.e.

Strategy is

learning

device)

the converse

adopts

an

target language initially assuming

its

turally distant

Ll. W i t h

from that

of the

of this. The

exotic view of the

structure

to

be struc-

regard to these two

different crosslinguistic strategies, a logical problem arises in connection w i t h the initial selection of a marked parameter which is not actually confirmed by the L2 data the

marked

option,

is

not

but which,

positively

since it is

disconfirmed.

If, for

example, we take [+pro-drop] to the unmarked case and the learner sets the

parameter for

[-pro drop], the learner will have to be

sensitive to negative evidence of some to come

is not purely coincidental. the 'deviant'

in order

If we

observe learners

that

mechanisms

literature

for are

evidence and development

that

learner

sensitive

we have

to

has

unmarked value, at

phrased

Some this

least,

more

advanced our

accordingly.

principle and the subset and Kenneth

than

the

just

work

question

in

condition as

reported

in

the

terms of the subset

advanced by

Rita Manzini

wider grammar and

a smaller grammar for a particular structural area of the learner to fail

the subset

principle which

will always opt for the smallest grammar

compatible w i t h the data is also seem

direct positive

Wexler. Helmut Zobl, for example, points to evidence

the grammar: this would suggest that holds that

then we can acquisitional

knowledge of second language

recent

that Japanese learners of English begin w i t h a proceed to

moving from

marked option to a later stage in the IL where the

parameter is reset to the 'correct' assume

indirect nature

to the conclusion that the lack of pro-drop in the input

contravened.

It

would,

of course,

to account for any observed move from a wider

34

Logical problems and empirical solutions

grammar to

a smaller

grammar

(see

in particular,

Zobl in this

volume and V a n Buren forthcoming). The fifth

strategy is the Free Generalisation Strategy, and

it implies uninhibited generalisations ties

or

of

perceived

L2

of LI

structural

properties

implies a corresponding insensitivity to the that

would

confirm

such

structural properand

it also

absence of evidence

overgeneralisations

(i.e.

indirect

negative evidence). The free generalizer is most likely to ignore violations of

UG in the developing system and is hypothesised to

show a h i g h degree insensitivity Smith op.

of fossilisation

(for

full

cit. and

grammars will

discussion

Sharwood Smith

be non-natural,

free generalisation may well first and

due to

this

characteristic

see V a n Buren and Sharwood op. cit.).

The resulting IL

i.e. not conform to UG. Note that be a

typical learning

strategy in

second language acquisition w i t h features that are not

relevant to principle

UG. It

is, of

scenario

to

course, possible

which

this

that the inductive

strategy

belongs

may

be

interpreted as a cognitive problem solving scenario that is valid for other than purely linguistic development (cf. Felix 1985) 3.3. Some methodological To

implications

investigate

the

learner makes, u s i n g

the

just been

sketched out,

initial

and subsequent hypotheses the

scenario/strategy

framework

that has

one needs to set u p "strategy profiles"

for learners w i t h given language backgrounds and a given L2 and a given

structural

area

in

mind and relate those to

profiles', i.e. the profiles predicted by viewpoints within

the framework.

particular

'prediction theoretical

In this way, learners who, for

example, follow a Non-equivalence strategy, i.e. treat the exotic, ought w i t h the LI

to avoid

and will respond to an appropriate

accordingly.

Each

of

the

line w i t h

elicitation test

actual responses of learners to that

test may then be compared w i t h a theoretical made

L2 as

any parameter-setting that aligns the L2

response profile in

that particular strategy and a calculation can then be

concerning

the

degree

responses m a t c h the predicted

to

which

response.

each

of

their

actual

Michael Sharwood Smith In Utrecht,

35

we have

stranding in mind and framework

has

carried out based on

been

by

been working

the

only

applied

Margaret

mainly w i t h preposition-

study

to

date

experimentally

Polomska

in

is

(Polomska

a

1987). Approaches

an analysis of strategic behaviour easily allow a fine-

grained analysis of individual members of a group well

as

value

an

of

analysis

the

predicted that

of

Multiple not all

developmental scenario that

seems

various

which this pilot study

quite

paradigms

reported in

of subjects as

group results. This should reveal the Strategy

Assumption

in

which

it

is

learners will necessarily adopt the same or developmental

reasonable including

Sharwood Smith

if

we

the

strategy, a possibility are to believe studies in

preposition-stranding

and V a n

study

Buren (op. cit.) where some

subjects seem to pied-pipe exclusively opting for an unmarkedness strategy while others did not.

4. CONCLUSION

Hopefully,

the

preceding

discussion

has

shown

how

a

particular approach to grammatical acquisition can be constructed drawing

selectively

researchers

in

metatheory in relatively

the

the

experience and

on

of

second

linguistic

language

theory

and

the eighties. When second language learning seemed

simple,

approaching the

on

seventies there

was

complexity of

attempt

anything

the type of preliminary

no

need

to

framework

sketched out above. Now it seems that second language acquisition also seems

vital to adopt a coherent

position on what we think might be the

is enormously

complex, it

guiding principles behind

grammatical acquisition

and follow that through until it becomes

plain that it is not yielding any useful insights. From the early work that

has been done so far by White, Liceras, Flynn and many

others, it looks as though this approach still has quite a lot of promise.

3 Universal grammar and language transfer Lydia White

1. SOME GOALS FOR A THEORY O F SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

It

is

noteworthy

literature of between tongue

theories (LI)

in

recent on

which the

Contrastive Analysis learner's

ability

regardless of

second that

language there

emphasize

second

has

the

language

(L2)

acquisition

been

a dichotomy

influence of the mother learner,

such

focus

on

LI background,

Contrastive

Burt

the

second

language

(1974),

Dulay,

theories

emphasize

theories, on

language

mother tongues

acquisition.

These

data,

the Creative Construction

the other

developmental errors, namely those of different

the

such as

Burt

forms

w h i c h are

and w h i c h are

can

be

interference

hand, concentrate on common to learners

are also

usually

and Krashen that

attributed to the LI, w h i c h are known as transfer or errors. "Creative"

as

(CA) Hypothesis, and those w h i c h stress the to

Hypothesis of Dulay and (1982).

the years

found in first

assumed

to

reflect

universal acquisition processes. As a

number of

recent papers

have noted, the fact that CA

was often associated w i t h behaviourist learning theory has had an

*I am grateful to Eric Kellerman and Larry Sellnker for comments and discussion. A n earlier version of this paper was presented at the 13th Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Symposium on Current Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, M a r c h 1984, w i t h the title "Universal grammar as a source of explanation in second language acquisition".

Lydia W h i t e

37

unfortunate consequence. W h e n explanation

of

language

the mother tongue as There seems, are

an

an influence

was

rejected

as an

on second

language learning.

in many cases, to be a feeling that transfer errors

embarrassment

aspects of

behaviourism

acquisition, many people also rejected

to

approaches

L2 acquisition,

significance altogether

to the

that

emphasize universal

extent that

(e.g. Dulay

and Burt

some deny their 1974; Dulay, Burt

and Krashen 1982). Recently, there

has been

a revival of interest in language

transfer and there have been a number of attempts to circumstances in

w h i c h it

is likely to occur (e.g. Eckman 1977;

Kellerman 1979; Gass 1979; papers in Gass and has

been

recognized

universals-oriented 1983; Rutherford

explain the

that

transfer

explanations

1983). However,

of

Selinker 1983). It

is

not

L2

acquisition

incompatible with (Adjemian

the possibility that universal

and transfer effects in L2 acquisition m i g h t derive from the same source does n o t seem to have been considered. As

noted

by

needs not only to second language

Corder

(1978) and Sharwood Smith (1985), one

acknowledge multiple

acquisition, such as the influence of the LI, of

other languages known to the learner, but also

to provide

these influences suggest that can

universal factors,

and their

variability. It

will be

my goal to

Universal Grammar (UG) has the potential to provide take

such

predict a

second language acquisition

multiple influences and their variability

into account. In particular, I will explain and

and of

a theoretical base that can account for all

an explanation of certain aspects of which

linguistic influences on

suggest that

certain range

UG is

able to

of transfer phenomena, and

thus to contribute towards a solution to the question of when the LI will

have an

influence and when it will not. Certain aspects

of transfer will turn out to have their

origin in

at first

suggest that a theory of

sight, seem

contradictory to

UG. It might,

Universal Grammar can explain cases of transfer, since often aspects

assumed of

to

reflect

acquisition,

language-specific,

whereas

developmental

these are

non-universal, errors

are

38

Universal grammar and language transfer

considered

to

be

reflections

of universal factors. However, I

would like to suggest that this is a false dichotomy. My approach presupposes basic, role

to play,

to the essential solution of

that

UG

has

another,

indeed more

namely that it provides part of the answer

question

of

how

languages

are

learned, the

w h i c h must surely be one of the fundamental goals of

all theories of second The contribution

language acquisition,

as well

of UG specifically concerns the question of how

learners, on the basis of the input available to them, complex and

of

course,

that

fact, construct interlanguage and subtle

arrive at

subtle knowledge of the language being learned, i.e.

how they attain competence, in Chomsky's sense of presupposes,

as first.

knowledge. I

second

the word. This

language learners do, in

(IL) grammars w h i c h

assume that

encode complex

many do so, without neces-

sarily attaining native-like proficiency.

2. CRITICAL FACTORS IN SECOND LANGUAGE A C Q U I S I T I O N

2.1. Universal grammar and first language Before investigating the role of UG tion, it ative

is necessary

grammmar

theory, it

briefly to

regarding

in second

language acquisi-

outline claims made in gener-

acquisition.

Within

generative

is assumed that certain aspects of language structure

must be innately present atical

LI

acquisition

aspects

of

in the

language

child, to

acquisition

account for problem(Chomsky

1965, 1975,

1981b). This innate structure is referred to as Universal grammar and it

consists, in the main, of principles limiting the ways in

which the child can conceive of language, or rather of a grammar, since

the

latter

is

the

primitive

major arguments concern the fact that complex

aspects

of

notion in the theory. The there are

many subtle and

language that native speakers unconsciously

know, for w h i c h there is insufficient evidence in the input data,

39

Lydia W h i t e the language

they are

exposed to as children. For example, they

have intricate knowledge of ambiguity, scope, taught, and

despite the

they hear. 1

in the language that idea of

what children

and there

is

a

etc, without being

fact that these things are not explicit hear and

mismatch

In other

words, we

have some

of what they eventually attain,

between

the

two;

that

mismatch is

overcome by the assumption that UG mediates between the input and the grammar constructed by the child, and that the

Language

Acquisition

Device

UG forms

part of

and hence is available to the

child to aid acquisition. A further assumption is that the the

child

is

in

the

form

of

bulk of

negative evidence, or information as to possible in

the language.

data available to

positive evidence, rather than

In this,

what structures

the child

are not

differs from the

linguist, who can ask explicit questions as to the possibility or impossibility of certain forms, and also from the second language learner, who in many cases does receive negative evidence, in the form of

correction, a

point to w h i c h I shall return (section 5,

below). As an example, consider the following la:

sentences:

W h a t did John see_?

b:

What did Mary believe [S' that J o h n saw_]?

c:

W h a t did Jane say [S that Mary believed[S' that John saw]]?

d: *what did Mary believe [NP the claim[S' that John saw_]]? The questions in (la), (lb) and (lc) are is not.

grammatical, while (Id)

In all cases, the equivalent statements are grammatical.

How do language learners

attain such

knowledge? If,

on the

basis of examples like (la), they work out a rule of Wh-movement, 1

F o r details and examples see Chomsky 1981b; Baker 1981; Hornstein and Lightfoot 1981; Lightfoot 1982.

and McCarthy

40

Universal grammar and language transfer

how do

they discover that this rule can apply in m u c h larger and

m o r e complex sentences like (lb) and (lc) and yet cannot apply to produce (Id)?

Children are not known to make mistakes like (Id),

so that one cannot assume that they come

up with

such forms and

corrected, even supposing that correction is an

are subsequently

available source of evidence. Nor

is

it

occurrence

is

sufficient to rule it out,

of

forms

like

(id)

simply

that

the non-

since (lc) is just as unlikely to have been heard and yet will be judged

grammatical

when

sibility of forms like course of

it

is

(Id),

first

and

language acquisition,

encountered. The impos-

their

non-occurrence

as part of UG a principle, known as Subjacency, w h i c h number

of

bounding

nodes

which

limits the

a moved element can cross. In

particular, bounding nodes in English are S', S and NP, exceptions

being

provided

by

an

the W h

element has

whereas in (lb), only S' has

to

element

two

moves

through

the

be

assuming

certain

approach

to

general

innate

language

rule

of

crossed.

Wh-movement

in

(lc),

case

the W h

The "logical

limit

this

from

In

cases is

which

(Id) is

b o t h NP and S',

positions.

in such

principles

learning,

movement in

to cross

COMP

problem" for language acquisition

the only

"escape" route through COMP,

available in S' but not in NP. In this way, disallowed, since

in the

can be explained if one assumes

answered by the

child's

preventing the

over-applying. Assuming the

presence of this universal principle allows one to explain a wide range

of

Subjacency

phenomena, also

since

accounts

there for

are

(c.f.

many

other

Chomsky

cases that

1981b).

Other

universal principles

account for further aspects of our linguis-

tic

our

competence

and

acquisition

of

that

knowledge

(c.f.

Chomsky 1981b for examples). 2.2. Universal grammar and second language acquisition What

is

arguments

the

relevance

concerning

language learner

to

first

is faced

second language acquisition of such language

development?

The

second

w i t h a similar problem to that facing

the first; that is, if second language learners eventually attain reasonable accuracy in the L2, they will end u p w i t h very complex and subtle knowledge for which the input data

was

insufficiently

Lydia W h i t e

41

precise. Indeed, does n o t

this is

achieve a

probably true

high degree

even if

of accuracy;

the L2 learner

many learners may

well reach a level of competence in the L2 w h i c h includes complex knowledge w h i c h was never explicitly present in the L2 input, and w h i c h is

n o t simply

the knowledge

that they

even t h o u g h it may not coincide w i t h that of the

have of their LI,

of the

native speaker

there may be a logical problem for L2 acquisi-

L2. Thus,

tion, just as there is for

LI. O f

course, this

does not neces-

sarily m e a n that it is to be dealt w i t h in the same way. However, if, as discussed above, first

language

learners

have

at their

disposal certain universal principles w h i c h aid language acquisition, then such

principles

may

still

be

available

in second

language acquisition, particularly in second language acquisition by

children.

learners, if

Indeed,

they

may

also

be

available

differences between

child and

is by no means clear

what

Scarcella

Krashen,

UG

pursuing. I

mediates

these

child

will suggest

there do

adult learners

papers whether

adult

we assume that they are n o t de-activated at the end

of some neurological critical period. While

in

to

differences and

and

are

due

to (cf.

Long 1982). The question of

adult

acquisition

is

worth

that UG is, indeed, available to adult

L2 learners but that it may not be as freely to children,

seem to be

in many cases, it

available as

it is

though the limitations will turn out to be specific

to UG itself. 2.3. Implications of parametric variation for L2 acquisition A n important point to consider in L2 acquisition is the fact that the L2 first

learner has language.

already activated

Until

linguistic universals

fairly would be

is the same for all languages,

UG by learning his or her

recently,

it

was

assumed that

invariant across languages, that although not

all languages would

instantiate all universals. However, in the last few years, there has been a growing realization that universal principles subtle ways

from language

parametric variations has been introduced (Chomsky The idea

vary in

to language, and hence the concept of 1981b; 1982).

is that a limited number of options, or parameters, are

associated with a particular principle and that specific evidence

42

Universal grammar and language transfer

from

the

language

being

learned

will

trigger

parameter for that language. Thus, language

the

relevant

specific differences

are, in many cases, reducible to differences in the

options that

UG makes

the

available.

Subjacency,

this

For

is

example,

a

to

universal

return

bounding nodes are barriers to movement, has

movement

rules

languages may vary nodes. In

will as

obey

to

English the

this

The

relevant

which

bounding nodes

evidence

for

and any

Nevertheless,

nodes

are S',

and NP

the

case of

language w h i c h

principle.

precisely

French and Italian, they are S'

to

principle to the effect that

are bounding

S and NP, but in

but not

S (Rizzi 1982).

language learner in the latter

cases comes from the possibility of extracting from certain kinds of structures in French and Italian, whereas such extractions are not possible in English. Another example is provided

by

the

position

phrasal categories. All languages have phrases

of

heads of

(NP, VP,etc) which

contain heads (N, V, etc) but the position of the head within its phrase

varies

from

language

heads to the left, as English relative

clause

follows

to

language. Some languages have

does;

the

for

head

noun

example

follows the verb. In other languages, the head In Japanese,

relative clauses

precede

verb.

the

parameter w h i c h

Thus,

precede their

head

position

in

English a

and the direct object is to

the right;

heads, and objects

constitutes

an

open

language learners have to "fix" for the language

they are learning. In these two examples, there is and languages

differ as

to w h i c h

a limited

range of options

option they use. In addition,

there are cases where one talks of a parameter as having +

and -

values, some languages choosing the former and others the latter. The pro-drop parameter is such a case. It is active +) in

languages like

(i.e. set at

Spanish and Italian but not in English and

French. Amongst the effects of this parameter are the possibility of empty

subjects, of verb-subject word order, and of extraction

of subjects out of (Chomsky 1981a,

embedded

clauses

containing

complementizers

1982;Jaeggli 1982; Rizzi 1982). These properties

Lydia W h i t e

43

are illustrated below, where

the Italian

sentences are grammat-

ical whereas their literal translations in English are not: 2a:

verra *will come he will come

b:

verra Gianni *will come John J o h n will come

c:

chi credi che verra? *who do you think that will come? who do you think will come?

As

can

be

seen

from

these examples, setting a parameter in a

particular way (in this case, at + pro-drop) can have

a range of

consequences, so that a number of apparently unrelated

construct-

ions are in fact connected. This

concept

of

parametric

variation

is

particularly

interesting w h e n one looks at L2 acquisition, since many learners will be faced w i t h situations where some principle the value

of the

language may the learner

parameter in

have some may be

LI and

L2, or

principle inactive.

faced with

differs as to

one or the other

In such situations,

conflicting evidence from LI and

L2, motivating incompatible parameter settings. If L2 acquisition mirrors LI

acquisition, one might expect L2 learners to have the

ability to focus only on the

L2 data,

and therefore

to set the

parameter required for the L2, regardless of the situation in LI. It seems more likely, however, that L2 learners by the

parameter already

instantiated in

least initially, they carry over the for the

mother tongue.

In other

will be affected

their LI, so that, at

setting already established

words, the

evidence in LI has caused a parameter to

fact that positive

be set

in a particular

way may obscure the fact that positive evidence in L2 motivates a different setting. In situations where it is really reset parameters,

the learner

reflected in the transfer of

may have particular the

incidence of interference errors.

LI

value,

and

necessary to difficulties, hence

in the

44

Universal grammar and language transfer Taking

a

parameterized

UG

into

account,

the

following

situations may occur and the following predictions can be made: 3a:

LI and L2 have the same principle, set

in the

same way:

there should be no transfer problems, so that L2 acquisition may proceed in a manner similar to Ll. b:

Ll does not have some principle activated w h i c h in

L2:

L2

data

will

motivate

the

is required

relevant

principle.

However, the learner may initially assume that L2 is like Ll in not requiring the principle in question. c:

Ll and

L2 both

instantiate some

set in different ways: there parameter

until

the

principle w i t h parameters

will

learner

be

transfer

of

the Ll

realizes, on the basis of L2

data, that the Ll setting is not appropriate. d:

Ll has some parameter set at the + value but L2 has the value:

there

will

be

transfer

of the Ll value until the

learner realizes that the Ll parameter

is not

operative in

L2. While (c)

and (d)

may seem essentially the same, I will suggest

below that situations like problems than

(d)

may

cause

the

learner greater

those like (c). In fact, the predictions above may

be further complicated by

the question

of markedness.

For some

principles, one parameter setting may represent the unmarked case and the L2 learner may be the settings

in the

affected by

the markedness

values of

Ll and L2, in complex and interesting ways,

w h i c h go beyond the scope of

this paper.

See White

(1986a) for

more detailed discussion. I

now

turn

to

some

situations w h i c h exemplify the cases

discussed in (3), above. Supporting section 3.

A native

speaker of

(or vice versa) will be in have the

pro-drop parameter

data

will

be

discussed in

Spanish who is learning Italian

situation (3a)

above; both languages

set at its + value. There should be

no acquisition difficulty w i t h respect to acquiring constructions

Lydia White

45

related to that parameter. In contrast, a native speaker of Spanish or Italian learning English will be in situation (3d); that is, the pro-drop parameter is active in LI but inactive in L2, so that the learner effectively has to reset the parameter to a situation which, I predict, will lead to transfer errors, with such learners dropping subject pronouns in English, and making other errors traceable to their treating English as if it were a pro-drop language. Notice that this crucially depends on which language is the LI and which the L2. The converse situation, that is the native speaker of English learning Spanish, would represent situation (3b), since the pro-drop parameter is inactive in Ll and has to be acquired in L2. This situation should not cause particular difficulties, given that positive data in L2 motivate the parameter. In other words, the L2 learner will hear examples of missing pronouns in the L2 and this will trigger the + value of the pro-drop parameter, with its attendant consequences, although prior to noticing this data, the learner may assume that the Ll situation pertains in L2. Thus, this theory predicts differences in acquisition diffficulty for the same two languages in situations (3b) and (3d), depending on directionality. Finally, the situation in (3c) can be exemplified by word order parameters; where the Ll and L2 differ as to the position of the head, there may be initial problems but the contrast is present in the positive data. In the case of the English learning Japanese, or vice versa, the L2 data indicate that the head position is different from the Ll. One might expect initial transfer effects, in either direction , until the L2 learner takes note of this contrast between the two languages. Thus, where parameters do not differ, as in (3a), or where Ll has not had some principle activated at all, as in (3b), L2 acquisition may be more likely to proceed along universal lines, with the learner's non-target output taking the form of developmental errors, whereas when parameters differ, as in (3c), or have to be reset to -, as in (3d), the original parameter

46

Universal grammar and language transfer

setting may compete w i t h the new one required for L2,

leading to

transfer errors, at least initially. The case

outlined in

(3d) may

for the L2 language learner. It to

that

discussed

by

Baker

(1979)

generalize optional rules. As case

of

Dative

Movement.

be particularly problematic

constitutes a an

He

situation similar

for LI learners who over-

example, points

Baker

out

discusses the

that, if there is a

transformational rule of Dative Movement, the following

situation

could arise. On the basis of sentences like: 4a:

John gave the book to Fred

b:

John gave Fred the book

together

with

justified in

the

rule

in

hypothesizing

question, (5b)

the

after

learner

hearing

would

be

sentences like

(5a) : John reported the accident to the police

5a:

b: *John reported the police the accident However,

(5b)

is ungrammatical. The learner who produced such an

overgeneralization would such forms

have somehow

problematic, since many forms that hear

are

nevertheless

to

be

learners

grammatical)

negative evidence, in the argued

to notice

the absence of

in English (a seeming impossibility and, in any case,

form of

non-occurring

or

or

may

not

happen to

would have to be given

corrections, w h i c h ineffective

have been

in LI acquisition

(McNeill 1966; Brown and Hanlon 1970; Braine 1971). The situation of the L2 learner who carries over the of an

LI parameter

+ value

is parallel in the following way. Taking the

pro-drop parameter as an example,

if

over

as has been found (White 1985,

from

Spanish

to

English,

the

parameter

is carried

1986b; Hilles 1986; Phinney 1987) then the Spanish learner has to notice the

absence of

missing subjects in English, that is, the

fact that subjects cannot be presence

of

explicit

omitted

pronominal

in

English.

Noticing the

subjects is not sufficient to

Lydia W h i t e

47

lead to loss of this parameter, given that Spanish can lexical pronouns

in certain

presence of pronoun subjects the -

value of

is consistent

the pro-drop

be hard

w i t h both

parameter, whereas

subjects is consistent only w i t h the

also have

other words, the

circumstances. In

+ value.

the + and

the absence of

Therefore, it may

for Spanish speakers learning English to discover on the

basis of positive data

alone

since, w h e n

explicit pronouns in English, this is not

they hear

that

English

is

with

missing

+pro-drop.

I

Spanish, on

subjects would

the other

will

indicate

suggest

hand, hearing sentences that

the LI

grammar, will

their own

right, and

an IL

UG, though it may for the

not use

variation

grammars allowable.

of

make it

IL

w h i c h happens

clear that I

In other set

In addition,

w h i c h are

are natural languages.

Indeed,

that UG mediates

not violate principles of

the parameters

should

grammars,

the assumption

grammar should

target language. 2

parametric

I should

series

the latter point is dictated by L2 acquisition;

one of

recent theories of L2 development, that

the L2 learner constructs a systems in

be

interlanguage.

In concluding this section, with many

must

particularly favour the transfer of

the LI parameter or rule into the

assume, along

Spanish

that any circumstance where the L2

data are consistent with several grammars, to be

pro-drop,

from Spanish. 1 For

enough to tell them that English is different E n g l i s h learning

not

w h i c h are appropriate

words, the possibilities of limits

where a

to

the

kinds

of IL

language learner does

1 H o w e v e r , Hyams (1986) proposes that English LI learners actually assume pro-drop initially, and that there is positive evidence available in English to make them change their minds, concerning the expletive elements it and there. In that case, such evidence might also be available to the L2 learner, although such evidence as I have seen suggests that null expletives persist longer in L2 acquisition than null referential pronouns. 2 I have suggested that Ll parameter settings will be carried over in certain circumstances. Another possibility, still consistent w i t h the idea of UG as a parameterized system but not involving transfer, is that the language learner will adopt a parameter which is instantiated in neither Ll nor L2 but is nevertheless an option made available by UG. See Du Plessis et al. (1987) for an example of such a case.

48

Universal grammar and language transfer

choose the wrong parameter

for the

target language,

all struc-

tures associated w i t h that parameter should be affected, and when he or she

restructures

propriate

parameter,

the

interlanguage

this

change

structures. Thus, this view of UG changes in

learner grammars,

grammar

should

affect

predicts a

as the

to

the ap-

all

these

network of related

learner switches over from

the Ll parameter setting to that required in the L2. In proposing that in predicts

transfer,

I

certain do

not

simply takes the Ll grammar

well-defined

circumstances Ug

w i s h to suggest that the learner

and

slots

L2

vocabulary

into it.

Rather I assume that at all stages of the L2 acquisition process, the L2 learner is trying to come to terms with to

construct

a

grammar

to

account

structures

the

Ll

in

a

data, and

for that data. One of the

learner's tasks is to impose structure grammar

the L2

on the

L2 input.

particular

way

The Ll

and certain

parameters have been triggered for the Ll. I have suggested that, in certain

circumstances, these

Ll parameters are carried over;

in effect, the Ll data serve as input to the IL grammar, until L2 data

force

the

learner

to

reanalyse

respects. Where that fails to happen, to

interpret

the

Ll

data

as

the

IL in the relevant

the learner

relevant

will continue

to L2, so that the Ll

parameter will continue to be represented in the

interlanguage.

3. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Recently, there has been increasing acquisition

researchers

investigate the Amongst these,

role of few have,

parameterized UG fruitful

area

and UG in

of

research

interest

number

in

amongst L2

(see section 4).

pursued the implications of a

been done which

UG

of people have begun to

L2 development

as yet,

but what has

development process.

a

offers

suggests that

this is

insights into the L2

Lydia W h i t e

49

As far as the situations in (3a) and recent work

I have

(3d) are

speakers of Spanish learning English as a second 1985, 1986b).

concerned, in

investigated the pro-drop parameter in adult language

(White

Such adults have the parameter activated in LI and

are acquiring a language where it is not operative; they are thus in the

position of

having to

outlined in (3d). In judgments

and

a

three

like

(2c),

of

pronouns and

which

involve

for

English.

that English

pro-drop

extracting (1987),

and produce questions

subjects

other

work

subjects

an overt

within

the same

often omitted

in the

of Spanish students learning English. There is also in

in

the

literature

spontaneous

speakers of Spanish Schumann

over

a verb-subject word

working

framework, finds that subject pronouns are w r i t t e n work

has two of

languages: they accept

they accept

Phinney

grammaticality

I found that native

complementizer. They do not, however, accept order

w h i c h is the case

involving task,

indeed, assume

characteristics

missing subject

to - ,

experimental work

question-formation

speakers of Spanish do, the

rest it

1974;

and

learning

White

which elicited

ESL

1977;

reports

(e.g.

th

omission of

production Cancino,

by

native

Rosansky and

Butterworth and Hatch 1978). In my

experiments, native speakers of

French acted

as controls. Since

French, like English, is not a pro- drop language, these subjects were in situation (3a), acquiring a L2 w h i c h was similar to LI in the relevant

respects. They

did not

accept pro-drop character-

istics in English, again supporting my hypothesis. 1 Work by Ritchie (1978) is relevant to the situation described in

(3b),

where

operative in LI. E n g l i s h as w h i c h are

L2

has

Ritchie

some shows

principle activated w h i c h is not that

Japanese

adults learning

a second language constrain rightward movement rules, non-existent in

described as

Japanese, in

terms of

what would be

Subjacency, although he assumes an earlier formula-

tion of the principle.

In

other

words,

Japanese

adults, when

^-However, null expletives have been reported in interlanguages where neither LI nor L2 is a pro-drop language (e.g. Zobl 1984). It is possible that the null expletives and null referential pronouns should not, in fact, be treated as identical phenomena w i t h i n the pro-drop parameter. See Safir (1982) for discussion.

50

Universal grammar and language transfer

learning

English,

observe

instantiated in their LI,

a

universal principle w h i c h was not

suggesting that

parameters of

UG can

still be set for adults on exposure to an L2. The claims

outlined in (3c) are supported by research which

suggest that having to change word-order can

be

problematic.

For

Japanese and Chinese adults word order Muysken

avoid certain

differences between

(1981)

word-orders

show

by

that

Turkish

and branching direction

example, Schachter Ll and

the

and

(1974) claims that

structures because of

L2. Jansen, Lalleman and

acquisition

of

the

two Dutch

Moroccan immigrants is affected by

the Ll word-order, w i t h the former

preferring SOV

order and the

latter SVO. Flynn

(1983,

1984)

perhaps

is

the

first

to

pursue the

implications of the situation in (3c) from the point of view of a parameterized UG, and to suggest that where parameters differ, L2 acquisition might be where Ll

hindered.

She

tests

the

hypothesis that

and L2 m a t c h in branching direction, the acquisition of

complex sentences will be

facilitated,

and

match,

be

A d u l t native speakers of

acquisition

Spanish and

will

Japanese learning

involving adverbial tasks.

delayed.

Spanish,

English were

subordinate clauses,

like

English,

is

a

where

they

do not

tested on sentences

via elicited right-branching

imitation language

(heads are to the left of their complements), whereas Japanese is left-branching

(heads are to

the

do

Japanese

have

the right).

Her results

show that

more problems w i t h the structures tested

than the Spanish do, in accordance w i t h her hypothesis. A d j e m i a n and Liceras acquisition

of

(1984),

restrictive

in their

and English also report findings w h i c h and

(3d).

They

(COMP) systems of Spanish,

allows

look

at

are consistent

w i t h (3b)

the acquisition of the complementizer

different languages. English, unlike French or an

empty

COMP,

as in (6), where the relative

pronoun has been omitted: 6:

investigation of the

relative clauses in French, Spanish

The book I need is expensive

Lydia W h i t e

51

They find that native able

to

acquire

this

speakers of

native speakers of English difficulty in COMPs

from

speakers

losing it, LI

of

to

L2

French

French learning

ESL are

empty COMP, i.e. situation (3b), whereas learning

French

transferring the (situation

learning

language allows an empty

to

have some

possibility of empty

(3d)).

Spanish,

seem In

addition, native

where

COMP, nevertheless

neither

native

assume that Spanish

it. Since these subjects all knew English, this could

does allow

well be a case where evidence of other contributes to the current IL grammar.

languages that

one knows

1

Regarding the claim that a particular parameter should affect a range of structures in the IL grammar, in White

(1985, 1986b),

two of the three pro-drop characteristics are shown to be carried over into that

a

English by number

from the 1986),

of

parameter so

that

of modal

altogether

presence

at

of Spanish.

It turns out

(Chao

1981;

Safir

1982; Hyams

absence of VS order errors may be On

some

analyses

(Hyams 1986),

missing subjects crucially depends on the absence

auxiliaries

looking

or

parameter. 2

irrelevant to the possibility of

native speakers

recent linguistic analyses exclude the third

the

as

a

pro-drop

distinct

category.

Hilles

(1986),

parameter in the interlanguage of one

Spanish speaker learning English,

finds

modals in

the decrease in use of missing

the IL

coincides w i t h

that

the

emergence of

pronouns, suggesting that these apparently independent may be

related in

the ILG,

structures

as the parameterized approach would

predict. This analysis is particularly interesting since it looks at

aspects

of

parametric

variation

that

have

developmental

implications in L2 acquisition. 1 T h i s is not the interpretation they give to their results, although they do interpret them within the UG framework. 2 A n o t h e r possibility is that VS order is part of the pro-drop parameter and that it was not, for some reason, tapped by these grammaticality judgment tasks. Rutherford (personal communication) reports that he has many examples of VS order from Spanish learners of English, in written production data. In Schumann (1978), the transcripts of Alberto's speech include a number of examples of VS order as well.

52

Universal grammar and language transfer Flynn (1983,

branching

1984) also

direction

consequences

than

tries to

between overall

LI

show that differences in

and

L2

have

Lust (1981) claims that for LI acquisition direction ical anaphora

(i.e. the

more

difficulties w i t h complex

relationship between

subtle

sentences. of grammat-

pronouns and noun

phrases) accords w i t h the principal branching

direction (PBD) of

the language being learned. Flynn suggests that such a constraint may also be present in L2 acquisition , but confounded by the PBD LI, so

of the from

L2

will

grammatical

that native have

speakers of

particular

anaphora

in

L2.

branching

languages

where the

pronoun precedes

like

an LI whose PBD differs

difficulty

with

direction

of

According to the PBD claim, left-

Japanese

favour

the noun

backwards

it refers

anaphora,

to, as in (7b).

Right-branching languages like Spanish and English,

on the other

hand, favour forwards anaphora, as in (7a): 7a: b:

John went to a movie after he had dinner After he had dinner, John went to a m o v i e

(In both sentences, we are concerned only w i t h the interpretation where J o h n

and

speakers of learning

he

are

coreferential).

On

this

view, native

Japanese will be expected to have greater difficulty

English

structures

involving

anaphora

than

native

speakers of Spanish. Using sentences anaphora, subjects on than

the

Flynn

involving adverbial subordinate clauses and

found

b o t h forward Japanese,

acquisition of

that

the

performance

and backward

suggesting

anaphora where

a

of

her

Spanish

anaphora was m u c h better

general

depression

in

the

languages do n o t m a t c h in PBD. In

addition, while the Spanish subjects found forward anaphora cases significantly easier

than backward, the Japanese subjects showed

no significant difference between the two t y p e s . 1 l-The PBD claims for acquisition of anaphora were largely based on the situations pertaining in adverbial clauses (extensively studied by Flynn) and in conjoined clauses, w h i c h involve a different kind of anaphora. The facts regarding the possibilities for anaphora in Japanese are more complex and subtle than the PBD

Lydia W h i t e

53

4. COMPARISON W I T H OTHER APPROACHES

In recent theories of second language development, the finding of similarities in acquisition sequences and in error types to an

emphasis on

universal aspects of second language develop-

m e n t (e.g. Dulay and Burt 1974; Bailey, M a d d e n Dulay, Burt

has led

and Krashen

and Krashen 1974;

1982). In many cases, the assumption is

made that certain universal processes are at work, but these often rather

problems if considered from the learner's point of view 1976;

are

loosely defined and some of them involve conceptual

Corder

1978).

overgeneralization, neutral; they

In

(Adjemian

fact, universal strategies as loose as

simplification,

are compatible

and

transfer,

are

theory

w i t h many different theories as to

the nature of what is acquired by the L2 learner, and how. In some cases, more precise linguistic investigated, often

a number of recent papers have relative

clauses

in

the

noun-phrase accessibility conclusions

as

to

universals have been

within a typological framework. For example, looked at

the L2

acquisition of

context of Keenan and Comrie's hierarchy, and

whether

L2

learners

(1977)

have reached different do or do not transfer

resumptive pronouns and whether or not this relates theory alone allows. For example, backwards possible in the equivalents of sentences like:

to positions

anaphora is not

i. He said that John was unhappy In (i), the pronoun and the proper noun cannot refer to the same person, either in English or in Japanese. The fact that the pronoun precedes John is not sufficient to guarantee coreference in Japanese. One needs more detailed, structurally based principles, such as some version of the binding theory (Chomsky 1981a,1982), interacting w i t h X' theory, to account for the range of possibilities and, once one assumes such principles, m u c h of the PBD explanation of the acquisition of anaphora is rendered superfluous, since many of its claims fall out from the binding theory, w h i c h in addition accounts for cases that a PBD-based theory does not. The acquisition of L2 anaphora needs to be investigated on a wider range of syntactic structures than adverbial clauses, in order to determine the extent of the effects of word order differences on anaphora interpretation.

54 on

Universal grammar and language transfer Keenan

and

Comrie's

hierarchy

Kruse 1977; Gass 1979). What many clear is

the psychological

(e.g. Eckman 1977; loup and

of these

papers fail

to make

status of the hierarchy. Do learners

come equipped w i t h it or not, and, if not, how does it concern L2 acquisition? Theories of L2

development that accept UG as an explanatory

construct constitute an attempt to give precise content claims for

universals in

L2 acquisition and impute this content

to the learner. That is,

the

learner,

learner,

like

the

to these

LI

assumption

is

comes

acquisition w i t h specific linguistic

that

made

equipped

to

universals w h i c h

the L2 language

limit the

possibilities of grammar construction. There is a growing body of recent research that investigates the role tion (Ritchie and

1978; Liceras

Liceras

1984;

investigate the

of UG

in L2 acquisi-

1985; Sharwood Smith 1985; Adjemian

Mazurkewich

1984a,b).

A

few

specifically

implications of changing parameters of UG

(Flynn

1983,1984; Hilles 1986; Phinney 1987; W h i t e 1985, 1986b). I share with

all

of

these

assumptions

that

UG

is

still active, or

activatable, in L2 acquisition. However,

some

of

these

approaches

make

an

implicit or

explicit assumption that in L2 acquisition, as in LI acquisition, UG will interact directly w i t h the learned. In

other words,

it is

are

made

to

account

errors and the fact that the forms (Adjemian

this is dealt w i t h being that

in

a

U G can start from

effects the

grammar

from

Ll. Where

existence of transfer is

'permeable'

to Ll

1985; A d j e m i a n and Liceras 1984),

markedness

framework,

the assumption

transfer of the least marked aspects of Ll is likely.

Equivalent claims 1977; Kellerman

exist

outside

1979). However,

that this is not necessarily the to the

any for

IL

1976; Liceras

the language being

assumed that

scratch in L2 acquisition, without attempts

data from

ones outlined

the

UG

framework

(e.g.Eckman

see W h i t e (1986a) for arguments case. For

reasons very similar

in this paper, I propose that marked forms

are likely to be transferred to the L2, because they have already been motivated

in the Ll, so that the learner may fail to notice

when the L2 in fact does not contain marked forms.

Lydia W h i t e

55

My theory differs from many of those mentioned above in that I assume

that UG can take into account the existence of transfer

errors, that these are predictable variation between

the

basis

of parametric

LI and L2, and are likely in cases where there

is a conflict in the positive This differs

on

evidence available

in LI

and L2.

from the claims of traditional contrastive analysis

in a number of respects: a: I have distinguished three situations (3d))

which,

according

between the LI and L2, suggested that

to

CA,

and

hence

the differences

circumstances and

that

they

difficult. Specifically,

(those in (3b), (3c) and

would

constitute

difficulty.

are not will

differences

However,

I have

the same in these three

not

necessarily

be equally

I have proposed that (3d) constitutes a

potentially problematic situation for language learners,

if they

have only positive data to rely on. b:

Where

one

parameter

of

UG

has

a

range of consequences,

affecting a number of different structures, I have all

structures

related

to

connected in the IL of the them

will

affect

the

a

particular

learner, and

others.

In

proposed that

parameter

that changes

will

be

in one of

traditional CA, there is no

reason to assume that change in one structure should have

such a

subtle range of consequences. A number

of researchers have suggested that UG is n o t fully

available to adult learners w i t h other

systems, for

stage of Piaget proposal is

(Krashen

because

it

comes

into competition

example the formal operations cognitive and

Galloway

1978;

Felix

that one does not, in fact, need to go outside UG to

look for a source of conflict or competition for the that competition stress

universal

have focussed on the learners

of

aspects

parameter of

similar sequences

different

Lis

for

L2 acquisition

UG. Many theories

of second language acquisition the

of development acquisition

morphemes and certain syntactic structures. The applied to

L2 learner;

can be expected when two languages differ as to

the settings they adopt for some which

1985). My

shown by

of

theory of

various UG as

does not necessarily have anything to

56

Universal grammar and language transfer

say about acquisition sequences at all, unless it theory of

theory makes claims about the order (cf.

incorporates a

markedness and, in addition, it is assumed that such a

Liceras

1985;

Mazurkewich

of acquisition

in real time

1984a,b; Phinney 1987). For LI

acquisition, it may well be the case that some parameters are set before

others

potential

and

are

interaction

acquisition, one

necessary triggers to others. Given the between

data

from

LI

and

L2

in L2

cannot necessarily make such assumptions for L2

acquisition. The burden

of

providing

a

theory

of acquisition

through time may not rest w i t h UG at all, though it is clearly of great importance. The only made here

prediction for

acquisition sequences

is that, in certain circumstances, LI parameter values

will be instantiated in the IL grammar before

the appropriate L2

setting is acquired.

5. PEDAGOGICAL

IMPLICATIONS

Many second language learners differ from first language learners in one

possibly crucial

methods, correction

respect; that

is available

is, in

to the

effective is another matter. One aspect of the ative

language

teaching

is

to

structure as such; another is to

cut

m o s t L2 teaching

learner. Whether it is

down

m o v e to communicon

the teaching of

encourage communication without

interruption from corrections. A n implication of the situation in (3d) is

that truly

exposure to

L2, may

communicative teaching,

or totally

informal

leave gaps in the learner's knowledge, such

that he or she may never be able to lose the LI

setting, so that

LI forms will be particularly likely to fossilize in these cases. For those learners who do transfer LI forms

as a

result of such

circumstances, explicit correction or grammar teaching may be the only source of data to lead example, one that

change

in

their

grammars. For

may have to point out to native speakers of Spanish

pronouns

expecting

to

them

cannot to

be

notice

omitted that

in

English,

rather

than

this is the case. As mentioned

Lydia W h i t e

57

above, noticing

the

presence

of

pronouns

is

not necessarily

sufficient to show that English is not a pro-drop language. Thus, there appear to be some circumstances where depriving students of correction is

far more

problematic than is usually supposed, if

the student is aiming for accuracy as well as fluency in the L2. The situation discussed above cases where

positive evidence

is

in

complete

contrast to

is available in the L2 itself, as

is the case w i t h (3b) and (3c). Where the L2 data do

indicate an

explicit contrast w i t h LI, a difference that does not just depend on the absence of certain forms motivate the need to and

change in

for

the

the parameter

explicitly point

L2,

in

example.

L2,

is

positive data

in question;

out word-order This

the

not,

one may nor

differences between LI however, to rule out the

possibility that correction might provide a means of learner's

attention

to

certain

aspects

of

drawing the

the L2; the adult

learner, in particular, may sometimes find this useful. It m i g h t discussed teaching

appear

above in

talking

that

suggest

certain

about

the the

need

for

circumstances.

differences

However, for some learners, certain aspects

possibilities

of the

correction. implies

Thus,

it

prove

in

view some

of

and L2, this is not so.

have

second

measure,

language

means explicitly

useful

L2 which are not at all

this

retaining,

this

LI

others. Sometimes this focussing will

LI transfer

contrastive

If

between may

for

to

to

focus on

problematic for be

my

language

approaches

means of

acquisition to

language

teaching w h i c h are currently unfashionable. This approach to UG also has other implications of potential pedagogical interest: as we have a

range of

have seen,

syntactic structures may be might

be

that

one parameter

of UG may

consequences, as pro-drop does, in that several by

subsumed by

concentrating

one

the same

parameter. It

aspect of the parameter,

whether by explicit correction or otherwise, the teacher fact

be

initiating

grammar than might be concentrating on

a

much

wider

superficially

the lack

range

will in

of changes in the IL

expected.

For

example, by

of lexical pronouns in Spanish or the

58

Universal grammar and language transfer

required presence of lexical pronouns in English, the

teacher of

Spanish or English may be contributing to the learner's knowledge of subject these

extraction

languages

possibilities

without

from

embedded

clauses in

explicitly discussing this as an

ever

issue.

6. DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Most of the experimental universal

grammar

for

work investigating L2

acquisition has involved adults. One

possibility that needs to be investigated from Ll

the implications of

is whether

competition

parameters is only a problem for adult learners, whether

children have more suggested

by

privileged

claims

that

access

children

to

interference errors (Dulay and Burt 1974). children do

not have

the kinds

the

L2

data,

as is

make negligible numbers of If it

turns out that

of problems that adults do, one

might propose that difficulties in changing parameters of

UG are

the linguistic effects of a critical period for L2 acquisition. A second area of considerable interest involves the question of directionality. I have suggested that in situations like those described in

(3d), the

and w h i c h the acquisition. It

L2

question as

will

lead

m i g h t be

to

to w h i c h language is the Ll

differences

in

difficulty of

easier for a native speaker of English

to acquire a pro-drop language than it is for a native speaker of Spanish to

acquire a

n o n pro-drop

language. In situations like

those in (3c), on the other hand, the difficulty should be equal; that is,

the native

speaker of

an SOV

language should experience the same degree other way

round. Both

of these

language learning a SVO of difficulty

claims need

as the

to be investigated

experimentally. A third area w h i c h

is of

particular interest

concerns the

learning situation; I have suggested that circumstances like (3d)

Lydia W h i t e

59

may be particularly absence

of

some

difficult, parameter,

contrast to the learner.

in

that

L2

is

marked

by the

rather than presenting an explicit

As

a

result,

such

circumstances may

require negative evidence in order for the learner to acquire the relevant aspects of the target grammar. In the cases that investigated,

the

teachers

told

discuss the obligatory nature

me

of

that

lexical

I have

they did explicitly pronouns

in English,

thus supplying the necessary evidence. Such evidence is m u c h less likely to be available in an informal setting.

Hence there

is a

need to investigate adult learners who have learned their L2 in a totally informal corrected, to

environment

see whether

where

or not

they

are

unlikely

to get

these situations are problem-

atic for them.

7. CONCLUSION

It might be objected that approaches to L2 acquisition that focus on the

explanatory value

of UG

are over-concerned w i t h narrow,

structural issues, specifically syntactic ones, and neglect other explanations. In

fact, such

objections rest on a misconception.

UG is invoked to account for a particularly problematic aspect of LI acquisition,

namely the

question of

how the child creates a

grammar, given the poverty of the stimulus, and, as I have argued above, this is also a crucial question in L2 acquisition. This is not to exclude the fact that

there

are

many

other

aspects of

language and language use that the learner must also acquire, but explanations of how the latter complementary to, has to offer. In learners'

is

achieved

should

be

seen as

rather than replacing, the explanation that UG addition,

to

account for

psychological and of difficulty for

is

the

concentrating

try on

learner

by

theories

social factors. I have suggested that a source the

difficulties

many

transfer

of

Ll

parameters,

independent of psychological factors, although it w i t h them

and this is

might interact

in interesting ways; that is, given that some learners

Universal grammar and language transfer

60

do experience "psychological distance" be interesting quences of these

if one

(Schumann 1978),

could characterize

non-linguistic

it would

the linguistic conse-

influences.

These consequences

might be to get stuck w i t h an LI parameter setting. In conclusion,

I have

suggested in this paper, that UG can

explain a number of aspects of L2 acquisition, including cases of language transfer. In particular, transfer is to be expected when the LI and L2 data conflict in specific be along

parametric lines.

ways, and

In addition,

transfer will

my hypothesis predicts

that certain cases of transfer will be m u c h

more persistent than

others, w h i c h has certain consequences for L2 teaching. Though it is somewhat unusual approach to

to

focus

L2 acquisition,

on

transfer

within

a universal

it seems that the current theory of

UG, w i t h its interest in predicting

and accounting

for language

variation, is a particularly appropriate source of explanation of some of the similarities and differences that have

been observed

in the L2 acquisition of speakers of different mother tongues.

4 The relation between linguistic theory and second language acquisition: a biological perspective Mary-Louise Kean 1. INTRODUCTION

The goal of modern linguistic theory is frequently taken to be the formal characterization of human linguistic capacity, a theory of Universal Grammar (UG). Under this view, linguistic theory is responsible for the characterization of both the structure of human languages and the capacity which the normal child brings to the task of first language (LI) acquisition. Because the course of first language acquisition is essentially uniform across individuals independent of the language being acquired and because language functions are selectively impaired by selective brain damage in the adult, linguistic capacity is taken to be a biological endowment. Linguistic theory is, in this context, then a functional biological model. In research on second language (L2) acquisition, attempts have been made to apply linguistic theory to the analysis of L2 data (e.g., White 1983, 1985; Flynn and Espinal, 1985; Hilles, 1986; Van Buren and Sharwood Smith, 1985). The role of linguistic theory in explaining L2 phenomena varies considerably in this research. At one extreme, there are those who hold "that the principles of UG which determine LI acquisition also determine L2 acquisition" (Flynn and Espinal, 1985 p. 108); at the other extreme are those who argue that linguistic theory allows for increased precision in formulating questions about L2, but "that increased precision is no justification for applying linguistic theory in simplistic ways to theoretical problems of [L2] acquisition" (Van Buren and

62

A biological perspective

Sharwood Smith, 1985, p. 36). In this paper it will be argued that there is no justification for assuming that UG either can or should be directly responsible to the facts of L2 acquisition, but, at the same time, L2 research can make critical contributions to the development of the theory of human linguistic capacity.

2. A BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON LINGUISTIC CAPACITY

In linguistic discussions of LI acquisition, it is often assumed that the child encounters the experience of his/her linguistic environment with a fully developed, operational theory of UG which serves to define the domain of learning and constrain the tacit hypotheses the child will adopt in the course of acquisition (e.g., Lightfoot, 1982; Hyams, 1983). This assumption is biologically implausible . The human nervous system undergoes extensive postnatal development (Conel, 1939-1959); this includes progressive changes in the substrate of linguistic capacity during maturation. The biological endowments of young language users change then during the course of acquisition. Two basic variables influence the development of the nervous system: maturation and experience. In the classic demonstration of this, Weisel and Hubel (1965) showed that the functional architecture of the visual system changes in response to specific visual experience at particular points in time. Biological parsimony therefore dictates that linguistic theory, UG, be taken as a characterization of an emergent property of the nervous system. (Kean, in press). If the assumption that linguistic theory is a functional biological model is taken seriously, then it must be predicted that ontogenetic variation in the structure of language relevant components of the nervous system will give rise to variation in the structure of linguistic capacity. If variation in function is

Mary-Louise K e a n not found

63

in relation

to variation in neural architecture, then

the claim that linguistic theory has biological content is either false or

at such

a level

of abstraction as to be devoid of any

interesting or significant empirical be offered

to illustrate

content. Two

examples will

the fact that linguistic capacity does

vary in consequence to ontogenetic variation in the substrate. Developmental dyslexia

is diagnostically

a specific reading

disorder; the diagnosis requires that the individual be of normal intelligence and motivation, have had appropriate acquire

reading

skills,

psychiatric disorder.

and

In a

developmental dyslexics, anomalies

series of

organization of

preferentially areas

of

Sherman, Rosen,

studies o n

the brains of

Galaburda and his colleagues have found

anomalies in the cellular cortical

opportunity to

not suffer clinical neurologic or

the

occurring left

Aboitz, and

brain areas

in

cerebral

w i t h the

language

responsible

hemisphere

(Galaburda,

Geschwind, in

press). The develop-

ment of these anomalies is of prenatal origin, dating to the time of

the

involve

formation atypical

atypicalities

of

the cortex. Structurally, these anomalies

patterns

of

of

cellular

organization

produce

growth and connectivity in the brain. mental dyslexic qualitative

organization.

anomalous

The brain

Such

patterns

of

of the develop-

represents therefore a case where there has been

ontogenetic

variation

in

the

structure

of

the

substrate of linguistic capacity. By

definition,

developmental

developmental aphasia order. Indeed,

in any

or

any

dyslexics

other

do

transparent

terse

just

as

nondyslexics.

atypicality of linguistic does

not,

however,

The

behaviour

entail

that

functionally the same as that studies of

phonological and provides data

readers (including

language dis-

of

in their

being loquacious

seeming

absence of any

developmental dyslexics linguistic capacity is

nondyslexics.

In

a

range of

syntactic capacity in developmental

dyslexia, anomalies in linguistic processing have M a n n (1984)

suffer

conversation w i t h a dyslexic discourse is

fluent and conventional; dyslexics vary between and

not

from longitudinal

dyslexics)

have

problems

been reported.

research that poor w i t h phonological

64

A biological perspective

processing. Vellutino

(1979) and Vogel

of problems w i t h inflectional mental dyslexics.

difficulties

dyslexia

subtle ontogenetic substrate

of

syntax in develop-

Kean (1984) reports that a subset of dyslexics

encounter specific Developmental

(1975) both offer evidence

morphology and with

provides

variation

linguistic

referential dependencies.

then

in

critical

the

capacity

evidence

structure

can

yield

that

the neural

of

variation in the

structure of linguistic capacity. Quantitative variation in the structure of the brain may also selectively

influence

Down's syndrome

the

there is

w h i c h preferentially

structure of linguistic capacity. In a quantitative

affects a

neuron cells (Ross, Galaburda, and study

of

language

curtailment of neurons

specific and ubiquitous class of

development

Kemper, in

1984).

Down's

In

an early

syndrome, Lenneberg

(1964, cited in Lenneberg, 1967) found that the onset of language acquisition

was

frozen at an

delayed

early

itudinal study,

and

Fowler

acquisition

she

proceeded

children. The course of

its

progress was seemingly

stage.

In

a

detailed long-

(1984) also found a delay in the onset of

acquisition, but, strikingly, course

that

developmental

found

at

the

that same

normal acquisition

over rate

its active as in normal

in Down's

seems to

cease at the level of linguistic competence typically achieved by a normal 2 1/2 year old some

individuals,

(mean length

Fowler

found

of utterance

that

3.0-3.5). In

period

of

followed by

development. As

this is a retarded population, it is critical to

the pattern

independent of

of language

other aspects

substrate

yields

development was

anomalous

found to be

of cognitive development. The data

from Down's syndrome therefore neural

of structurally

normal

development was note that

a period

the

also show

selective

that variation

variation

in

in the

linguistic

capacity. Data from both developmental provide

evidence

that

the

structure

of

development, it is

the

of

nervous

plausible

and

Down's syndrome

structure of the nervous system has

consequences for the structure the

dyslexia

to

linguistic

capacity. Because

system changes in the course of argue

that

the

structure of

Mary-Louise K e a n linguistic

65

capacity

is

development. This

view

Lenneberg

and

(1967)

also was

changing first

was

through

the

prominently

course of

put

forward by

reiterated by Gleitman (1981) on the

basis of Fowler's data on

Down's

syndrome.

language

normal

children has also been used to

argue

acquisition

that

course of

in

linguistic

capacity

acquisition. Just

changes,

Recent

research on

matures

through the

such findings are to be expected if

the assumption of a biological foundation

of linguistic capacity

is taken seriously. The brain

of a

in structure or

child is not a miniature adult brain either

function;

brain

systems

underlying linguistic

capacity and the functions subserved change through the course of development. In consequence, UG must be the nervous

system. Under

m a t u r e and become available acquisition. The

an emergent

property of

this interpretation, components of UG to the

child engages

child through

w i t h the

his/her linguistic environment under

the course of

experience provided by

constraints imposed

by the

currently available functional capacity. The specific

character of

functional capacities changes in

response to experience. The data system

cited

earlier

(Weisel

on

development

of

the visual

and Hubel, 1965) illustrate this

point. Operating under temporal constraints, the visual cortex is poised to

engage w i t h

specific visual experience; the nature of

the experience encountered during the critical period dramatically

influences

the

character

of development within the nervous

system (Blakemore, 1974). It is structure

of

the

linguistic

reasonable substrate

developmental experience. It would, to assume

that the

for a speaker of

to is

assume

that the

also influenced by

for example,

be implausible

neural representation of linguistic capacity

Turkish is

identical to

that of

a speaker of

German; if they were identical that could only m e a n

that German

and Turkish are identical, and that is surely not so. Cross-linguistic data on provide

evidence

capacity varies

that as a

the

acquired

language

disorders also

neural representation of linguistic

consequence of

the native

language of an

66

A biological perspective

individual. A translation of the speech output of an aphasic speaker of one language into any arbitrarily chosen other language will not be a felicitous rendering of the speech of an aphasic in the second language. If the languages are closely related typologically (e.g. German and Dutch) then of course the translation will be more felicitous than if the languages are typologically unrelated (e.g., Walbiri and Italian). But, this only serves to illustrate the point that what is neurally represented in speakers of German and Dutch is more similar than what is neurally represented in speakers of Walbiri and Italian. Since the functional substrate linguistic capacity of an adult is distinct from that of a child and the functional substrate varies among adult speakers of different languages, it follows that UG should not be expected to provide an explanation for L2 acquisition as well as LI acquisition. That is, if the focus of linguistic theory is on LI and biological parsimony is demanded, then UG cannot provide an account for both LI and L2 acquisition, and the point of view put forward by Flynn and Espinal must be rejected. Alternatively, if one abandons any pretense of biologism in linguistic theory, then one might attempt to develop a theory of acquisition which covered both the observations of LI and L2 as well as characterizing the structure of the language. It is doubtful however that any such enterprise could be successful or of interest since the functional structure of learners in the two contexts is distinct.

3. LINGUISTIC THEORY AND L2 ACQUISITION

To argue that the theory of UG will not provide an account for L2 acquisition on a par with the one it provides for LI acquisition is not to argue that UG is irrelevant to the analysis of L2 acquisition. Consideration of UG is critical in the analysis of L2 phenomena in two regards. On the one hand, UG provides a

67

Mary-Louise K e a n detailed framework

for analyzing structural data from L2; on the

other, considered in the context of studying how

the representation

quence of the combined influences The normatively second

language

L2 it

(/prescriptively) defective

L2 grammars of

the grammars of their

learners,

means for

varies as a conse-

of maturation and experience.

(Selinker, 1972), are typically taken to grammars. The

provides a

of language

interlanguages

be formally well-formed

nature of their anomaly arises from their deviance

from the grammar of a native speaker of the target L2. This testable

empirical

assumption.

provides a characterization possible

natural

first

In

of

principle,

all

and

only

The

variable properties of

human

different

combinations of

languages;

variables.

The

languages characterized

rather set

in

terms

of para-

are

possible

linkages natural

among (first)

by UG is then a proper subset of the set

well-formed under

sistent parameter settings be critical test

parameter settings are

there

of

of logically possible parameter are indeed

UG

the biologically

the child must set in the course of acquisition. It

is n o t the case that all possible

is a

theory of UG

languages.

human languages are characterized within meters w h i c h

a

settings. UG, then

If

L2 interlanguages

in no case should incon-

encountered.

UG

provides

then a

of the nature of the object under consideration in

L2 research. As the effective learning procedures for ition are

necessarily distinct, a finding that L2

are not well-formed under UG would ing. That

LI and

is, if

it were

were well-formed in terms

not be

L2 acquis-

interlanguages

particularly

surpris-

found that all interlanguage grammars of UG,

that would

suggest that there

are two distinct mechanisms for language learning, one for LI and another for While that

L2, and is a

that the

outputs of

logical possibility,

these are isomorphic.

it is

n o t a particularly

plausible one. There are four candidate explanations for findings of seeming convergence between L2 representations and representations that are wellformed under UG.

68

A biological perspective

First, there are invariant principles of language structure, e.g., structure dependence (Chomsky, 1971). Invariant principles become available in the course of maturation and no learning is required. Thus, if the L2 learner is exploiting his/her available linguistic resources, then these invariant principles should be available and operative in the L2 as in the LI. If structural relations in L2's conform to the invariant principles of UG, that would be compelling evidence that second language learners are processing and representing their L2's through the critical exploitation of their innate linguistic capacity. Such a finding would place powerful constraints on the class of learning and processing procedures which are available for L2 acquisition. Second, there could be transfer from the well-formed LI into the target L2. The mechanisms of learning in such cases are not of a kind with the mechanisms of parameter setting found in first language acquisition since parameter settings are being copied not set. Taking UG to be an emergent property of the system, no parameter setting with the course encountered in first language acquisition should be encountered. White's data (1986b) indicating that markedness considerations do not function in L2 acquisition as they do in LI, supports the notion of UG as an emergent property of the system and its corollary that parameter setting (in the sense of LI acquisition) will not be encountered in L2. Transfer provides a critical vehicle for postulating structural representations in the target L2. It does not, however, insure that the grammar of the interlanguage taken as a whole will be allowable under UG. The combination of transferred structures and innovative L2 structures might not constitute one of the languages represented by UG. Third, it may well be the case that language processing mechanisms constrain the class of possible linguistic representations such that only representations which are well-formed under UG are realizable. To claim that, however, is only to claim that the structural representations generated in processing will include as a proper subset the sets of structures which constitute the languages sanctioned by UG. That is, UG characterizes

Mary-Louise K e a n not only

69

the structures

them; e a c h

but also

structure of

co-occurrence relations among

the interlanguage

could be grammatical

for some language, but the set of structures taken together might not

be

well-formed

a

language.

The

resources available beyond invariant since structural that

strategies

become

place. Attempting

under this view functional

and transfer

innovation away from LI does occur. It could be

processing

learning takes

L2 learner obviously has

UG principles

could

capacity

acquisition, then

lead of

to

the

L2 research

a

mechanism

through which

to process novel L2 structures structural

processor

innovation.

does

can provide

If the

play a role in L2

critical evidence on

its structure. Fourth,

it

could

also

be

the case that the learning and

processing mechanisms employed in fall

outside

the

domain

nevertheless, yield to those

of

some

the

aspects

language

representations w h i c h

of

L2 learning

faculty, but will,

are weakly equivalent

found in the languages characterized by UG. If the (LI)

processor the

learner

deterministic, then

brings

to

the

task

of

acquisition is

it must be the case that factors outside the

core m o d u l e of human linguistic capacity are playing a role in L2 acquisition.

A

deterministic

processor

will

only yield well-

formed structures and allows for no back tracking.

To the extent

the L2 differs from the LI, a deterministic processor will not be able to compute

representations;

any

analysis

by

the learner

would, therefore, have to be undertaken u s i n g extramodular metalinguistic and nonlinguistic) problem solving skills sort.

L2

analysis

learners of

(e.g., of some

exploiting extralinguistic capacities in the

sentences

representations w h i c h skills are used, two

must, do not

by

definition,

fall under

questions of

be

generating

UG. To the extent such

interest are

raised. To what

extent does their use persist independent of L2 proficiency? And, where the u s e of such ciency,

by

what

skills

mechanism

being instructed? The latter for the

diminishes

with

increased profi-

is the linguistic processing system question is

of critical

importance

development of any understanding of how human linguistic

capacity interacts w i t h other cognitive capacities.

70

A biological perspective It is the questions raised by

analyzing convergence

these four

between the

possibilities for

theory of UG and the analysis

of L2 data w h i c h are at the heart of theoretical consideration of L2 phenomena.

Because human

endowment whose mature

linguistic capacity is a biological

character

is

shaped

by

m a t u r a t i o n and

experience, UG cannot be directly responsible for the facts of L2 acquisition.

Second

interesting

if

we

language find,

learning procedures and from those as

well

as

acquisition we

is

none

the

less

should expect to do, that its

representations

vary

in

some respects

characterized through UG. Cases of divergence from UG as

understanding

convergence the

with

growth

and

UG

provide

maturity

critical of

human

data

for

linguistic

capacity. As theories of UG characterize an emergent property, it is

only

through

structure and addressed.

L2

function

research of

that

mature

many

questions

linguistic

about the

capacity

can be

5 Syntax and stylistics: more on the pro-drop parameter Juana M . Liceras

1.

INTRODUCTION

The Government and Binding theory (Chomsky, 1981, 1982) provides a rich framework for the investigation of L2 acquisition. Specifically, the concept of parameter setting has been useful to make precise hypotheses about transfer (Van Buren and Sharwood Smith 1985, White 1985, 1986), difficulty of acquisition (Mazurkewich 1984, Flynn 1986) or permeability (Liceras 1985, 1986a). That research has proven to be fruitful in that it has contributed a finer specification of the principles that may be relevant to L2 acquisition theory. However, it has also pointed to the fact that the properties which cluster around a given parameter may not constitute a global learning unit for L2 learners. Namely, the acquisition of a given property does not, or may not, necessarily trigger the setting of the parameter as a whole. Furthermore, a careful look at any of the parameters discussed in the literature shows that resetting a parameter cannot be thought of as a straightforward task, not even with respect to a given property because it involves learning the properties of a given category as well as the idiosyncratic features of a particular construction.

*Research for this project was supported by a grant from the School of Graduate Studies of the University of Ottawa. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Language Acquisition Research Symposium (LARS), Utrecht, The Netherlands, September 1986.

72

More o n the pro-drop parameter To illustrate those points I have investigated the resetting

of

one

work: the

of

the

best

so-called

defined parameters in current theoretical

'pro-drop'

parameter.(Chomsky 1981, Jaeggll

1982, Rizzi 1982) w h i c h differentiates, for instance, Spanish and Italian (+PD) from English and French (-PD). The

properties that

have been assigned to this parameter can be described as follows: a:

Spanish, unlike English or French, can have missing subjects as shown in (1) and (2): 1:

pro salieron a las ocho *left at eight they left at eight

2:

pro llovió mucho ayer *rained a lot yesterday it rained a lot yesterday

pro is the empty category w h i c h has to have an

overt counterpart

in English or French. b:

Spanish can have free subject-verb inversion as in (3): 3:

pro han llegado mis estudiantes *have arrived my students my students have arrived

c:

Spanish can have apparent violations of the so-called that-t filter as indicated in (4): 4: ¿Quién^ has dicho pro que

va a venir?

*Who did you say that is going to come? Who did you say is going to come? Que

has to be placed before the t left by quién w h e n wh-movement

applies. d:

Spanish can have long wh-movement as shown in (5):

Juana M. Liceras

5:

73

Ese hombre-^ que pro me pregunto a quien t¿ habrá visto *That man¿ that I wonder whom he¿ may have seen

The subject of the ized in Spanish.

embedded clause (ese hombre) can be relativ-

The acquisition of this parameter by native speakers of Spanish learning English has been studied - with different approaches and methodologies - by White (1985) and Hilles (1986). White's aims were to determine firstly whether the carrying over of pro-drop in Spanish was a potential source of transfer errors in the English interlanguage and secondly whether the nonoccurrence of one of the properties discussed above is sufficient to trigger the loss of all of them. The subjects in White's study were Spanish and French speakers - the second group was used as control - learning English in a classroom setting. Hilles, following Hyams' (1983) framework and methodology wanted to determine firstly whether there was a correlation between the emergence of lexical material in AUX (modals) and the decrease of missing subjects in the English interlanguage1 and secondly whether the emergence of expletives, acting as a trigger, would coincide with the emergence of lexical material in AUX and the decrease of pro-drop; and thirdly whether pro-drop - being the unmarked option - would occur in the initial stages. Hilles assumed - following Hyams (1983) among others - that free inversion and that-t were not related to the pro-drop parameter. In Hilles' study there was a 12 year old subject whose spontaneous speech had been elicited over a 10 month period.2

^•In Hyams' (1983) analysis, the presence of pro in the AGR node excludes the presence of lexical material (such as modals) in the AUX node, and vice versa. 2 Hilles used transcripts of the IL of a subject from a longitudinal SLA study by Cancino et al. (1978). She chose Jorge, a 12-year-old from Columbia, who had moved to Boston.

74

More on the pro-drop parameter Hilles

found

interlanguage as

pro-drop well

as

in a

the

initial

coincidence

stages of Jorge's

in

the

emergence of

expletives, lexical material in AUX and decrease of pro-drop. All this happened around the sixth month. While it finding, it may

is an interesting

neither be an indication of the triggering value

of expletives, nor of the

status

of

pro-drop

as

the unmarked

option. In fact, the missing pronouns of the initial stages could be due to transfer evidence

of

a

from Spanish.

developmental

missing pronouns in the speakers

of

French,

To prove

stage

early

,

stages

German

or

that they constitute

one

of

any

would have to find

the

interlanguage of

other - P D language. White

(1985) found that French speakers seldom fail to identify missing pronouns. Nonetheless it is problematic to compare the results of the two studies because they differ w i t h respect to subjects' age and the

elicitation techniques.

However, it cannot be concluded

that the omission of pronouns by Jorge evidences

a developmental

stage rather than transfer. The

fact

that

expletives,

decrease of missing pronouns Jorge's interlanguage act as a trigger to pronouns. That

lexical

occur

material

around

the

in

same

AUX and period in

does not necessarily prove that expletives posit

the

obligatory

presence

of subject

coincidence might well be due to overall develop-

ment in the acquisition of Spanish. Namely, a number of constructions not

related to

pro-drop will also emerge at the very same

time. There is a further technique:

the

fact

problem that

a

concerning construction

Hilles' is

not

conversation does not necessarily m e a n that it does the

interlanguage.

In

subjects to judge a

this

respect,

given construction.

elicitation used

in a

not exist in

White's technique forced It was

not the

u s e of

various properties of pro-drop but the judgments on the sentences that showed with

that more

increasing

missing pronouns

levels

of

inversions were always rejected seldom property

detected. was

not

In

other

sufficient

were correctly

proficiency, and that

words,

the

to

trigger

that

rejected

subject-verb

that-t violations were non-occurrence loss

of

the

of one other

Juana M. Liceras properties,

75

which

indicates

that learners may require separate conclusion seems

evidence for each aspect of the parameter. This to be

further confirmed

when one investigates the properties of

the pro-drop parameter from the point of view

of the acquisition

of a (+PD) language such as Spanish.

2. LEARNING A (+PD) LANGUAGE

Besides

resetting

the

pro-drop

parameter

w i t h respect to the

properties listed in section 1, F r e n c h and English

speakers have

to acquire the following knowledge concerning the category pro: Optionality

versus

optionally or

obligatoriness:

obligatorily

construction. For

instance, pro

6:

subject

depending

in (1)

overt counterpart as shown in (6), pleonastic pro in

A

deleted

can be

but the

pronoun on

the

can be type of

replaced by its

overt counterpart of

(2) yields an ungrammatical

result:

Ellos salieron a las ocho They left at eight

7: *Ello llovió mucho ayer It rained a lot yesterday F r e n c h and

English speakers

learning Spanish

have to differen-

tiate pleonastic and non-pleonastic pro. If both instances of pro are related, it should be the case that missing pronouns will not occur if expletives have not

been

eradicated

from

the Spanish

interlanguage. The properties

of pro and its overt counterpart: As Suner

has shown, pro

can receive

both

an

arbitrary

and

(1983)

a specific

interpretation, exactly as English 'they' in (8) and (9).

76

More on the pro-drop parameter 8: 9:

pro llaman a la puerta they are knocking at the door Lola dijo que pro han confirmado la noticia Lola said that they have confirmed the piece of news

On the other hand, the overt pronominal ellos can only receive specific interpretation both in (6) above and (10). 10:

Ellos llaman a la puerta They are knocking at the door

In this case we know who ellos are. Subject inversion: Subject-verb inversion is supposed to be free so that the NP in (3) above can optionally occur before the verb, as shown in (11): 11:

Mis estudiantes han llegado My students have arrived

However, if the distinction between ergative and non-ergative verbs proposed by Burzio (1981) and Chomsky (1982) has its roots in actual native speakers' intuitions, inversion may have a different status depending on the type of verb.1 According to Burzio (1981), the NP that occurs with ergative verbs is generated in post-verbal position in the case of (11), but not in the case of the non-ergative verb in (12), as indicated in (13) and (14). 12:

Han telefoneado mis estudiantes My students have phoned

^•Burzio (1981) maintains that ergative verbs do not assign case to their direct object but do assign a theta-role to it (presumably theme). Bouchard (1982) provides a different analysis. He maintains that ergative verbs are assigned nominative case at LF level, not at the syntactic level. This is so because it is at the level of LF that (+PD) languages assign case. It is the NP that is assigned nominative case because there is a missing subj ect.

Juana M. Liceras 13: 14:

77

pro^ han llegado mis estudiantes^ [e]¿ han telefoneado mis estudiantes^

According to this analysis, there should be a clear preference for inversion in this case of ergative verbs,1 the fronting of the NP being the exception. On the other hand, the NP will usually occur in pre-verbal position with non-ergative verbs.2 Referentiality: As Montalbetti (1984) and Lujan (1985, 1986) have shown, lexically specified pronouns carry an interpretive behaviour not shared by corresponding phonologically null pronouns. Thus, the presence of the lexically specified pronoun in (15) and (16) is not optional because the coreferential interpretation of the indexed pronouns is only possible in (15). 15:

Cuando Juan^ trabaja, {él^/OjJ no bebe When Juan works {HE^ /he^} does not drink

16:

Cuando {*él¿/0¿} trabaja, Juan^ no bebe When {HE^/he^} works , Juan does not drink

•••The structures (1981) are:

assigned

to

these

constructions

in

Chomsky

(13)a [VP han llegado [NP mis estudiantes]] (14)a [VP [VP han telefoneado] [NP mis estudiantes]]] 2 In fact, inversion is more of a complicated phenomenon than it looks when the properties of (+PD) languages are listed in the literature. Torrego (1984) maintains that in addition to free subject inversion, Spanish has an obligatory inversion rule that applies obligatorily when a wh-phrase of a certain kind or its trace appears in COMP prior to logical form LF in finite clauses, as illustrated in (a) and (b):

a:

Qué querían esos dos? 'What did those two wanted?1 *Qué esos dos querían?

b: Con quién vendrá Juan hoy? 'With whom will Juan come today?' *Con quién Juan vendrá hoy? The examples are taken from Torrego (1984). She also discusses the relationship between adverb placement and inversion.

78

More o n the pro-drop parameter

In (-PD) languages, the contrast depends pronoun

is

stressed

or

not.

Thus,

on whether

the subject

native French and English

speakers will have to identify that contrast in Spanish. Syntax and stylistics: The that

there

various

is

clear-cut

properties

inversion

is

language. On and some

that

regulated

distinction

have by

the other

cases This

been

among

assigned

of

the

stylistic

hand, pleonastic

inversion

situation

has

far shows

and w i t h i n the to

the pro-drop

are

component

of

the

pro, that-t violations

regulated

at

the syntactic

consequences for the acquisition of

both a (+PD) and a (-PD) language. In may not

described so

the one hand, the presence of missing pronouns and

parameter. O n

level.

a

Spanish data

the former

case, learners

be transferring their grammaticality judgments but their

stylistic preferences. That could explain the fact that inversion was seldom

accepted by

White's (1985)

sentences where inversion was ergative

verbs

(in

Burzio's

subjects: the two simple

rejected

were

instances

terms),

thus

SV

preferred order in Spanish. 1 Also, it may well an

important

respect to factors

factor

in

the

need

of

subject

the

which

account

ambiguity, redundancy, ation, emphasis,

for

resetting their

of non-

would

be the

be

the

case that

of (+PD) to (-PD) w i t h

pronouns

be

the

'stylistic'

presence in Spanish. Namely,

facilitating

the

processing

etc. Consequently, learners would not

of inform'realize'

^-White's (1985) simple sentences were: 13: 15:

Slept the baby for three hours Walk the boy very far

A further explanation to why these two sentences might have been systematically rejected is the ambiguity that SV inversion created in English: the post-verbal NP would be interpreted as a direct object. This ambiguity would never be possible in Spanish because [+human] DOs are marked w i t h a,as in (a) and (b): a: b:

pro durmió al niño he put the baby to sleep pro paseó al niño he took the baby for a walk

It may well be the case that lack of [+human] DO marking role in the resetting of the free SV inversion property.

play a

J u a n a M. Liceras that a

79

subject pronoun

has to

be present

w h e n it is obviously

redundant, while they will insert it otherwise. 1 The

resetting

of

a

(+PD)

language

poses

the

following

questions: 1:

W i l l French and English speakers

'realize' that Spanish is a

(+PD) language with respect to all four properties described above

or

will

they

require separate evidence for some of

the aspects of the parameter? 2 2.

Is there any evidence of an

ergative/non-ergative

distinct-

ion in the subjects' acceptance and production of inversion? 3.

Are subjects

in command of the stylistic conventions which

govern the presence of overt subject pronouns in Spanish? 4.

Is there any relationship of

the

pro-drop

grammatical and

between

parameter

and

the the

syntactic resetting subjects'

overall

stylistic competence in Spanish?

l-This may explain the differences found her sentences 8 and 22, for instance.

by White

(1985) between

8: My sister is very tired because pro came home late last night 22: John is greedy, pro eats like a pig While the presence of he in 22 would be absolutely redundant, the presence of she would clarify that it is the speaker's sister not himself/herself who came home late. 2 B o u c h a r d (1982) argues that (+PD) languages such as Italian and Spanish allow empty category pro in subject position as well as inversion because a) they can assign case at LF; b) their rich inflexion accounts for the assignment of R - i n d e x and F-features to pro.

80

More on the pro-drop parameter

3. THE STUDY

In order to investigate those issues, two French and two English adults who spoke Spanish as a foreign language were tested on various constructions related to pro-drop and their spontaneous speech was also recorded. 3.1. Subj ects The French speakers were M.A. students in our Spanish M.A. programme at the University of Ottawa. They had been studying Spanish for 6 years. None of the two had ever visited a Spanishspeaking country. The English speakers were two young journalists who had had a few weeks of formal training in Spanish but had lived in Spain for eight months immediately before they were contacted for our study. All four subjects were chosen because their Spanish was judged to be equally good by three native speakers who judged the recorded spontaneous speech of 12 non-native subjects. They were students in our Spanish M.A. programme. 3.2. Method All subjects were asked to tell a story and to perform a grammaticality judgment task. The story-telling task was recorded. Subjects were asked to talk about a movie or any story they might want to talk about. The grammaticality judgments tests consisted of 14 items which contained instances of missing pronouns, overt subject pronouns, expletives, subject-verb inversion and that-t sentences (see Appendix). Subjects were asked to identify the sentences that were incorrect and give the correct version. They were also asked to give acceptable versions of the sentences that were correct but did not look 'appro-

J u a n a M. Liceras priate'.

This

'stylistics'.

81 was

done

in

order

to

test

their

command of

1

There were

cases of redundant subject pronouns such as those

in #1 and #2. #1:

Pedro esta muy cansado. El ha dormido como u n cesto Pedro is very tired. He has slept like a log

El would not be used in Spanish because it is redundant and could be interpreted as non-coreferential w i t h Pedro. #2:

Durmió el nino durante tres horas y nosotros pudimos descansar Slept the boy for three hours and we were able to rest

Nosotros is

redundant because

pudimos already indicates that it

has to be nosotros. Subjects were supposed to delete both nosotros, though

el and

the presence of nosotros could have a contrast-

ing effect. There were cases of expletives such as: #5: *Ello hace u n viento horrible It is very windy The sentence is ungrammatical when ello is present. to

Subjects had

delete ello. There were instances of pleonastic and non-pleonastic pro as

in: #14:

pro empieza a haber mucho ruido aqui It is beginning to be very noisy here

1

N o instance of long wh-movement (4) in section 1 - was included because both native and non-native subjects had difficulties interpreting those sentences in previous studies.

More on the pro-drop parameter

82

#6:

pro cenan a las diez porque viven realmente a la española they have supper at ten because they really live the Spanish way

Subjects were supposed to accept these sentences as such. Some instances of non-pleonastic pro had unspecified reference: #3:

Ana quiere decirnos como pro se llega a su casa Ana wants to tell us how to get/one gets to her house

In #3 pro does not have any specific reference. Subjects were supposed to accept sentence #3 as such.1 Item #2 (see appendix) is an instance of inversion involving a non-ergative while the verb in item #7 belongs to the ergative group. Subjects were supposed to accept #7 but not #2. Subjects had to identify the ungrammaticality of item #8, in which the complementizer que is missing. 3.3. Results: the syntactic level 3.3.1. Missing subjects All missing subjects with specified reference (items #6, #7, #8 and #11 in the grammatically judgments task) were accepted by all subjects (see appendix). The cases of missing subjects with unspecified reference involve SE-constructions (items #3 and #9). The two native subjects accepted all three instances. All the non-native subjects had problems with these constructions, as indicated in table 1. Jill and Larry crossed out the two se forcing a reading with specified reference. Louise crossed out the se and put the verb in the infinitive form, keeping the unspecified reference without pro + se. Anne circled se es and wrote a question mark. l-See Suñer (1982, 1983) for pro.

an

analysis

of

the

properties of

Juana M. Liceras Except for

83

Louise who accepted it, similar corrections were made

in the case of item #3. In Larry's case the

se was

kept but, in

of the sentence, pro has a specific reference

his interpretation

w h i c h includes Ana, the subject of the main verb. The stories told by all subjects contained a large number of missing pronouns

w i t h specified

w i t h unspecified reference,

reference. Two instances of pro

with

the

verb

in

the

3rd person

plural - as in (8) above - were produced by Anne and Louise. These results

indicate that pro-drop is well established in

the interlanguage of our

subjects. Cases

of pro

+ se

were the

only instances of pro w h i c h were neither produced nor accepted by the non-native speakers. This those constructions,

since pro

pro w i t h intransitive or realization of "uno"

( + ) * * *

due to

the ambivalence of

may be interpreted as pleonastic

existential verbs

or as

the non-overt

(one).

#3 pro se llega Larry Jill Louise Anne native 1 native 2

may be

#9 pro se es

pro se deben* llegar** + se + +

#9 pro no se es

se se ser (to be) •>

+ +

se se ser ? +

+

acceptance of pro they should get together to arrive

Table 1: Grammaticality judgments. Acceptance of pro w i t h unspecified reference 3.3.2. Expletives The only

instance of

a lexicalized

expletive

was rejected by all subjects. Pleonastic pro in the existential constructions all subjects.

(ello in item #5) item #15

and in

(items #4, #9, #10) was accepted by

84

More on the pro-drop parameter All the stories contained

existential

ones.

No

instances

instances

of

expletives, mainly

of lexicalized expletives were

produced. This indicates that pleonastic pro has been acquired by all subjects. 3.3.3. T h a t - t B o t h native #8 in the

speakers and

Louise put que (that) before t in item

grammaticality

accepted

the

judgment

ungrammatical

que or quien if they transferred native language.

The fact

task.

The

other subjects

sentence. French speakers would put the qui

that Anne

w h i c h occurs

did not

in their

write any lexical

item may be due to her knowledge of English. No

instances

of

that-t

constructions

occurred

in

the

stories. It should be noted that the subjects did not produce any empty complementizer such as in (17) or 17: 18:

Mary said

she is coming

She is the woman

Consequently,

we

accepted

English

the

accept the

ungrammatical.

In

we were looking for

cannot

Spanish

(18):

determine

version

equivalents previous

whether

the

subjects

who

of that-t in Spanish, would also of

(17)

and

(18),

w h i c h are

studies (Adjemian and Liceras 1984;

Liceras 1986a) it was found that advanced learners of Spanish did not accept

instances of

empty complementizers

such as those in

(17) and (18) but accepted cases of missing que such item

#8,

which

indicates

that

that-t

as those in

constructions

are not

perceived as being similar to (17) and (18) above. 3.4.

Results: The stylistic level

3.4.1. Inversion Table 2 shows that inversion w i t h accepted

by

the

two

subjects accepted inversion in verb.

dormir (non-ergative)

was not

native subjects. As expected, both native the case

of llegar,

an ergative

Juana M. Liceras

85

#2 durmió el niño (slept the boy) Larry Jill Louise Anne native 1 native 2

#7 llegó Juan (arrived Juan)

+

+ +

+ + +

-

-

-

-

-

-

(+) acceptance (-) rejection Table 2: Grammaticality judgments: Acceptance of inversion

Larry : 1. ... cuando llegó el frío when arrived the cold 2. ... y enterarme de lo que están haciendo estos escritores and find out what are doing the writers Jill: 1 ... como se desarolla la película how proceeds the movie 2. ... ocurre una cosa bastante extraña happens a thing rather strange 3. ... y salió un nombre and a name came out a name 4. ... donde viven ellos where live they 5. ... es que han tenido los dos it is that have had the two Louise

None

Anne : 1. ... y van los quatro and go the four of them 2. ... donde vive su madre y su padre where live her mother and her father native 1: 1. ... .primero, son todos italianos first, are all Italian 2. ... .la situación en la que se encuentra esta familia native 2: None Table 3: Stories: Inversion

86

More on the pro-drop parameter

Three non-native subjects accepted all inversions and one did not accept any of them. subjects had

These

results

indicate

that

none

of the

native competence with respect to free inversion in

Spanish. However, this assertion because, even

though the

should

be

taken

w i t h caution

native judgments coincide w i t h my own,

only two native subjects have judged these constructions. All instances 3) were

of inversion

produced in

the stories

(Table

perfectly acceptable, more so than the case of durmió in

item #2. Louise and the one

native speaker

did not

produce any

inversion in their story. 3.4.2. Overt subj ect pronouns There was

a total

rejection of either ella or la in the case of

item #11. #11

pro la(i) vi que ella(i) venía pero no la saludé I her saw that she was coming but not her greet 'I saw her coming but I did not greet her'

All subjects were able

to identify

the ungrammaticality

created

by the presence of both the direct object of ver and the coreferential subject of venir. 1 This syntactic judgment was it would

be the

different from

same in the rest

either English of the

accurate -

or F r e n c h - and rather

judgments on

the overt subject

pronouns. As shown in table 4, the French and the native subjects accepted either él or yo but not both Native

speakers

would

normally

emphatic and would avoid using él

1

use

in the yo

case of

item #12.

if

they wanted to be

because, as

we indicate below

Sufier (1982) argues that in the matrix sentence pro is governed and controlled by the matrix object. According to Sufier, little pro, u n l i k e big PRO, is governed. However, both little pro and big PRO are controlled.

Juana M. Liceras

87

(note l, page 88), it may create some sort of ambiguity.1 The same could be said of él in item #1. Nosotros in item #2 #1 [él]

#2 [nosotros]

#11 [ella]

#12 [él]

#12 [yo]

_ +

+ +

_

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

+ +

+

-

-

-

+

-

-

Larry Jill Anne Louise native 1 native 2

-

+

+

+ -

+

(+) the subject pronoun was accepted (-) the subject pronoun was crossed out Table 4: Grammaticality judgments: Acceptance of overt subject pronouns reinforces the contrast between el niño and the speaker at the semantic level. At the structural level, nosotros is somehow preferred over pro because it ensures parallelism between the two coordinate sentences (both have lexicalized subjects). In fact, all subjects but Anne accepted nosotros. None of the subjects accepted or rejected all subject pronouns. The overall use of overt subject pronouns in the stories is shown in table 5. The percentages indicate the number of overt subject pronouns out of all possible instances that were used. Only cases of pro with unspecified reference are included.

Larry Jill Anne

06% 15% 40%

3 out of 50 6 out of 40 25 out of 62

Louise native 1 native 2

02% 14% 16%

1 out of 37 1 out of 7 4 out of 25

affection (1); contrast)2) ambiguity (5); facilitation (1) ambiguity(3); facilitation (5); contrast (2); affection (2); verbs of saying (7); redundant (6); resumptive (1) contrast emphasis contrast(3); emphasis (1)

Table 5: Stories: Percentage of overt subject pronouns used

1

The verbs in White's sentence #22 and in this sentence favour a reading in which the proper noun and the subject pronoun are coreferential.

More o n the pro-drop parameter

88 The use of overt pronouns by similar

even

though

the two

native

1

native speakers

is rather

chose to talk about a movie and

native 2 about her personal life. Jill and

Louise also

chose to

talk about a movie. Larry talked about his life in Spain and Anne told a story for children. The same factors that presence

of

subject

their presence in the also similar

pronouns

system. 1

non-native

one subject,

except for

account for the

in the native system account for The

percentages are

Anne. The large number of

pronouns produced by this French speaker may be due to the actual story; since

it was

addressed to

children, an attempt may have

been m a d e to be more explicit or emphatic. It may also reflect an overuse of

subject pronouns by this subject. In this respect, it

should be

pointed out

system, as

that this

subject's command

of the verb

reflected in the production that we have analyzed, is

considerably poorer than expected

for her

and

other

poorer

than

Louise's,

s t u d y . 2 Nevertheless, that existence of

the in

a correlation

itself

level (high advanced) French

would

between overall

speaker in this

not

point

proficiency and the

use of subject pronouns because our E n g l i s h subjects' the verb English

to the

command of

system was even poorer than Anne's. However, unlike our subjects,

Anne

setting,

which

could

w h e n the

language is

has suggest

learned

Spanish

in

a

classroom

that the correlation only exists

not acquired

in a

natural setting. Given

that it is only one subject who told a very special story, we may simply be dealing w i t h an 'intentional'

style.

l-See Fernández Ramírez (1951) and Liceras (1986b) for an analysis of the u s e of subject pronouns in written Spanish. Barrenechea (1977) and Enriquez (1984) have studied the u s e of subject pronouns in spoken Spanish. 2

B y command of the verb system we m e a n correct use of the verb inflexion as well as the u s e of tense, mood, etc.

Juana M. Liceras

89

4. DISCUSSION

We have chosen to analyze the status of pro-drop in the interlanguage of four speakers who had full communicative possibilities in order to investigate the syntactic and stylistic properties related to the pro-drop parameter. Another reason to choose highly advanced learners is that they know about embedding and complex structures in general. Thus, the problem of lack of exposure to embedding mentioned by White (1985) would not apply to our study.1 In Spite of the fact that our four subjects were judged as having the same level of proficiency in Spanish, the transcription of the stories shows that only Louise's linguistic competence (in Chomsky's terms) was native-like, except for her phonology. It does not seem to be the case that all properties are acquired on the basis of 'realization' that Spanish is (+PD). It is clear that pleonastic pro (lack of expletives) has been acquired by all four subjects. The results also indicate that pro-drop is well established both at the acceptance and the production level. There were problems with pro in SEconstructions which seem to indicate that learners have not yet fixed the unspecified reference value of pro when it has the features [+3rd person, +singular]. Both Louise and Anne produced sentences where pro [+3rd person, + plural] had unspecified reference. The two English subjects did not produce any pro with unspecified reference, but that in itself is not an indication that it has not been acquired. We would need more data to determine that.

^•We do not think that it would apply in the case of her study either because the three languages involved (English, French and Spanish ) are closely related. Our experience is that learners use complex sentences in the very early stages; adult learners, of course.

90

More on the pro-drop parameter Inversion was

other hand, inversion in

accepted by

all subjects

all subjects except Anne. On the

but Louise

their stories.

and a

native speaker used

Anne's stylistic

preference may be

responsible for her rejection of inversion

in the grammaticality

judgments task.

were as

The other

three subjects

native subjects as Anne in that one of

w h i c h included

they accepted

far from the

both inversions -

a non-ergative verb - in the grammatical-

ity judgments task. Thus, it can

be concluded

that there

is no

evidence for an ergative/non-ergative distinction in our subjects acceptance of involved

inversion.

in

the

There

inversions

indicates that our subjects possible but

do not

was

only

one

transitive verb

in

the

stories,

produced

use inversion

w h e n no

which

ambiguity is

have 'intuitions' or 'an opinion' about the

stylistics of this phenomenon. Only Louise was able to detect Spanish that-t

sentences. Anne,

the ungrammaticality

being a

have written something if transfer from

of the

F r e n c h speaker, should French had

been at work

because E n g l i s h

and French differ w i t h respect to the use of the

complementizer.

These

specific evidence

results

inversion, because they are pro-drop

and

indicate

that

learners

need

to acquire that-t as well as the stylistics of

pleonastic

not pro.

triggered This

by

the

confirms

presence of

White's

findings w i t h respect to that-t. It also provides

(1985)

an explanation

to the irregular treatment of inversion in her study. The

answer

to

whether

subjects

are

in

command

stylistic conventions w h i c h govern the presence

of the

of overt subject

pronouns in Spanish seems to be affirmative. The only caution one would

need

to

exercise

redundant subject

concerns

Anne's

high

production

of

pronouns. W e would need m o r e data to determine

whether this is due to the specific story. The fact that Louise was the

only subject

who was

able to

identify the ungrammaticality of the that-t sentence may be taken as

an

subjects

indication

that

'linguistic

parameter at

there

is

competence'

the syntactic

a and

level. We

relationship the do not

between the

resetting

of

the

know whether that

Juana M. Liceras relationship

91

exists

in

general

or

whether

transferring the use of the complementizer be mentioned

also be

the case

play an important role. related the

It should

that Louise is not as fluent in English as Anne is,

w h i c h may explain why English would It may

Louise was simply

in French.

not cause

any interference.

that Louise's metalinguistic If this

that-t sentences

were the

to the

case, she

abilities could have

cases of relativization in

w h i c h the que>qui rule applies in French but

not in

Spanish, as

in: 19:

Elle est la femme qui nous a parlé de toi She is the woman who has told us about you

20:

Es la mujer que nos ha hablada de ti

Notice that

French cannot have que because there would not be an

indication of the presence of a case in Spanish.

subject,

(il).

That is

not the

1

5. CONCLUSION

Our study

has shown that a number of issues not directly

related

to the pro-drop parameter as described in the literature, have to be taken

into consideration

to investigate the acquisition of a

(+PD) language. It has also been relationship between

shown that

the acquisition

ition of stylistics. The results confirm indicate that

inversion and

pro-drop parameter or, 'identified' as that inversion Spanish

such

such by may as

be the

at

there may

of syntax

not be a

and the acquis-

previous findings which

that-t may not be properties of the least,

not

properties

that

can be

L2 learners. In fact, we have suggested triggered need

to

by have

l-See Adjemian and Liceras (1984) and cussion of these facts.

structural the Liceras

properties of

preposition a before (1986a)

for a dis-

92

More on the pro-drop parameter

[+human]

direct objects. W e have also suggested that rather than

'realization 1

the

that

Spanish

linguistic ability to relate

is

(+PD),

it

relativization and

is the meta-

that-t that may

lead to the acquisition of the latter. However, as I have pointed out in the case of Hilles' to

establish

a

causal

(1986) study,

it is

very problematic

relationship between the acquisition of

pro-drop, pleonastic pro and

verb inflexion.

It is

a fact that

our four subjects have an elaborated Spanish inflexional system though only Louise's is native-like - but that in itself does not prove

that

it

is

lack

acquisition of pro-drop.

of

expletives

that has triggered the

J u a n a M. Liceras

93

Appendix

Test sentences. Grammaticality judgments. 1. ?Pedro está muy cansado. E L ha dormido como u n cesto Pedro is very tired. He has slept like a log 2.?{Durmió / el niño} durante tres horas y NOSOTROS pudimos descansar Slept the boy for three hours and we were able to rest 3. A n a quiere decirnos como proU se llega a su casa A n a wants to tell us how to get/one gets to her house 4. A l i i proE habia mucha gente con cara de hambre There were many people w i t h a hungry look 5. *ELLO hace u n viento horrible It is terribly windy 6. pro C e n a n a las diez porque pro viven realmante a la española They have supper at ten because they really live the Spanish way 7. {Llego / Juan} pro nos dió la noticia Arrived J u a n and told us the piece of news 8.*¿Quién dijiste t había llegado? pro No te pude oir W h o did you say had arrived? I couldn't hear you 9. proU Se es famoso o proU no se es, proE no hay termino One is famous or one is not, there is no in between 10. proE Había unos chicos comprando regalos para sus hermano There were some boys buying presents for their brothers 11.*pro (la) vi que (ELLA) venia pero pro no la saludé I saw her that she was coming but I didn't greet her 12.?Paco se mejor de lo que EL aparenta, YO estoy segura Paco is better than he seems to be, I am sure 13. proE Hay los que se burlan de uno sin compasión alguna There are those who make fun of you w i t h no consideration whatsoever 14. proE Empieza a haber mucho ruido aquí It is beginning to be very noisy here

ELLA { / } proU proE pro t ( )

: : : : : : :

overt subject pronoun inversion null subject w i t h unspecified reference pleonastic pro (expletive) null subject w i t h specified reference that-t mutually exclusive

6

Late-learned rules in first and second language acquisition Helen Goodluck and Barbara Birch

1. SOME LATE LEARNED RULES

Recent

studies

of

first

language acquisition by children have

demonstrated that by 4-5 years children are in command of many of the

grammatical

language.

structures

(See Goodluck

and

rules

1986 for

governing

one review).

their native These studies

have reset the balance in our estimate of children's

grammatical

skills, demonstrating that the

of children

are far

more developed

than the

early seventies suggested. gaps

in

children's

linguistic abilities literature of

At the

knowledge

same time,

have been revealed, arguing that

language development does indeed go These

gaps

are

both

at

the

on

level

performance preferences, used where not

provide

a

single

into of

the

school years.

competence

the competence

rules and

grammar does

interpretation for the sentence. We have

begun to explore the learning path language acquisition

the sixties and however, several

for such

phenomena in second

by adults. We deal here with three grammat-

ical phenomena, for which adult

native

speaker

ability

is not

attained until into the school years.

*We are grateful to, among others, Juana Liceras, Xu Darning and Almerindo Ojeda for discussions of this paper and/or their native speaker judgements, to the teachers and students who allowed their classes to be interrupted for our testing, and to Michelle Foley for her help preparing the paper for publication.

Helen Goodluck & Barbara Birch

95

1. 1. Control of temporal adjuncts Studies

of

preschool

that children do not

young school age children have shown

and

master the

adult subject-control

rule for

adjunct clauses such as the temporal clause in (1) until they are six or older. 1:

The girl hugs the boy after walking around.

In (1), the NP the girl must be made subject of the

verb walking

in the adult grammar. Children however frequently misconstrue the subject of such adjunct clause

object,

the

clauses

NP

the

as

coreferential

error despite the fact that their grammar for tuned

to

grammatical

to

the main

boy in the example. They make this temporals is fine-

structure, eliminating the possibility in

most cases that they are reliant on superficial properties of the sentence, such 1981;

as the linear order of nouns and verbs

(Goodluck,

Hsu, Cairns and Fiengo 1985).

1. 2. Reference of picture n o u n reflexives A l t h o u g h the rules of English

grammar

permit

the

refer to either Bill or Joe in a sentence such as 2:

(2),

Bill gave Joe a picture of himself

the strong

preference for

adults is to make the reflexive refer

to the subject, Bill. Read and are well

reflexive to

Hare (1979)

showed that children

into the school years before they reliably evidence the

adult preference for making

the reflexive

in such constructions

refer to the subject rather than the object. 1.3. A

Reference of pronouns in conjoined clauses

third

late-learned

phenomenon

the

the surface subject of the preceding sentence. Thus (4), adults

of

a

adult preference for

referring to

(3) and

subject

the

interpreting in both

pronoun

is

will almost

conjoined

clause

as

invariably select the

96

Late learned rules in LI & L2

surface

subject

of

the

pronoun he, although the the object

of the

first

clause

as

grammar permits

the referent of the

either the

subject or

first clause (Bill/Joe) to be coreferent w i t h

the pronoun. 3:

Bill hit Joe and then he hit Fred

4:

Bill was hit by Joe and then he was hit by Fred

In (3)

and (4),

the conjoined

(active-active and conjuncts differ

clauses have

the same structure

passive-passive, respectively). in

grammatical

structure

W h e n the two

(active-passive and

passive-active), studies with adults show that the preference for choice of surface subject as pronounced

than

it

is

referent

with

of

the

pronoun

is less

conjuncts w i t h the same structure

(Garvey, Caramazza and Yates 1973; Solan 1983, ch.4), 5:

Bill hit Joe and then he was hit by Fred

6:

Bill was hit by Joe and then he hit Fred

This suggests that to some degree thematic/semantic role

of the

adults may

pronoun and

be relying

phrases in choosing the referent for the pronoun. In (3) the pronoun

and the

and (4)

m a i n clause subject share the same semantic

role (agent in (3), patient in (4); in (5) and the pronoun

on the

the m a i n clause noun

and m a i n

clause surface

(6), by contrast,

subject differ in semantic

role, and if a person attempts to m a t c h the pronoun w i t h the main clause NP

w i t h the

same thematic role, s/he will be led to pick

the (direct or prepositional)

object

as

the

referent

for the

pronoun. Although

adults

do

show

some

object as referent of the pronoun (6) in

inclination

in sentences

(5) and

the studies cited above, Solan found the tendency was far

less strong for adults than for children. In in the

to select the

such as

school years

in the choice of pronoun referent, tending to subject as

his study, children

relied heavily on use of thematic relations

referent of

the pronoun

w i t h parallel structure in the two

choose the surface

in sentences

such as (3-4)

conjuncts, and

the object as

Helen Goodluck & Barbara Birch

97

referent of the pronoun in sentences such as (5-6), with nonparallel structure. The comparatively high level for adults of surface subject as referent of the pronoun in (5-6) thus develops late on. The three phenomena reviewed above do not all have the same status in grammatical theory. Control of adjunct clauses by the subject of the main clause is a rule of grammar - our grammaticality judgements allow only for subject reference for adjunct clauses.1 The choice of the main clause subject as referent of a picture noun phrase reflexive and the referent of a pronoun subject of a conjoined clause, by contrast, are processing preferences. Adults select that particular interpretation although the rules of the competence grammar in principle allow them the option of choosing the object also. Why these properties of adult grammar and interpretive procedures are late-learned is not known; nor is necessarily the case that a unified explanation of the facts reviewed above is to be found. One possible account that links the three phenomena with respect to acquisition is that in the course of the school years the child moves from reliance on thematic relations to use of grammatical relations such as "subject1 (or external argument in the terminology of Williams 1980 and elsewhere), where principles of grammar permit a thematic specification to be eschewed. (See Culicover and Wilkins 1984 for one recent discussion of the use of thematic and grammatical roles in control and reflexivization).

^•The obligatoriness of sentence internal subject-control for the subject of such adjunct clauses has been disputed (Huang, 1985); however, even if the rules of the competence grammar in principle allow other interpretations, it is clear that some form of constraint mandates that the subject be interpreted as controller of the adjunct clause in sentences such as (1).

98

Late learned rules in LI & L2

2. SOME EVIDENCE FROM ADULTS

How do

adult second

language learners handle these late-learned

phenomena? Do they acquire the relevant rules and principles when they

are

relatively

advanced

in

their

mastery

language, analogously to the late acquisition

of

a second

of those

rules by

children? Some

findings

by

Goodluck,

Whalley

and

Gallucci

(1982)

suggested that this might not be the case. Goodluck et al. tested adult

native

speakers

of

Spanish

on

their

comprehension of

sentences such as (1) and (2) above, using an act-out task of the type familiar from child language studies (subjects were read the test sentences and acted out their interpretations w i t h dolls and other props).

W i t h respect to temporal adjunct clauses, we found

the overall percentage of subject reference than is

typical for

imately 60% or more subject responses and there

to sentences

such as (1),

were few individual subjects who preferred to make the

adjunct refer to the results

responses was higher

preschool children; the adults gave approx-

with

m a i n clause

children,

where

object. This

contrasts to the

preference for such an erroneous

object-reference interpretation has been

identified

through w h i c h

for example,

many children

pass (see,

as

a stage Hsu et al

1985). W i t h respect to the interpretation of the findings

of Goodluck

learners unequivocally

et al

chose

the

picture n o u n phrases,

were quite clear-cut: the adult subject

as

referent

of the

reflexive in sentences such as ( 2 ) — o v e r 90% of responses to such sentences involved

subject reference

(appropriate pictures were

supplied for the act-out). The learners the

in this

interpretation

reflexives

for

of

which

study performed

relative the

rules

clauses of

relatively poorly on and

reflexive

sentences

with

interpretation

mandate that the reflexive refer to the object, as in (7),

H e l e n Goodluck & Barbara Birch 7: This

99

The girl told the princess to scratch herself.

supported

the

view

that

the

comparative

success these

learners enjoyed w i t h adjuncts and picture n o u n phrase constructions was not simply a function of overall of the

fact that

skill w i t h

English or

the rules for English and Spanish are the same

in relevant respects for the constructions

we tested

learners did

well w i t h

w i t h others;

poor performance by Spanish speakers

(since the

some constructions and relatively poorly w i t h sentence

type (7) is may be due to differences between English and Spanish other than

the rule

for reflexive

interpretation, see footnote

on page 123 below). On

the

least some

basis rules

acquired by

of and

these

findings, we hypothesized that at

interpretive

principles

that

are late-

children may be quickly incorporated into the second

language learner's grammar, allowing in development

characteristic for

the learner

to skip stages

children learning their first

language. If, as we suggested above, the development

of subject-

reference in children for the three grammatical phenomena we have described is due to reference

to

argument)

as

facility

with

the

prior maturation

a relatively grammatical

opposed these of

to

late-acquired ability relation

thematic

constructions a

grammatical

subject

relations, might

to make

(or

external

adult-learner

be attributed to the

construct

and/or

representation inaccessible to children at early stages.

level of 1

^•We do not mean to imply that very young children have no ability whatsoever to refer to subject or external argument, but rather that that ability does not emerge until relatively late for the phenomena we discuss.

100 3.

Late learned rules in LI & L2 T H E STUDY

3. 1. Test and materials W e devised handling

a test of

to further

late-learned

separate subexperiments: the interpretation of pronoun

examine second-language learner's

rules. one

Our

of reflexives;

subjects

of

test

on control

comprised

and one on the

conjoined

three

constructions; one on

clauses.

interpretation

We

played tape-

recorded sentences of the test types to the subjects, followed by a question.

Subjects were

answer sheet.

required to

mark their

answer on an

Table 1 gives an example of the sentence types and

the accompanying question included the examples

in Table

1 show,

in e a c h

the n o u n

test sentences were proper names.

subexperiment.

As

phrases in each of the

The test

questions probed for

one of the names in (the first clause of) the test sentence, both of w h i c h were given on the answer sheet. (male) names

the questionnaires simple active

to

minimize

sentences and

repetitions.

responses

to

There

both

of the

the

mentioned as

passive,

a

were three

action as practice;

types of practice sentences ensured

that the subject was not responding by picking second name

seven different

three simple passive sentences with

questions that focussed on the agent correct

Twenty

were used in the test, and were distributed through

his/her answer,

construction

involved

out the

first or

and was in control of in

some

of

our

test

conditions. There were three tokens of e a c h of the sentence types in each of the

three subexperiments;

tokens

from each

of the

subexperiments were intermingled, and arranged in three blocks of one token of e a c h sentence type. reproduced as

an appendix.

sentence and

approximately

seconds

the next item, during response on

the answer

questionnaire is

Approximately two seconds

between each test six

The complete

its accompanying

intervened

question, and

intervened between each question and

w h i c h the subject had to mark

his or her

sheet. After subjects had completed the

m a i n test, they were given a

52

imately every sixth word deleted.

item cloze

test, w i t h approx-

H e l e n Goodluck & Barbara Birch

101

I. A

CONTROL CONSTRUCTIONS Temporal adjunct clauses Example : Bob met John after selling the ticket to George Question: Who sold the ticket to John? Answer sheet: (a) John (b) Bob

B

Tell-active Example: Bill told Tony to send the money to Joe Question : Who sent the money to Joe? Answer sheet : (a) Bill (b) Tony

C

Tell-passive Example : K e n was told by Mike to go to the movies w i t h Jo Question : Who went to the movies w i t h Jo? Answer sheet : (a) Mike (b) Ken

II. REFLEXIVE CONSTRUCTIONS A Picture n o u n phrase reflexives Example : Jay gave Larry a picture of himself Question : Who was in the picture? Answer sheet : (a) Larry (b) Jay B

Complement object reflexives Example : Jack told Max to make a sandwich for himself Question : Who ate a sandwich? Answer sheet : (a) Max (b) Jack

III.CONJOINED CLAUSE A N D PRONOUN SUBJECT SENTENCES A Active-active Example : Tom hit Rex and then he hit Dave Question: Who hit Dave? Answer sheet : (a) Tom (b) Rex B

Passive-passive Example : Andy was hit by Greg and then he was hit by John Question: Who did John hit? Answer sheet : (a) Andy (b) Greg

C

Active-passive Example : Steve hit Dan and then he was hit by Jay Question : Who did Jay hit? Answer sheet : (a) Dan (b) Steve

D

Passive-active Example : Tony was hit by Dave and then he hit Frank Question: Who hit Frank? Answer sheet : (a) Dave (b) Tony

Table 1 : Test constructions and example items

102

Late learned rules in LI 6 L2

The constructions tested have all been dealt with above, with the exception of active and passive tell sentences (conditions IB and IC. For each of the sentence types IA, IIA and IIIA-D, the adult native-speaker rule/preference is for reference to the surface subject. Sentence type IB in the first subexperiment controlled that correct answers to IA (adjuncts) were not simply the result of blanket choice of the subject and/or first NP as the subject of the subordinate clause--the correct answer to IB requires the main clause object to be made subject of the subordinate clause. Condition IC, with a passive main clause and a tell complement, requires that the main clause subject be made subject of the complement, and - in conjunction with IB - provided a further check that the subject was not relying on agrammatical strategies in responding. Condition IIB was similarly a control sentence type, ensuring that subjectreference responses to picture noun phrases (condition IIA) were not the result of a blanket preference for the subject as referent of a reflexive. 3. 2. Subj ects 3. 2. 1. Native speakers of English A group of 23 native speakers of English (enrolled in an undergraduate literature class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison) were tested as a control that our judgements of responses and preferences for pronoun/reflexive interpretation were representative of adult performance. The percentages of subject responses for these 20 subjects for each of the experimental conditions are displayed in the left-most column of Tables 2, 3 and 4. -11 A11 of the native speakers scored at the upper level on our cloze test grouping (see below), despite the fact that the test situation allowed us to give the native speakers only approximately 10 minutes to complete the cloze test, whereas the adult learners had 35-40 minutes. Mean number of errors for the native speakers was 5.13.

H e l e n Goodluck & Barbara Birch

Adult Native sp. n=23

103

Chinese LI L2 n=l4 n=9

IA Adjunct* 94% IB tell-active! 0% IC tell-passive* 78%

Spanish Ll L2 n=l0 n=15

74% 2% 43%

33% 18% 30%

67% 13% 47%

69% 11% 49%

Table 2: Percentage subject responses; Adjuncts and tell-complements Adult Native Sp. IIA PIC-NP** IIB tell-refl.!

98% 7%

Chinese LI L2

Spanish LI L2

74% 7%

80% 64%

86% 14%

87% 26%

Table 3:Percentage Subject Responses Picture-NP Reflexive and tell-reflexive

Adult Native Sp. I IIA HIB IIIC IIID

ACT-ACT** PASS-PASS** ACT-PASS** PASS-ACT**

99% 96% 87% 74%

Chinese Ll L2

Spanish LI L2

48% 33% 52% 56%

23% 30% 33% 40%

88% 59% 74% 88%

60% 38% 58% 60%

Table 4:Percentage Subject Responses Conjoined Clause and Pronoun Conditions

Key to Tables 2, 3 and 4 * : Subject response is correct response **: subject response preferred response, according to adult intuitions ! : Subject response is incorrect response

The results for the native speakers were as anticipated, with two small deviations.

First there

passive tell sentences

was a

certain amount of error on

(condition IIC): five

out of

the twenty-

three subjects scored less than two out of three correct for that

104

Late learned rules in LI & L2

condition. Second, the overall surface subject

percentage

of

reference

a conjunct was higher in the sentences w i t h non-parallel ical structure

(conditions IIIC and H I D )

the basis of previous experimental tions.

Previous

and w r i t t e n

to the

for the interpretation of the pronoun subject of

studies

sentence

than we anticipated on

studies,

used techniques

completion)

grammat-

or

our

own intui-

(act-out comprehension

plausibly

more

conducive to

reflection on the possible meanings of the sentence than our test was, where the choice of pronoun referent had to be made w i t h i n a fairly

short

time

interval.

Our

adult

control group results

suggest that the adult bias towards surface subject clause in

interpreting the pronoun subject of a conjunct is even

stronger in real-time language processing than judgement

about

preferred

readings

Nonetheless, the only conditions appreciable

amount

of

object

in

would IIIA-C

reference

passive-active

clause

order

where are

responses for

is an

If we

assume object

are a reflection of some

asymmetry in

object responses

for the

fits w i t h a finding reported in Frazier,

Taft, Roeper, Clifton and parallel sentences

there

the non-parallel

induced more object responses than

the conjoined conditions

non-parallel conditions

introspective

Condition IIID, with

condition IIIC, w i t h active-passive order. kind of difficulty, this

our

lead us to suppose.

conditions, as the figures in Table 4 show.

Ehrlich

1984;

in

their

study, non-

of the PASS-ACT type had longer reading times

per word for the second conjunct type, a

of the first

distinction w h i c h

than sentences

they argue

of the ACT-PASS

may follow from the match

between discourse functions of passive and

order of

clauses for

the two types of non-parallel sentences. 3.2.2. Second Language Learners Our experimental

subjects were

Language courses

at

subjects were

the

students in

University

of

English as a Second

Wisconsin-Madison. The

chosen primarily on the basis of availability.

We

H e l e n Goodluck & Barbara Birch were able to language

obtain

a

backgrounds:

105

sizeable

number

Chinese

and

of

subjects

Spanish.

speakers of Chinese and 37 speakers of Spanish. subjects

with

other

language

inspection of the data

backgrounds

from these

from two

There were 28 (Five additional were

tested;

subjects suggests

an

that their

performance is consistent with the points made below). Subjects who did not score at least two out of three correct on the simple active and passive sentences u s e d

as practice were

eliminated from the sample. (Five Chinese and 12 Spanish speakers were eliminated in this way). The remaining subjects were divided into two

groups, based

on their

performance on the cloze test,

w h i c h was scored according to number of acceptable

insertionsi 1

Level 1: less than 30 out of 52 items correct Level 2: 31-52 correct The percentages subexperiments

of

subject

that

responses

comprised

the

for

main

each

of

the three

test are tabulated in

Tables 2, 3, and 4 by condition, second language group and level. There

were

only

two

instances

of

failure to respond for the

sentence types in Tables 2-4; the percentage of is

thus

almost

invariably

object responses

the complement of the percentage of

subject responses.

1 There are no significant differences in cloze test scores between the Spanish and Chinese speakers at either level. We initially divided the learners into three groups, dividing the present upper level group in two at a score of 41 or more correct. There were no consistent differences between the two upper-level subgroups so created in terms of performance on the m a i n test, and the two subgroups were collapsed. Three of our adult native speakers scored less than 41 on the cloze test; an inspection of the data shows this did not correspond to inferior performance on the m a i n test.

106

Late learned rules in Ll & L2 A n inspection

of the

figures in

Tables 2-4

shows a clear

progression towards native-speaker rules

and preferences

level 1

and level

2 for

both language

groups.

percentage between

level

1

2

direction of

and

native speaker

level

are

changes

speakers

in

condition

IIB.

Taking

adjunct

clauses,

type

2 for

of the sub-

observations.

(IA),

the

Chinese

level 1 gave only 3 3% subject responses. The level 1

speakers at

Spanish learners, by adjuncts.

sentence

to level each

experiments in turn, we can make the following For

in the

rules and preferences, except for a

small increase in subject responses from level 1 Chinese

between

Any changes in

(Seven

contrast,

out of

gave

67%

subject

responses to

nine level 1 Chinese learners gave less

than two out of three subject responses to the adjunct condition, compared w i t h two out of ten level 1 Spanish subjects). 2 performance

of the

percentage subject for

Spanish

speakers learned

rule be

grammars. were

runs of

groups is

A t level

similar, w i t h the

responses at 74% for Chinese speakers and 69%

speakers.

thus

quickly

two language The

performance

counter

subject

incorporated

to

from

of

for

adult

1 Chinese

adjunct

clauses will

learners' second language

both levels,

condition

level

hypothesis that the late-

reference into

For both languages at

distinguished

the

IB

temporal adjuncts

(tell-actives); and for

both languages at both levels, there were fewer subject responses to IB

than to IC (tell-passive), although success w i t h condition

IC was not high. For picture-noun phrase reflexives, sentence type (IIA), the preference for and Spanish preference in

reference to

speakers,

subject is present for both Chinese

even

at

children, then,

level

into adult learners' performance, found.

Performance

with

1.

does appear

at

both

late-developing

to enter

as Goodluck

tell-reflexives

evidence for the Chinese speakers

This

immediately

et al. (IIB)

levels

1982 also

gives

clear

that success

Helen Goodluck & Barbara Birch with picture-noun

107

phrase reflexives

was not

due to a first NP-

type response strategy; however, performance of

Spanish speakers

with this condition was relatively poor, particularly at level 1, where 64% of

responses

were

erroneous

(reference

to subject)

responses. For the pronoun subject of conjoined clause sentences D), the

figures

in

responses strongly and IV) for the

Table

4

indicate

that

subject

predominate only at level 2 (conditions I, II

Chinese speakers,

and are

not strongly

for any condition by Spanish speakers, even at level 2. gives a breakdown of conditions in

(IIIA-

reference

individual response

terms of

patterns for

scores of two or more subject

By the criterion of 2 or more subject

responses for

favored Table 5 the four

responses. each of the

four conditions IIIA-IIID, only eight of the Chinese speakers and two of the Spanish

speakers

respond

in

an native-speaker-like

way.

IIIA + + + + + + +

IIIB + + + -

HID

+

+ +

-

+ +

-

+ +

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

+ +

-

-

+ +

-

-

-

-

-

UIC

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+ + -

Total:

Number of Subj ects Chinese Spanish 8 0 0 6 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 23

+ = a score of 2 or 3 subject responses - = a score of less than 2 subject responses Table 5:Distribution of Subjects by Score Pattern Conditions IIIA-IIID

2 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 3 4 2 4 4 25

Late learned rules in Li 6 L2

108 Tables 6

and 7

summarize the

analysis in

Table 5 in two ways:

numbers of subjects with zero or one minus of

the

four

conditions

(Table

the percentage

(Table

6)

and

that is

These figures indicate

figures) that Chinese subjects overall do

better w i t h the sentence condition IIIB

three out

6) and number of subjects with

minus scores in each condition (Table 7). (as do

scores fof

types IIIA-B

for

the

both

one

subject responses (Table 7).

that

than Spanish

Chinese

and

produces

speakers do

Spanish least

subjects

reference to

Thus the late-learned adult native-

speaker preference for reference to the surface subject

for does

not appear to be readily used in second language performance with these sentence types, at least in the test we employed.

Number of subjects w i t h score patterns for IIIA-D (Table 5) with: 0 or 1 minus scores: 2 or more minus scores:

Chinese

Spanish

14 9

8 17

Table 6: Score patterns by language type: Summary. Total number of subjects w i t h a minus score (from table 5) by condition: IIIA IIIB IIIC IIID

Chinese

Spanish

5 12 7 4

15 18 13 11

Table 7 : Total number of minus scores It should be noted that the do

not

show

any

trend

results for

the conjunct experiment

towards a lesser proportion of subject

reference for the non-parallel conditions PASS-ACT);

this

contrasts

with

the

(IIIC ACT-PASS and

figures

for

the

HID

native

speakers, where those were the conditions for w h i c h produced most object reference.

Rather the condition IIIB (PASS-PASS)

produced

Helen Goodluck & Barbara Birch the lowest proportion learners.1»2

of

subject

109 reference

for

the

adult

-••The first of the test sentences after the six simple active and passive sentences was a sentence of type IIIB. We were concerned that the lower proportion of subject responses for that condition might be due to responses to this sentence. An analysis of the subject responses for the second and third tokens of conditions IIIA-D shows the same pattern for all three tokens, with the exception that for upper level Chinese speakers there is no difference in percentage subject responses for conditions IIIB and IIIC. The Chi-square value for the analysis in Table 6 for the last two responses only is 9.07 (p