Noun Combination in Interlanguage: Typology Effects in Complex Determiner Phrases [Reprint 2011 ed.] 9783110940718, 9783484304482

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

448

Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann, Peter Blumenthal, Hans Jürgen Heringer, Ingo Plag, Heinz Vater und Richard Wiese

Christiane Bongartz

Noun Combination in Interlanguage Typology Effects

in Complex Determiner Phrases

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 2002

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Bongartz, Christiane: Noun combination in interlanguage : typology effects in complex determiner phrases / Christiane Bongartz. - Tübingen : Niemeyer, 2002 (Linguistische Arbeiten ; 448) ISBN 3-484-30448-0

ISSN 0344-6727

© Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH, Tübingen 2002 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. Druck: Weihert-Druck GmbH, Darmstadt Einband: Industriebuchbinderei Nadele, Nehren

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments Introduction

IX 1

1 The Grammar of Noun Combination 15 1.1 Introduction 15 1.1.1 Patterns of noun combination 16 1.1.1.1 Compounds and transformations 19 1.1.1.2 Noun combination as noun incorporation 20 1.2 Noun combination in English: a variable target 26 1.2.1 Combinatory patterns for nouns in English 26 1.2.1.1 Compounds and prenominal noun modification 27 1.2.1.2 Phrasal DP-modifiers 31 1.2.2 Comparing prenominal and postnominal noun combination 32 1.2.2.1 Phrasal noun combinations versus incorporation structures . . 32 1.2.2.1.1 Syntactic differences 33 1.2.2.1.2 Semantic differences 37 1.3 Summary 42 2 Noun Cominbination and Language Typology in First and Second Language Acquisition - A Review of the Literature 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Noun combination in first language acquisition 2.1.1 The acquisition of compounding 2.1.1.1 Factors determining development 2.1.1.2 Learnability considerations 2.1.2 The acquisition of determiner phrases 2.2 Noun combination in second language acquisition 2.2.1 Interlanguage compounding: level-ordering or LI influence? 2.2.1.1 The principle of level-ordering 2.2.1.2 First language syntax 2.2.2 Interlanguage choices: compounds or phrasal noun combinations? . . . 2.2.2.1 Preferred patterns 2.2.2.2 Context dependency 2.2.3 Framing the issues 2.3 Summary

43 43 43 44 44 45 48 50 51 51 51 53 53 54 55 57

VI

3

The Typological Intersection and the Empirical Study of Noun Combination in Intel-language 3.0 Introduction 3.1 The contrastive analysis of noun combination 3.1.1 Criteria for the determination of the typological intersection 3.1.2 Noun combination in Czech determiner phrases 3.1.2.1 The role of grammatical marking in Czech noun combination 3.1.3 Noun combination in Chinese determiner phrases 3.1.3.1 The role of grammatical marking in Chinese noun combination 3.1.4 Noun combination in English, Czech, and Chinese: a contrastive analysis 3.1.4.1 Commonalities 3.1.4.2 Differences 3.2 Studying noun combination in interlanguage 3.2.1 Developing research questions 3.2.1.1 Linguistic considerations 3.2.1.2 Extra-linguistic considerations 3.2.1.2.1 Proficiency effects 3.2.1.2.2 Task effects 3.2.1.3 The research questions 3.2.2 Hypotheses 3.2.2.1 The typological intersection LI Czech/L2 English 3.2.2.2 The typological intersection LI Chinese/L2 English 3.2.2.3 Contrasting the typological intersections LI Czech/L2 English and LI Chinese/L2 English 3.3 Gathering the evidence 3.4 Summary

4 Testing for the Grammar of Noun Combination in Interlanguage 4.0 Introduction 4.1 Evidence for typology effects 4.2 Method 4.2.1 Participants 4.2.1.1 The Chinese group 4.2.1.2 The Czech group 4.2.1.2.1 Assessment of English proficiency 4.2.1.3 The control group 4.2.2 Design 4.2.2.1 The interview task

59 59 60 60 62 70 72 78 79 83 83 84 84 84 85 85 86 87 87 87 88 88 89 90 91 91 91 92 93 95 96 97 98 99 99

VII

4.2.2.2 The controlled tasks 4.2.2.2.1 The picture elicitation task 4.2.2.2.2 The story-telling task 4.2.2.2.3 The grammaticality judgment task 4.2.3 Transcription and coding 4.2.3.1 Coding the interview task and the story-telling task 4.2.3.2 Coding the picture elicitation task 4.2.3.3 Coding the grammaticality judgment task 4.2.3.4 Frequency counts 4.3 Results 4.3.1 Results of the interview task 4.3.2 Results of the picture elicitation task 4.3.3 Results of the story-telling task 4.3.4 Results of the grammaticality judgment task 4.3.4.1 Plurality judgments 4.3.4.2 Referentialityjudgments 4.4 Hypotheses revisited 4.4.1 Hypotheses and conclusions 4.5 Summary

100 100 104 105 107 108 110 110 110 Ill 112 116 122 124 125 128 130 132 134

5 Analysis and Discussion 5.0 Introduction 5.1 The typological intersections 5.1.1 LI typology and variable features of English noun combination . . . . 5.1.2 LI typology and non-variable features or English noun combination 5.1.3 LI determiner systems in the typological intersections 5.2 Conceptualizing language contact 5.2.1 LI typology and the typological intersections 5.2.2 Learners and typology 5.2.3 The typological intersections of noun combination 5.2.3.1 Grammar and the typological intersections 5.2.3.2 Full Transfer/Full Access and the role of LI typology 5.3 Noun combination across languages 5.3.1 Level-ordering revisited 5.4 Summary

135 135 135 135 136 137 139 140 141 142 143 144 144 145 146

References

147

Appendix 1: Grammaticality judgment task Appendix 2: Sample transcripts

155 157

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to the many people who have made this research possible. Special acknowledgment goes to my academic 'crew' at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Charles Scott accompanied my work with constructive criticism and insightful questions. His knowledge and consistent support and encouragement have been vital to the completion of this monograph. I would also like to thank Jane Zuengler, whose challenging comments and suggestions sustained my enthusiasm for this research project and have furthered my development as a researcher. Richard Young has my gratitude for generously sharing the interlanguage data for the pilot study and for his perceptive comments on the argument put forward here. Many thanks go to Monica Macaulay for sharing her linguistic expertise. I am especially grateful to Jon Erickson at the University of Cologne for introducing me to generative grammar - syntax and morphology in particular - and also for his continuous engagement with the development of my work. It is through his initiative that I was able to submit my monograph for publication in the Linguistische Arbeiten, l thank the series editors for their interest in my research, and especially Herbert Brekle and Heinz Vater for a careful reading and informative feedback. In my work I greatly benefitted from the special expertise of others. Harlan Marquess, and Alena Halova shared their knowledge of the Czech language with me, and Zhi Su her knowledge of Mandarin Chinese. Daniela Janakovä at Charles University, Prague, organized my fieldwork there with great commitment and efficiency, and she welcomed me with utmost kindness. Dean Nelson was immensely helpful in the statistical analysis of the data. Special thanks go to Eric Kolstad for writing a coded word summary program and to my interrater, Jules Gliesche. My heartfelt thanks go to Felix Ankel for his hospitality, and to Gerhard Heyden in Lich-Steinstraß for his generous support of my work in Madison. I also thank Pressebüro Fromme in Cologne for their help with the final draft of the manuscript. My deepest gratitude belongs to the participants in this study whose curiosity and enthusiasm were most encouraging. I will fondly remember their patience, kind cooperation, and sense of humor. I am grateful to the University of Wisconsin-Graduate School for a travel fellowship and a dissertation fellowship, and to Educational Testing Services for providing the testing materials. I thank the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages and the Modern Language Journal for recognizing my work with the Emma-Marie Birkmaier Award 1999 for outstanding dissertation in the field of foreign language education. Finally I wish to express appreciation of my family of friends on both sides of the Atlantic. They have educated me in matters of language and life. Many thanks especially to my parents, Dorothea and Michael, for inspiring my love of language and providing access to language and linguistics through education. Charlotte, North Carolina Spring 2002

Christiane Bongartz

Introduction

This monograph is concerned with noun combination patterns in the language of learners of English as a second language (ESL). Its primary purpose is to provide evidence for the systematic variation of such patterns in interlanguage grammars, i.e., the internal grammars learners develop during the process of second language (L2) acquisition. In order to accomplish this goal the thesis will pursue two objectives: first, on the empirical plane, it aims at an accurate description of the patterns for noun combination in interlanguage and of the prominent factors motivating them; the second goal is to make a theoretical contribution. Based on the empirical evidence, a model for interlanguage grammars will be developed which expresses the impact of first language typology on learner choices for noun combination patterns in interlanguage. Nouns and their combination as compound words or phrases are indispensable for the expressive power of human language. The ability to create and comprehend nouns in combination depends on knowledge which uniquely combines word formation phenomena and syntactic constraints on well-formedness. Such knowledge encodes expressive options for speakers who may employ one combinatory pattern or another in a given situation. In English, for example, speakers can choose between nouns combined as a noun compound as in love song or combinations of nouns within larger noun phrases as in song about love. English grammar licenses the variation, allowing either combination. While there have been numerous attempts to conceptualize this variation in monolingual grammatical theory (e.g., Bauer, 1978; Lees, 1963 ; Levi, 1978; Marchand, 1969; Zimmer, 1971), little is known to date about how L2 learners combine nouns or about the factors motivating their choices. This monograph aims to remedy this situation. The analysis presented here is grounded in the tradition of transfer research. Transfer is conceptualized as a language contact phenomenon. I use Rutherford's (1983) notion of the "typological intersection" of the first language (LI) and the L2 to emphasize the importance of the language contact situation between the LI and the L2 in the interlanguage grammar. Language typology serves as the basis for the investigation of the systematic patterning of noun combination in the interlanguage of learner groups from different LI background.

Theoretical Framework

The focus of inquiry in this monograph is motivated by developments in two important and productive strands of research in the field of L2 acquisition, namely work in language transfer and work investigating the role of formal linguistics in interlanguage, particularly in the paradigm of Universal Grammar (UG). While a comprehensive review of the literature on transfer (cf. Gass & Selinker, 1983, 1992; Odlin, 1989) and UG (cf. Ellis, 1994; Eubank, 1991; White, 1989, 1995) is not possible here, an analysis of the parallel routes of

development of these areas offers indispensable insights for the study of noun combination. In particular such an analysis reveals emerging lines of convergence between transfer and grammatical research, and shows that language typology can unite transfer research and UG research within the framework of Chomsky's (1995) Minimalist Program. Transfer research and UG research both started out with an 'either-or' approach (Kaplan & Selinker, 1997). LI influence was once considered the only explanation for features of learner language that did not match the L2 being acquired (cf. Lado, 1957). The issue of the role of UG in constraining learner grammar and aiding acquisition was also approached in an absolute fashion, either arguing UG to be the factor promoting L2 acquisition (Flynn, 1987) or strongly rejecting its relevance (Bley-Vroman, 1983). Today, it is quite obvious that the simplicity of an 'either-or' approach to transfer and UG needs to be abandoned in order to yield meaningful insights with respect to the nature of learner language and the process of L2 acquisition. It is equally clear that considering both factors without the absolute claims of the early research can provide important insights for L2 acquisition theory building.

Transfer Research

The impact of the LI on L2 development is perhaps the most well researched issue in the field, and the notion of transfer has become a widely accepted label for this phenomenon. Early concepts of transfer saw L2 learning and learner language manifestated as the result of a varying degree of improper imposition of LI structures (cf. Gass & Selinker, 1983; Odlin, 1989). The rejection of the behaviorist ideas motivating this view coincided with the accumulation of evidence of learner language forms which neither the LI nor the L2 grammar seemed to explain (Corder, 1967; DuSkova, 1969; Nemser, 1971). As a direct consequence the slavish tying of learner language to LI and L2 was abandoned, and LI impact was conceptualized in a relativized way. Selinker's (1972) coining of the term interlanguage became the label expressing these changes. Learner language came to be characterized as an object of study in its own right, potentially an "independent linguistic system" as Selinker stipulates in the Interlanguage Hypothesis. With respect to this independent system, transfer came to be seen as only one of several factors relevant to its formation. A more refined view of transfer acknowledged that LI influence was also a more complex process than was originally assumed. Research branching off from transfer in phonology into other linguistic domains showed that LI influence affects interlanguage at all levels of grammar (cf. Gass & Selinker, 1983, 1992; Odlin, 1989 for an overview), i.e., phonology (Eckman, 1977, 1981; Iverson & Eckman, 1998; Lado, 1957; Stockwell, Bowen & Martin, 1965), vocabulary (Bauer, 1977; Meara, 1984; Olshtain, 1986; Ridley & Singleton, 1995), syntax (Hyltenstam, 1984; Keenan & Comrie, 1977; Meisel, Clahsen & Pienemann, 1981; Schachter, 1974; Schachter & Hart, 1979), semantics (Juffs, 1996; Kellerman, 1978), and pragmatics (Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz ,1990; Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989).

In the light of this impressive evidence for LI influence the leading questions in transfer research became those of 'how' and 'when'. In other words, if transfer does occur, but does not have to occur, what are the factors conducive to its occurrence? To date, there has been no clear answer to this question. In general the positions taken depend on the researchers' position with respect to the nature of transfer. Some see LI transfer as a strategy that learners may or may not employ (Selinker, 1972; 1992; Kellerman, 1979, 1983, Fserch & Kasper, 1986, 1989). Others define transfer as a constraint on hypotheses about the L2 grammar (Schachter, 1983) or think of it in terms of parameter transfer (White, 1989; see Section on 'UG research' below). The latter definitions are more narrowly linguistic than those involving transfer as a strategy, in that they concentrate on the linguistic systems involved in shaping interlanguage. Proponents of a linguistic view of transfer seek to reveal factors that motivate its systematic occurrence as "the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously [...] acquired" (Odlin, 1989). Transfer phenomena vary depending on the learners' LI and the L2 under acquisition, and researchers therefore focus on issues of 'transferability' (Sharwood Smith & Kellerman, 1986), i.e., they strive to identify linguistic contexts and elements conducive to transfer. Many look to linguistic markedness as an explanation of transferability. Concepts of markedness vary (see White, 1989, for an overview; also Ellis, 1994), but they all postulate that some linguistic phenomena are more complex or exceptional than others. Linguistic factors in phonology (Eckman, 1977), syntax (Gass, 1979; Hyltenstam, 1984), and meaning (Kellerman, 1977) can be marked, and their markedness may inhibit their being transferred (E. Klein, 1995; Rutherford, 1984; Zobl, 1995). The notion of markedness implies that the learners' knowledge about their LI and their knowledge about the L2 interact in systematic ways. Discussing transfer in terms of markedness can be difficult and is often hard to evaluate because of the proliferation of models for markedness and methodological questions with respect to relevant evidence (cf. White, 1989). However, the interaction of LI and L2 conceptualized in markedness is a valuable contribution to the field, and its potential has not yet been sufficiently exploited. Thinking of transfer in terms of markedness entails a concept of interlanguage as essentially being the result of language contact. Accordingly, Sharwood Smith and Kellerman (1986), pointing to the complexities of the phenomenon, suggest using the term 'cross-linguistic influence' in lieu of transfer. All languages involved in the acquisitional process can potentially exert influence on each other, just like all the languages involved in a language contact situation within a speech community potentially display mutual influence (Thomason & Kaufman, 1988). In fact, many transfer effects in interlanguage have also been observed as effects of language contact (Jake, 1997), leading Van Coetsem (1992) to claim that language changes induced by language contact and the features of L2 acquisition are essentially the result of same phenomenon. From this perspective language typology can shed light on the issues of language contact and interlanguage development. Human languages can be grouped according to properties they share in terms of word order, morphology, or phonology, and they can also be

differentiated in terms of those same properties (Comrie, 1981; Crystal, 1987). Rutherford (1983) shows how language typology can be successfully used as the basis for hypotheses about transferability in L2 research. In his study, for example, learners were guided by the typology of their LI discourse organization in their syntactic performance in interlanguage. i.e., the learners organized their English sentences based on LI preferences for the expression of grammatical and pragmatic relationships. These findings led Rutherford to speculate that differences in interlanguages for the same L2 under acquisition can be captured in terms of the "typological intersection" between the respective LI s and the L2. Yet the potential explanatory value of his speculation in terms of interlanguage grammar development still awaits systematic exploration. One notable exception is a recent proposal about the role of the LI in interlanguage development. Klein and Perdue's (1997) account of early state interlanguages involves the notion of 'typological intersection', only indirectly. These authors focus on the commonalities in early interlanguage development that learners from different LI backgrounds exhibit when learning different target languages. Paying particular attention to the lexicon in this common stage, which they call the Basic Variety, Klein and Perdue claim that LI influence will most likely occur when the target language (TL) has two options to express the intended meaning. Taking TL Dutch noun combination as a case in point they provide evidence that learners will choose the option that is closest to their LI given the variation in Dutch. While Klein and Perdue's claims about target variation and its relevance for transferability seem justified in the light of their evidence, the role of target variation in building the interlanguage grammars of more advanced learners has not yet been analyzed. This brief overview of the developments in transfer research and the potential of pursuing such research within a typological framework leads to a dynamic conceptualization of transfer as resulting from the interaction of the language systems involved in the acquisitional process. This makes language typology an important basis for hypotheses about transferability. Discovering the subtler workings of transfer in the framework of language typology and the influence of target variation on transferability are issues still in need of further empirical exploration. The study of noun combination in English interlanguage can offer insights relevant both to typological considerations and the role of target variation.

Research within the Framework of Universal Grammar

Using language typology for noun combination research means capturing the possible variation in grammars for noun combination across languages. This in turn connects up with the other strand of L2 research relevant to the purposes of this study, i.e., work guided by the central assumption that describing and explaining L2 acquisition critically involves formal linguistic theories. Of particular importance here is research exploring the influence of UG in L2 acquisition (Cook, 1988; Ellis, 1994; Eubank, 1991; White, 1989).

One fundamental tenet of such research is that all human languages are, in principle, equal in their linguistic make-up. A basic, i.e., universal, grammar is part of the human genetic endowment and guides the process of LI acquisition while it also constrains adult monolingual grammar. In this framework differences between languages can be reduced to the variation of a limited set of parameters (Chomsky, 1981) or to differences in feature strength (Chomsky, 1995). In LI acquisition children determine the relevant features of their LI with the help of the linguistic input from their environment. In this model to acquire the grammar of a specific language means, for example, to decide whether the language being acquired requires pronominal subjects, as in English (1) or whether it does not like Spanish (2): (1)

a. b.

I sing *sing

(2)

a. b.

Yo canto Canto

•I sing' Ί sing'.

In other words it means determining the parameter setting for [+ overt subject] or [- overt subject]. Parameters and their possible settings, as well as a set of universal principles, are genetically encoded in a language acquisition device in the form of UG. On the basis of input alone, i.e., without instruction or systematic correction, children can acquire the fully specified grammar of their LI. The outcome of LI acquisition is always the complete linguistic competence of an adult speaker, i.e., the final steady state (S) of acquisition. This process is illustrated in Figure 1: Linguistic Competence ο

steady

Figure 1. The process of LI acquisition (from Juffs, 1996) The question "Is there a role for UG in L2 acquisition?" became a primary concern for many L2 acquisition researchers. The issue was of special interest since the question of the availability of UG in the adult also seemed relevant to the debate about the nature of interlanguage. During the 1970s a view of interlanguage as a natural language system (Adjemian, 1976) became prominent. By assigning a role to UG in L2 acquisition one could thus also show that interlanguage grammars are indeed identical to the language systems of adult monolingual speakers. To demonstrate this it was necessary to show that interlanguage grammars are constrained by the principles and parameters postulated in UG. The issue of systematicity is still seen as being closely connected to the nature of the knowledge that motivates interlanguage grammars. One crucial argument in favor of the relevance of UG in LI acquisition is its role in overcoming 'the logical problem of language acquisition' (Chomsky, 1986; Pinker, 1994). The availability of an acquisition device

containing UG could explain how children can set parameters on the basis of underspecified input; i.e., without instruction and without the cognitive maturity required to 'detect' the regularities in the input. In cases of successful L2 acquisition, it thus became a logical problem in its own right to explain the kind of knowledge learners needed to reset parameters. In the early stages of research on the influence of UG in L2 acquisition opinions were divided. Some readily accepted the possibility of UG influence (Flynn, 1987; Hyams, 1991) and claimed that L2 learners have full access to UG. Others contended that there could be no UG influence in L2 acquisition because of the essentially different natures of LI and L2 acquisition. They argued that UG is 'dead' in L2 acquisition (Bley-Vroman, 1989; Clahsen & Muysken, 1986, 1989; Meisel, 1991; Schachter, 1990), a claim widely known as the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman, 1989). There are indeed non-trivial differences between LI and L2 acquisition that bear directly on the original arguments in favor of the influence of UG. While there are cases of successful L2 acquisition it is not at all clear whether near-native competence consists of the same type of knowledge as that of native speakers (Coppieters, 1987). Differences in attainment and the role of instruction in adult L2 learning pose problems for the view that UG is necessary to explain successful L2 acquisition. Developmentally L2 learners often stagnate at some level of interlanguage development, i.e., their interlanguages fossilize (Klein & Perdue, 1997; Selinker, 1992). Interlanguage grammars are also much less stable than monolingual systems, showing a considerable degree of synchronic variability (Adjomian, 1976; Ellis 1985,1987; Tarone, 1979). Fossilization and variability both show that the uniformity-of-success criterion does not hold in L2 acquisition. Another important difference between LI and L2 acquisition is the initial state at the beginning of the acquisitional process. While LI acquisition starts at state zero and proceeds to the final state of the adult native speaker grammar (see Figure 1), the L l is already in place when L2 acquisition begins. Adult L2 learners also bring a degree of cognitive development to L2 acquisition that is absent in LI acquisition. So while UG is the only source of knowledge in LI acquisition, the learners' LI and a high degree of cognitive awareness are definitely available to the learner at the onset of L2 acquisition. The question here is whether or not there is a role for UG beyond these other sources of knowledge. When Spanish speaking adults learn English, they might use *sing in overextension of the rule in LI. Learning to say I sing instead might be the result of a conscious cognitive effort to avoid the overextension and thus might not be induced by factors of UG at all. Figure 2 shows how these considerations can be incorporated in a model of L2 acquisition:

UG (?) LI Cognition S initial

Linguistic (?) Competence S

final

Figure 2. The process ofL2 acquisition (adapted from Juffs 1996)

To date no consensus has been reached about the role of UG in L2 acquisition. This is so because the proponents of the different positions give different weight to each of the factors that differentiate LI and L2 acquisition. UG-access proponents (Flynn, 1987;Hyams, 1991; Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 1991; more recently Epstein et al., 1996) attribute non-UG properties of interlanguage to performance errors that may not be considered evidence against UG-type knowledge. Proponents of 'UG is dead' have modified their position by acknowledging a role for UG, but one mediated by the learners' LI. But success of L2 acquisition, they say, is limited to parameters and principles instantiated in the LI, and interlanguage grammars cannot develop beyond the LI knowledge (cf. Clahsen & Muysken, 1989). A related third position maintains that UG becomes available at later acquisitional stages, enabling learners to reset parameters from LI values to L2 values, but that LI influence guides the earlier stages of acquisition (Eubank, 1994, 1996; Schwartz, 1997a; Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996; White, 1989). In order to evaluate these different perspectives it is helpful to distinguish the two ways in which UG can potentially operate in L2 acquisition. First, it may or may not serve as the acquisition device for L2 acquisition, and second, UG may or may not constrain interlanguage grammars. With respect to UG as acquisition device, more and more voices have claimed that the either-or choice needs to be abandoned in favor of a more flexible point of view (Ellis, 1994; Kaplan & Selinker, 1997; E. Klein, 1994; Meisel, 1997) that allows for the interaction of grammar development with general principles of human cognition and learning. Meisel (1997) makes this very clear when he states that "it is time to admit that L2 interlanguage varieties are a mix of both, UG-constrained structures and linguistic objects shaped by other types of cognitive principles." In other words the nature of the knowledge that explains interlanguage data remains an open question (Eckman, 1994,1996,1997). What is called for is a more refined approach to the role of formal grammar as encoded by UG in interlanguage development. Insights from work in the UG paradigm suggest the need for a descriptive focus for future research which is designed to uncover relevant empirical evidence for the 'selectional process' (Kaplan & Selinker, 1997) for different knowledge sources in interlanguage grammars.

New Impulses from the Minimalist Program

The relativist opinions about the role of UG in L2 acquisition have coincided with a major reconceptualization of UG theory. In the parameter-setting approach the language acquisition device as the locus of UG had its place as a module of the human mind. This module contained purely linguistic knowledge and was construed as being autonomous with respect to other modules such as perception and cognition (Chomsky, 1986; Marantz, 1995). In Chomsky's most recent work, the Minimalist Program (MP) (Chomsky, 1995), the autonomy of the language acquisition device is no longer absolute. In this model, UG information is shared between the lexical resources and the syntax. The sole function of syntax is that of a computational system that serves to generate sentences on the basis of lexical resources. So while the status of UG in the parameter model (Chomsky, 1981, 1986) was entirely independent from other modules, it is now interfaced through the computational system with the articulatory-perceptual and the conceptual-intentional systems of the mind, as shown in Figure 3:

Lexical Resources

Spell-Out

Phonological Form \ ^.^^ (Interface with the articulatory - ^"^ perceptual system)

Computational System (Syntax)

Logical Form (Interface with the conceptualintentional system/Cognition)

Figure 3. Grammar as Computational System with Interface Levels (adapted from Marantz, 1995) Grammar thus displays 'relativized autonomy' (Bierwisch, 1997) that can provide research in L2 acquisition with new impulses. In particular the interaction of grammatical knowledge with other types of knowledge such as, for example, general cognitive processes involved in learning and problem solving, is no longer incompatible with the view that grammar is innate in the form of UG.

Another impulse from the MP comes from its conceptualization of language variation. UG's crucial tenet, namely the claim that all languages are equal in their linguistic make-up, has been developed into the claim that, in fact, the syntax of all human languages is the same at some abstract level. In other words the computational system operates exactly the same way in all languages. Surface differences in syntactic strings between languages are no longer the result of variation in syntactic parameters such as [± overt subject] (cf. 1 and 2 ). Instead they follow from the features associated with the lexical resources that enter the computational system. Some such features need to be checked before Spell-Out (i.e., the generation of the syntactic string). This means that they must move into a syntactic position where they can be matched with a like feature. Such features are strong features. Spanish, for example, has strong agreement features, which means that main verbs move out of the verb phrase to the head of the inflectional phrase (IP), where they check the strong agreement features. The morphology of the main verb contains the information necessary to identify the subject situated in the specifier position of the IP (cf. 3): (3)

canto Ί sing'

Movement

Other features do not require movement for checking purposes. They can either check features through' attraction', i.e., through percolation from the relevant position, or through movement at the logical form representation, which does not affect a sentence's phonological form. English, for example, has weak agreement features which means that the main verb does not move. Instead it has its agreement features checked by attraction. The verbal morphology is too weak, however, to identify the subject, which is why English needs an overt pronominal subject.

10 (4)

I sing

[ISNom]

Feature Attraction Differences between languages, then, result from different checking needs for strong or weak features. Chomsky (1995) suggests that language variation in terms of feature strength does not affect lexical categories such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and that variation is limited to functional syntactic categories which relate the elements in a syntactic string such as agreement in case, number, and tense features. Others have been skeptical about this claim (Juffs, 1996; Lenerz, 1998), pointing to the potential for parametric variation with lexical items. In any case the MP emphasizes the importance of lexical resources for the syntax, and it also underscores the necessity of reducing the operations needed for the concatenation of lexical resources to a minimum. These minimal operations are merger and feature checking in terms of overt and covert movement or feature checking by attraction. Applications of the MP to both LI and L2 research have begun to replace work within the Government-and-Binding parameter-setting model. Some authors have suggested that at the initial state of LI and L2 development all syntactic features are weak (Platzack, 1996). A strict reading of this Initial Hypothesis of Syntax would deny a role to LI transfer, as Schwartz (1997a) observes. Eubank (1994,1996), in contrast, does see an important role for transfer in that he claims that lexical items fully transfer from LI to the initial state of L2 development. Functional syntactic features also transfer, so that they are also part of the initial state via the LI. What does not transfer, however, are the feature strength specifications associated with each functional element. In this view early interlanguage grammar has optional movement independent of LI or L2 feature strength. Schwartz (1997a, 1997b) and Schwartz and Sprouse (1996) take a third position in that they claim Full Transfer/Full Access as the initial state of L2 development. They contend that all properties from the LI are imposed on the L2 input. Like White (1989) they assume that in later stages case of erroneous imposition can be revised. These different points of view share the claim that UG restricts interlanguage grammars at all points, but they differ in their conceptualization of the role of LI transfer. At this point there are too few studies testing the hypotheses in each of the perspectives to choose one over the other. Accounting for the role of the LI is a task in all cases, even when trying to exclude such a role. With the MP, then, there has come a strong methodological impetus to crosslinguistic research. Analyzing the influence of UG in L2 acquisition in the framework

11

of the MP means looking for ways in which the LI influences interlanguage grammars at early and later stages of development. The analysis thus invokes the comparative study of interlanguage grammars, of LI s and of L2s. Findings from research comparing the interlanguage grammars of speakers with typologically different Lls who share the same L2 offer ideal evidence for both the influence of UG and the influence of transfer in L2 acquisition (cf. Bley-Vroman, 1989; Kaplan & Selinker, 1997).

Focusing the Issues

The study of noun combination in interlanguage can benefit from the developments in research on transfer and UG in many ways. The most recent research has shown that absolute approaches do not work. Instead the question about the grammar in interlanguage grammars and the question of transfer in interlanguage grammars must be pursued as one single question. The conceptualization of language variation in terms of feature strength in the MP on the one hand and the need for L2 research to pursue UG research simultaneously with transfer research on the other hand serve as the basis for this pursuit. With either-or approaches mostly discredited the study of noun combination in interlanguage entails avoiding the yes-no questions asked in the early stages of transfer and UG research. In the study of noun combination the view of interlanguage development as a language contact phenomenon is essential. The issue of the role of language typology depends on this view in two ways. First it is necessary to consider L1 and L2 typology when analyzing interlanguage noun combinations. Second the options for noun combination in the TL must be compared with those available in the learners' L l s. In this way typology research contributes to L2 acquisition theory in that it identifies the role of language contact in interlanguage development. A crosslinguistic typological approach emerges as the best way to study noun combination in interlanguage, i.e., an approach that unites questions of grammar and questions of transfer in the concept of language contact. While the MP is the grammatical account on which to base hypotheses about the effects of language contact, transfer research points to the importance of including features of semantics, stages of interlanguage development, and communicative task when looking for transfer effects (cf. Klein & Perdue, 1997; Rutherford, 1983). This comprehensive approach to the study of noun combination underlines the importance of a detailed description of all the linguistic properties relevant to the interlanguage contact situation.

12

Organization of the Monograph

In line with the objectives laid out in the abobe the monograph is organized as follows: In Chapter 1 I discuss the grammar of noun combination across languages and for English in particular. I present and evaluate analyses of the structures involved in the formation of noun+noun compounds (love song) and complex noun phrases (the song about love). I consider specifically the implications of these models in terms of universal applicability and learnability. I adopt a syntactic analysis of noun+noun compounds such as love song involving incorporation. Using this analysis noun+noun compounds and phrasal noun combinations can be generated cross-linguistically by the same processes. Then I show how these grammatical considerations apply to English in particular. I discuss the differences and similarities with respect to noun compounding and phrasal noun combination in English in detail, addressing questions of phonology, structure and inflectional marking, and semantics. English phrasal noun combination and English noun+noun compounds differ with respect to the thematic marking of the relationship between the component nouns. Only phrasal noun combinations such as song about love contain a preposition which marks this relationship. Concluding the chapter I argue that English noun+noun compounds and English phrasal noun combinations constitute English options for noun combination whose different properties learners of ESL must acquire. Chapter 2 provides a review of previous work on nouns and their combinations in LI and L2 acquisition. Findings from both strands of language acquisition research point to a role of language typology in the development of the grammar of noun combination. In the review I look at the role of productivity and lexicalization in the acquisitional process and evaluate the findings of research concerned with root and synthetic compounding and noun phrase development. The overview reveals the need to investigate compounding and phrase development simultaneously rather than separately. While many of the previous studies point to a role for LI transfer in interlanguage development, the lack of cross-linguistic evidence points to the need of a comprehensive approach in this monograph. I conclude the chapter with methodological considerations for the cross-linguistic investigation of noun combination in interlanguage. Patterns of noun combination vary across languages. One basic difference concerns the marking of case and thematic relationships. In Chapter 3 I show how these differences are embedded in language typology. First I discuss options for noun combination in the LI s involved in the study carried out as part of this thesis, i.e., Chinese and Czech. I then compare these options with English. This analysis shows that English can be conceptualized as occupying an intermediate position on a typological continuum (cf. Comrie, 1981) with the LI s Czech and Chinese at opposite poles. On the basis of these observations I develop a set of contrasting hypotheses to be subjected to experimental testing. The basic expectation to be tested is that the LI differences for overt versus covert coding of case and thematic relationships will be mirrored in the interlanguage grammars of Czech and Chinese speakers learning English. Other expectations concern developmental effects and task effects in interlanguage noun combination.

13

Chapter 4 reports on the results of a multitask cross-sectional study which tests whether native speakers of Czech and Chinese produced interlanguage data following from these hypotheses. The production data comes from dyadic interviews, a de-contextualized picture elicitation task, and a contextualized story-telling task. A set of grammaticality judgments provides additional evidence. Both learner groups displayed variation in their choice of combinatory patterns for nouns. The results show unequivocally that the variation in the two learner groups has a distribution which remains stable across task- and proficiency boundaries. The major difference is the frequency with which the learners use noun combination patterns with overt marking of grammatical relations. The Czech learners, whose LI has inflections and prepositions that specify such relations, use patterns involving relational marking in their interlanguage significantly more often than the Chinese learners. Chinese, as an isolating language, does not specify grammatical relations but instead relies on context for disambiguation. A comparison with native speaker performance for the picture-elicitation and story-telling tasks shows closer proximity between the Chinese group and native speakers, with the Czech group showing more divergent behavior. The results of my study point to typological transfer as the dominant factor explaining the variation in the data, which the discussion in Chapter 5 lays out in detail. I discuss the properties of the typological intersections LI Czech/L2 English and LI Chinese/L2 English based on the results from the experiment. When these results are interpreted in the light of the initial objectives there are two significant conclusions. First interlanguage grammars are systematic in that they are constrained by UG, i.e., all patterns found are either LI or L2 options. Second typological differences in the role of overt grammatical marking in noun combination explains variation between the learner groups. There are, however, also crosslinguistic individual differences in terms of awareness of pluralization constraints. In the final section of Chapter 5 I develop a model for interlanguage variation designed to represent the interaction of LI and L2 in the typological intersections. The mapping of features onto form in the LI explains the variation and the role of determiner features in interlanguage noun combination. Acquisitional accounts of noun combination in L1 and L2 must consider nominal features and determiner features together.

Chapter 1: The Grammar of Noun Combination

1.0 Introduction

In this chapter I discuss the grammar of noun combination across languages in general and for English in particular. Although the principles of noun combination are available in all languages, there are important differences between languages in the realization of the patterns of noun combination. In the study of noun combination in interlanguage these differences can be systematically related to the learner's LI and to the TL. It is the goal of this chapter to provide the linguistic basis of the study of interlanguage noun combination. In the first part of Chapter 1 I review different patterns of noun combination and present a basis for a uniform syntactic account of noun combination in compounds and phrases in terms of the framework of the MP. In the second part of the chapter I discuss the options for noun combination in English. I argue that incorporation structures and phrasal noun combination are the two patterns which constitute what Klein and Perdue (1997) depict as a "variable target" for L2 acquisition. Distinguishing noun incorporation from the phrasal combination of nouns, I discuss differences and similarities between those two basic patterns. In particular I address structure, phonology, and semantics. Concluding the chapter, I make the case that the defining difference between noun incorporation structures and phrasal noun combination lies in the specification of the thematic role for the non-head noun in phrasal noun combination. Choosing LI s with different options for thematic marking, I argue, will therefore foreground LI influence on the interlanguage data in empirical research.

1.1 Noun Combination across Languages

A comprehensive approach to the study of noun combination in interlanguage requires a thorough description of the linguistic entities relevant to the questions motivating this research. Words are an important part of language acquisition, and nouns have a unique status among the words of a language in that they typically denote what is conceptualized as entities. The mapping of sound and meaning in the form of a noun results in a linguistic sign which refers to a concept, person, or thing in the real world.

16

1.1.1 Patterns of Noun Combination Combining nouns to form more complex linguistic units is an option offered by all human languages. It increases the number and complexity of signs available to refer to entities, as illustrated in (la-e): (1)

a. b. c. d. e.

a love song a song about love a love song writer a writer of songs about love a writer of love songs '

The realization of the patterns in (la-e) varies from language to language, but the patterns share important properties. Each pattern is recursive, so that 'love song' can become part of a larger unit such as 'love song writer' (Ib) and 'songs about love' can become part of 'a writer of songs about love' (Id). Each pattern can be embedded in a different pattern, as illustrated in 'a writer of songs about love' (Id) versus 'a writer of love songs' (le). Importantly, each of the units in (la-e) has one primary member, i.e., a noun that determines the type of entity the whole unit refers to. A love song is thus a song, as is a song about love, and a love song writer is a writer just as a writer of love songs or a writer of songs about love is a writer. The prominence of one noun makes each of the units in (la-e) a nominal unit, i.e., an extended projection of this primary noun or head noun. Head nouns and their positions pose a problem in terms of learnability in LI acquisition, a problem which is yet more complex in L2 acquisition. While in the English examples (la) and (Ib) the head noun appears to the right of the nouns which provide specification about the type of entity depicted by the head noun, these same satellite nouns appear to the left of the head in (Ic-e). In languages other than English head position in noun combination patterns may also vary. The obvious question in language acquisition is how learners cope with this variation. To answer the learnability question it is necessary to look at the similarities and differences between right- and left-headed noun combinations in detail. In the case of right-headed combinations, two nouns are put together to form a compound noun which itself is a noun (N) and which enters a syntactic string as a whole. (2)

a. [love]N +[song]N = [love song]N b. *The love melodious song was very sappy. c. The melodious love song was very sappy.

In (2) the noun combination love song consists of the component nouns love and song (2a). The contrast between (2b) and (2c) illustrates the need for the two nouns to be immediately

1 a-e gives a broad surveyof the options for noun combinations that are cross-linguistically available. In English there are two other combinatory options having special status, i.e., the writer 's sons and the stone wall. For a detailed discussion of the phenomena in English see Section 1.2 below.

17

adjacent to one another. A syntactic process such as merger with a modifying adjective cannot affect the head directly (2b), but must apply to the whole combination (2c). Referential properties also apply to the combination as a whole and not to its individual component nouns (Spencer, 1991). (3)

a. These lovCj songs express itj so well. b. These [ love songs]N i have great spunk to them j.

Thus, the first noun in love song cannot serve as the antecedent for a pronoun in a sentence (3a). Only the combination as a whole can serve as antecedent (3b). English noun combinations with the head to the left, by contrast, do not display the same close relationship between the two nouns: (4)

a. b. c. d.

a melodious song about passionate love the songs about lovCj last night represented it ί beautifully the writer j of songs about love liked his ; work the writer of these [love songs]N ; did not like writing them (

Instead, these combinations have all the properties commonly associated with the concatenation of words so as to form phrases. That is, the nouns in [song]^ about [love] N or [writer] N of [songs]^ about [love] N do not form a unit, but maintain an independent syntactic status. They can each take adjectival modifiers (4a), and they can each function as the antecedent for a pronoun (4b-4d). These facts demonstrate how right- and left-headed noun combinations in English can be differentiated in terms of their syntactic properties. Right-headed units such as love song are compound words that enter phrases as units whereas left-headed units such as song about love are phrases in which each noun participates in full in the syntactic functions of nouns. For some authors compounding involves a different process from the combination of nouns in phrases (DiSciullo & Williams, 1987; Baker, 1988) because noun compounds are inseparable units in the syntax. While phrases are the result of syntactic merger, noun compounds are the result of lexical merger, which explains the 'atomicity' of noun compounds in the syntax. Since compounds are lexical units, their internal structure is not accessible to syntactic processes because syntax is a separate area of grammar and cannot interact with word structure. The assumption that innate properties of UG help children distinguish between noun compounds and phrasal noun combinations in terms of making a distinction between words and phrases offers a possible, yet problematic solution to the learnability problem. In terms of headedness, children could posit a different parameter for noun compounds (5a) and phrasal noun combination (5b) (Cinque, 1993):

18 (5)

Χ»

a.

/\ Specifier

Complement

ΧΡ

b. X'1

Specifier

Χ~2

English compound complement = left head X^=

X'

Χ° u

right

jvfl

head X°= left

ΥΡ English syntax YP complement = right

Critics have pointed to two problems here. First, in terms of learnability (i.e., the original argument in favor of an innate grammar), it seems more desirable for parametric values to hold uniformly in a particular language (Lardiere, 1994). A grammar that did not require two separate parameters for words and phrases would be preferable with regard to the logical problem of language acquisition. The criterion of simplicity is an important basis for the evaluation of descriptive grammatical accounts. Other things being equal, it is the simpler grammar that offers the best explanation of ease of acquisition. The second criticism of the separate-parameter approach to words and phrases involves considerations of language typology. Postulating separate settings has little explanatory power, since there are languages from typologically different language families which do not have separate head parameters for words and phrases: (6)

French Chinese

a. [[ timbre1N -[poste]N]DP a'. [ la salle de bain]DP b. [ [mao]N - [yj]N]DP b'. [li-shi ke-bcnlpp

'stamp-postal: stamp' 'the room for bath: bathroom' 'wool-clothes: sweater' 'history textbook'

Positing independent parameter values for the lexicon, as the domain of words, and syntax, as the domain of phrases, thus seems to be an account of the facts that merely begs the question of learnability (see Siebert, 1998). In the light of the evidence in (6), where heads are positioned consistently to the right as in French or to the left as in Chinese, independent parameters would require the acquisition of two settings even for languages that have a single value only. The quest for a satisfying solution to the learnability problem involves a number of nontrivial theoretical considerations. It is clear that there are syntactic differences between compounds and phrases in terms of cohesion and referential properties. If these differences are qualitative differences, that is, if compound nouns are objects formed by different processes than phrasal noun combinations, their being different objects would justify separate parameter settings for compounds and phrases. If, however, the processes involved in the generation of noun compounds and phrasal noun combinations were the same, no such conclusion would be warranted. But if they are objects of the same type this leads to the question of whether or not the variation in head position in English can be explained without recourse to separate parameters. In the following I review the basic positions in the literature, and I present an analysis that accounts for noun combination in phrases and in compounds by

19

means of the same process, one that does not involve separate parameter settings. This account, I argue, can explain the differences in head position independently and provides a convincing solution to the learnability problem.

1.1.1.1 Compounds and transformations The debate about the differences in status of noun compounds and phrasal noun combination in grammar is part of the debate about how to distinguish the construction of words from the construction of sentences. In early transformational accounts of compounding (Lees, 1963), compounds were generated from kernel sentences as in (7): (7)

girlfriend 'The friend is a girl'

Both the sentence and the compound in (7) would be the result of transformational rules, and no principled distinction was made between sentence- and word formation. Undeniably, sentences and compounds have similarities in meaning that suggest they are related. Marchand (1969) lists other examples illustrating such connections, for example (8): (8)

a. washing machine b. chimney sweep

'(we) wash with the machine' 'he sweeps chimneys'.

Yet he also remarks on the arbitrariness involved in Lees' (1963) analysis, where there is no way to relate the output of a transformation unambiguously to an underlying kernel sentence (Marchand, 1974). The kernel sentence (9a) (9)

a. 'a man eats apples' b. apple eater; apple eating; eating apple

has at least three different related compounds in the Marchand analysis (see 9b), but Lees' (1963) account does not specify how the choice of the forms in (9b) is related to (9a). The lack of a predictable one-to-one relationship between a compound and its sentential paraphrase was one of the factors that led to further theory development in generative grammar in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. One crucial conclusion that seemed to follow from the problems in Lees' (1963) analysis was the general view that compounds were not derived from sentences or phrases by transformations. Instead they were argued to be generated independently of sentential or phrasal paraphrases (Lieber, 1988; Selkirk, 1982, and others). Independence of word structures from syntactic structures in transformational grammar was asserted most rigorously in Chomsky's Remarks on Nominalization (1970). In putting forward the "lexicalisi hypothesis" Chomsky excludes category changing transformations from the syntax. Yet while it has come to be generally accepted that words are not derived transformationally from sentences, it is still a matter of debate whether all syntactic processes are to be excluded from word formation.

20

Two basic positions on the generation of compounds have now emerged in the field. While proponents of the atomicity of words claim that the processes involved in word formation are qualitatively different from processes generating phrases, others argue that although words and phrases have different properties, the processes underlying their formation are identical in nature, something which enhances the simplicity of grammar and facilitates acquisition. On this view there is a single generative component of the grammar, the syntax, which is responsible for the construction of words, phrases, and sentences (Ackema, 1994; Baker, 1988; Hale & Keyser, 1993; Halle & Marantz, 1992; Lieber, 1988).

1.1.1.2 Noun combination as noun incorporation One of the major positions in the debate about the processes involved in word, phrase, and sentence formation is the thesis of the atomicity of words (DiSciullo & Williams, 1987) reviewed above (see (4)), which argues that syntax is 'blind' to the internal structure of words. The differences in syntactic behavior between nouns as parts of compounds and nouns as parts of phrases reflect functional determiner properties present in phrases but not in words. Words may have referential potential (Lyons, 1977), but the reference is instantiated lexically, not syntactically. Phrases, however, contain functional features such as defmiteness and specificity which motivate their referential properties. Proponents of the atomicity thesis conceptualize the difference in referentiality in terms of a strict distinction between words and phrases, and, by extension, between compounds as word-type objects and phrasal noun combinations as based on the projection of words into syntactic units. However, the facts in (4) can still be accounted for even if compounds and phrases are derived syntactically. The different referential properties of non-head nouns such as love in love song and song about love have been explained by many authors (Hendrick, 1995; Postal, 1969) in terms of the difference between a compound (see (5a)) and a phrase (see (5b)). Sproat (1985) argues that only maximal projections can serve as antecedents, but maximal projections, i.e., the expansion of a head word to a full phrase as in, for example, the NP song about love, cannot be included in word structures. Since love in its use in (5a) is a word and not a maximal projection, it cannot serve as the antecedent for a pronoun. In this way the difference in referential potential follows from the difference of the word status of compounds and the phrasal status of the nouns in phrasal noun combination. While Sproat's (1985) generalization accurately captures the facts of referentiality, the atomicity thesis and its crucial claim that maximal projections cannot be parts of words is called in question by languages where parts of word structure remain syntactically active. One relevant example concerns the incorporation of syntactic arguments into word structures. In Chukchee, for example, sentences such as (lOa) have an equivalent in (lOb): (10) a. 9tl9g-e kawkaw-9k m9tqm8m9t kele-nin. father-ERG bread-LOC butter.ABS spread.on=AOR.3SG:3SG 'Father spread the butter on the bread.'

21 b. 8tl9g-e kawkaw m 9tq 9=rkele-m'n. father-ERG bread.ABS butter=spread.on=AOR.3SG:3SG 'Father spread the bread with butter.' (example cited by Sadler & Spencer (1998) from Polinskaja& Nedjalkov (1987) in Gerdts (1998)) In (lOb), the syntactic object butter from (lOa) has been incorporated into the verb spread, forming a compound verb, as in (11) (see Baker, 1988). Yet syntactically, butter still functions as the object of spread.

b.

(11) a.

father

spread

butter

on-bread

N V father butter-spread

on-bread

Baker (1988) explains the syntactic activity of incorporated nouns as result of syntactic head movement that generates (1 Ob) from (1 Oa). As illustrated in (11 a) and (lib), the moved noun can inherit the syntactic properties of its trace which is syntactically a noun phrase (NP). Noun incorporation is thus syntactic in that it involves head movement, and lexical in that the result of the movement is a lexical structure. To salvage the notion of the atomicity of words, Baker assumes that it is not the word butter which has syntactic properties but its trace. For Baker (1988), structures like (lOb) differ from English synthetic compounds like truck driver in that incorporation structures are the result of syntactic movement while compounds are not. English synthetic compounds in Baker's view thus have the structure given in (12). (12) [ [truck]N [driver]N]N The noun truck does not have any syntactic function, but is "always generic and nonreferential" (Baker, 1988:13), which Baker takes as an indication that truck is not linked by trace to an NP with full syntactic properties. Thus, while butter in (1 Ib) functions as the object of spread syntactically, truck in (12) has no syntactic functions outside the noun compound. Others have pointed out, however, that [±generic] and preferential] are separate features, so that a generic NP is not by necessity nonreferential, but can carry the features [+generic] and ^referential] (Chur, 1992; Vater, 1985, 1991). The typological evidence for noun incorporation together with the rejection of an incorporation account for English compounds make it plausible to assume that certain word

22 structures are the result of a syntactic process while other, similar ones, are not. For reasons of learnability, a simpler account of the facts that assigns the same structure to (11) and (12) would be preferable. Such an account would need to explain the differences in syntactic properties between the two structures independently of the process involved in their generation. The determiner phrase (DP) analysis in the MP offers such an explanation (Longobardi, 1996). In this analysis all nominal arguments in a sentence are projections of the functional category determiner (D) (Abney, 1987). Based on evidence from parallels in the syntactic distribution of bare nominals such as in (13), (13) a. I write 0 poems b. I write 0 poetry c. *l write a poem

(from Radford, 1997)

and nominals with overt determiners such as in (14), (14) a. I've read enough poems b. I've read enough poetry c. * I've read enough poem,

(from Radford, 1997)

proponents of the DP analysis argue that the italicized nouns in (13) are all headed by a null determiner 0. 0 is phonetically empty, but in (13) it has the semantic feature [- specific] which determines the reading of [- specific] for the entire DP, i.e., a generic reading. Like the overt determiner enough in (14), 0 selects as its complement a plural count noun such as poems or a singular mass noun like poetry. Neither enough nor 0 accepts a singular count noun as its complement, hence the unacceptability of (13c) and (14c). Using this analysis, it is possible to separate the generic, non-referential interpretation of certain nominals from their status as either words or phrases (see Siebert, 1998) and referentiality depends on properties of the functional head D. Longobardi (1994, 1996) discusses at length how determiner features may require overt or covert syntactic movement within DPs, resulting in cross-linguistically different surface structures for DPs. By extension, determiner features can also motivate different structures within a single language and thus provide a principled explanation of when a language uses a free-standing noun and when it uses an incorporated noun. As Gerdts (1998) observes, Baker's (1988) account of incorporation cannot provide such an explanation. To see the intralinguistic effects of determiner features, one can reverse the claim implicit in Baker (1988) that syntactic visibility entails noun incorporation (see (11)) while syntactic inactivity indicates a lexical structure (see (12)). Thus one can argue, following Siebert (1998), that the head movement involved in incorporation is triggered by a null determiner lacking the [± specific] value, i.e., a 0 with unspecified semantic features. In Siebert's analysis noun compounds such as the truck driver are incorporation structures, and the lack of syntactic activity of the incorporans is not motivated by absence of a trace relationship as in Baker (1988), but it is the result of the absence of a value of [± specificity] of the incorporated noun. Siebert (1998) illustrates for German noun compounds that unspecified determiner features trigger incorporation in compounds, and she points to [± definite] as the crucial feature.

23

Although the scope of her work does not involve the extension of her analysis to other languages, Siebert points to its cross-linguistic potential, speculating that a general feature [± specific] may have a role as the trigger for incorporation. Specificity and definiteness as functional features of functional projections of NPs may or may not be bundled in the same syntactic locale D. Vater (1984,1991), for example, argues that specificity is not a determiner feature, but a feature of Q, the functional head of a quantifier phrase (QP) in the specifier position of the NP complement of the functional head D. However, in both the D-feature and the Q-feature account, specificity is a functional feature whose presence or absence motivates the different referential properties of the nonhead nouns in compounds and phrasal noun combinations. For the purposes of the present discussion I shall represent specificity as a feature of D, following Siebert (1998). The absence of a value for [± specific] reference can indeed account for the structural differences between compound nouns such as love song and DPs such as the song about love. The DP would have the structure given in (15): (15) the song about love

[+ specific] the

Asin(13b), the null determiner 0 has a [- specific] value which licenses the selection of the singular non-count noun love. In the noun compound love song in (16), by contrast, the null determiner has no set value for [± specific], as is indicated by μ in the tree. The unspecified value for the null determiner makes the DP[ 0 love] uninterpretable. Structurally it must therefore receive a set value from the overt D heading the containing DP. In Romance languages, for example, determiner features are strong (Longobardi, 1994; 1996) and can percolate to love. In languages like English, however, determiner features are weak and therefore cannot directly affect the second noun. Because of this, love must move to a position inside a DP where it is ccommanded in its minimal DP by a determiner with a set value for specificity and where it can attract the determiner features. Such a position is where the determiner with the set value is not lower in the tree than the c-commanded noun love (cf. Siebert, 1998) and inside the minimal DP containing the determiner with the set value for specificity:

24

(16) the love song DP

1

D,1

NPi

the [+specific]

C

/^

' ·.

X\

/

c-command

\

N'

DP9

/\....^^· 42 N!

e;

song

[μ specific] 0

syntactic chain The structural difference between (15) and (16) results from syntactic movement triggered by the absence of a set value for specificity in the null determiner of the incorporated noun in languages with weak determiner features. The underlying structure in (16) is not, however, a possible surface structure in English (*the song 0 love). Under this analysis phrasal noun combinations differ from noun combination in compounds with respect to the specification of the [± specific] value for D2 and the presence of the case assigning preposition. Unlike Baker's (1988) account, which does not explain the distribution of free-standing nouns and incorporated nouns, the absence or presence of a set value for specificity motivates whether a noun will be incorporated. Also, unlike Baker's account, the process of noun incorporation is structure building. The phrase marker in (16) illustrates that the incorporans and the head noun merge to form a complex node N'. The N' merges with DP2 as NP. The determiner the and the NP love song then merge to form the overall DP. An underlying distinction between syntactically flat and syntactically hierarchical structures, i.e., a distinction between noun compounding and phrasal noun combination becomes unnecessary. While incorporation identifies case for the incorporans, phrasal noun combinations require a preposition as case assigner for the DP2. In terms of considerations of learnability the account of compounding as an instance of noun incorporation is appealing. It does not require a distinction between phrasal and compound noun combination as different objects. This syntactic analysis is superior to those that see compounds as the result of a lexical process in that it can explain the referential inaccessibility of incorporated nouns in a principled way through recourse to determiner features. In so doing different parameter settings in (15) and (16) become expendable since the word order differences are motivated independently by differences in determiner features. Although the cross-linguistic potential of this syntactic analysis has remained largely unexplored (cf. Siebert, 1998), the analysis appears to apply language-universally. The data from French and Chinese in (6), repeated here as (17),

25

(17) French Chinese

a. [[ timbre]N-[poste]N]DP 'stamp-postal: stamp' a', [la salle de bain]DP 'the room for bath: bathroom' b. [ [mao]N- [yi]N]DP 'wool-clothes: sweater'

b'. [li-shi ke-ben1PP

'history textbook'

and from English in (15) and (16) point to a typological difference between English and languages such as Chinese and French.2 Lardiere (1994) points to Romance compounds such as the French compounds in (17a) and the Spanish compound in (18) and argues that, in contrast to English, the second noun does not incorporate in French and Spanish. (18) un toca-discos

'play3SG-record'

a record player

If the compounds in (17a) and (18) have not incorporated the second noun, a plausible explanation for the data from French and Spanish is that, like English, they are left-headed. But as indicated earlier, the necessity of incorporation is dependent on the [μ specific] value of the determiner in the second phrase. Since English determiner features are weak, the incorporated noun must move to a position where it can attract the set value for [± specificity]. In Romance languages, on the other hand, determiner features are strong (Longobardi, 1996), so that they can percolate to the incorporans in the Spanish compound in (18). Compounding thus does not involve incorporation, which is why the word order in compounds and phrases is identical in these languages. The Chinese compounds in (17b), by contrast, do involve incorporation. Yet Chinese NPs are head final, so that incorporation does not result in a word order change (see Section 3.1.3 for a detailed discussion of Chinese DPs). Even in the light of a lack of more extensive exploration, the fact remains that an analysis of compounding as incorporation avoids the necessity of differentiating between syntactic and lexical processes when dealing with noun compounds and their phrasal counterparts. Because of the learnability considerations presented above, I adopt this analysis as the grammatical basis of the investigation of noun combination in interlanguage. In the discussion part in Chapter 5 I evaluate how the interlanguage data bear on this grammatical account.

Incidentally, there are some English noun combinations which have most likely borrowed their word order from French as for example vitamin C or steak Wellington (see Liberman & Sproat, 1992).

26

l .2 Noun Combination in English: A Variable Target

From the discussion so far, it is clear that monolingual speakers can choose crosslinguistically between phrasal noun combinations and noun compounds. The two basic recursive combinatory patterns are given in (19) with the corresponding rewrite rules: (19) a.

a love song DP, (noun+noun compound) NP N' DP2

b. a song about love (phrasal noun combination)

DP, NP PP DP2

-»D,+NP -» N'+DP 2 ' -> N,+N2 -»D 2 +t, -»D,+NP -* N,+PP -» P+DP2 -*D2+N2

With respect to the study of noun combination in interlanguage, it is important to note that although all languages provide this basic choice, there are differences between languages. Such differences lie in the realization of the patterns for noun combination given in (19a-b), for example, in terms of contrasts in structure such as head position, inflection, prepositions, stress patterns, and distribution in discourse. To study the grammar of noun combination in interlanguage and the effects of the LI on its development, defining the acquisitional task for the learners is indispensable, i.e., one must describe the language particular realization of the patterns in (19) for the TL. English is of particular interest as a TL in that the patterns in (19a) and (19b) can share the same meaning, making English noun combination a variable target that gives learners a choice which can be related to noun combination in their LI (Klein & Perdue, 1997). The acquisitional task, however, cannot be stated in terms of a simple binary choice alone. Defining the acquisitional task involves a detailed description of the language specific properties of English noun combination and the similarities and differences between the different patterns.

1.2.1 Combinatory Patterns for Nouns in English The grammar of English DPs allows nouns to combine into larger structural units via both incorporation and non-incorporation structures. Compounds of the type (19a) are the result of incorporation, whereas phrases of the type (19b) are constructed directly by merger. As discussed earlier, it is due to syntactic movement that in (19a) the second noun love occurs to the left of the head noun song. In contrast, the second noun love is placed to the right of the head in phrases like (19b). A basic distinction can thus be made in English between prenominal and postnominal position for the second noun. To evaluate the role of these basic patterns in the acquisition of English, it is necessary to inspect the different status these options have in the grammar. In this section therefore, I look at the properties of pre- and

27

postnominal noun combination in detail, discussing differences and similarities in terms of phonology, structure, semantics, and distribution in discourse.

1.2.1.1 Compounds and prenominal noun modification In addition to noun+noun compounds, English has two other types of noun combination within DPs that place a noun to the left of the head noun. A prenominal noun such as rubber may function as modifier as in the rubber boots, and there are DP specifiers such as the president 's in the president 's car. While I have argued that noun+noun compounds are the result of noun incorporation, the structure of noun combinations with DP specifiers has not been addressed. In order to define the acquisitional task in English noun combination in a comprehensive manner, I outline in this section the basic properties of each of these additional combinatory patterns and discuss their structural representations. In some DPs nouns take a prenominal noun modifier, as in the rubber boots (20a), where the modifying noun is an attribute of the head in a fashion similar to that of an adjectival modifier (20b): (20) a. the rubber boot

b. the old boot

DP

DP

D

NP

D

the

X\

the

NP

N

N

A

N

rubber

boot

old

boot

It is quite obvious that structures like (20a) closely resemble the noun compound (19a) in that they both involve a surface sequence of Noun+noun. In what follows I discuss important differences between noun compounds as incorporation structures the love song in (I9a) and prenominal modification structures such as the rubber boot in (20a). What sets (19a) and (20a) markedly apart is their stress pattern. In incorporation structures such as the love song the main stress is on the incorporated noun while DPs with prenominal modifiers have main stress on the head noun as in the rubber boot (Liberman & Sproat, 1992). This difference raises questions about how prenominal modification (20a) and noun+noun compounds (19a) are related. While there are accounts that see both structures as compounds (Hatcher, 1952, 1960; Quirk et αϊ, 1972), many authors have tried to distinguish compounding and prenominal modification on principled grounds (Bauer, 1978, 1983a; Bolinger, 1972; Lees, 1963; Levi, 1978; Liberman & Sproat, 1992; Marchand, 1969; van Santen, 1986) by looking at the semantic and syntactic properties of each for further clarification. I briefly review the findings of such inquiry, focusing on the evidence that stands out as solid in what must be considered complex and puzzling linguistic data. In so doing I show that different syntactic properties are associated with each stress pattern.

28

In the grammars of native speakers of English stress assignment on noun combinations can vary. Experimental evidence from reading tasks and judgment tasks (Pennanen, 1989; Bauer, 1983b) shows idiosyncratic variability in stress assignment in terms of phrasal and compound stress while Levi (1978) observes dialectal variation for compound stress and phrasal stress. Numerous instances of interindividual as well as idiosyncratic intraindividual variation are attested for noun combinations such as peanut butter and peanut butter (Farnetani, Torsello & Cosi, 1988; Liberman & Sproat, 1992) The noun combinations given in (21) all show the typical compound stress pattern (/ \) (cf. Burzio, 1994; Chomsky & Halle, 1968): (21) apple cake, battle fatigue, stock exchange, moth hole, girlfriend, courtyard, garden party, blood test, money order (examples from Levi, 1978). Other noun combinations have secondary stress on the modifying noun and phrasal stress on the head noun (\ /): (22) apple pie, child prodigy, class reunion, string quartet, stone wall, government property, voice vote, surface tension (examples from Levi, 1978). It is important to note that the meaning of the compound-stress noun combinations in (21) can be similar to the meaning of the phrasal-stress noun-combinations in (22). The semantic similarity of apple pie and apple cake illustrates that the different stress patterns are not associated with the meaning of such phrases. Many authors have tried instead to link the stress variation to the semantic relationship between the component nouns in the two patterns (cf. Marchand, 1969; Sampson, 1980). But, in a careful review of the suggested criteria, Liberman and Sproat conclude that "there does not seem to be a single, clean semantic distinction such that all nominals with lefthand stress will fall into one semantic class and all nominals with right-hand stress will fall into the other." Liberman and Sproat (1992) also investigate discourse effects as a possible factor in stress variation. They analyze the role of foregrounding by employing intonational means (i.e., stress assignment) for the functions of focusing, contrasting, and referring. These functions are what Ladd (1984) calls Focus, Contrast, and Anaphora (FCA) effects. But Liberman and Sproat found " no useful FCA explanation" in any of the noun+noun tokens with phrasal stress in their text sample. Although there is ample evidence for stress variation, neither semantics nor discourse function appear to have reliable predictive value. In addition to the use of synchronic criteria, to explain stress variation there have also been attempts to explain it diachronically as the result of lexicalization. In lexicalization words and phrases may lose their previous transparency and become semantically 'frozen' (McMahon,

They selected two types of texts. The authors screened the texts for noun+noun forms and found that in both texts combined 75% had compound stress and 25% phrasal stress.

29

1994). A coffee maker, for example, could be 'a person who puts coffee on', yet the meaning of the compound has stabilized as 'machine for making coffee' for most speakers of American English. Conceivably, native speakers of English might assign compound stress to prenominal noun combinations as a default when their meaning is non-transparent. However, both noun+noun compounds and prenominal modifier phrases may be either lexicalized or nonlexicalized, as illustrated in Table 1: Table 1. Lexicalization in Prenominal Noun Combination Lexicalized Noun compounds eyeball Prenominal modifiers rice pudding

Non-Lexicalized capsicum leaf dingo stow

(Table adapted from Liberman & Sproat, 1992) Native speakers use both patterns productively;4 i.e., they form new units in analogy to existing ones, as illustrated by the examples in the 'non-lexicalized' column in Table 1. Although using stress to differentiate between prenominal modifcation and compounding does not seem to be completely reliable, the two different stress patterns mark different syntactic properties of noun+noun compounds and prenominal modifier phrases. The examples in (23) illustrate such differences between prenominal modification (23a) and (23b) and noun compounds (23c) and (23d): (23) a. b. c. d.

the large rubber [boots]N ί and the small leather ones j have been sold out the rubber exercise shoe 5 *the new exercise [shoes ]N ( and the old brown ones; have been misplaced *the exercise rubber shoe

While rubber is a prenominal modifier of boot in rubber boot, exercise has been incorporated to form the compound exercise shoe. The facts from o/ie-pronominalization in indicate that boot as head noun may serve as the antecedent for one (23a), whereas shoe as the head noun of an incorporated structure may not (23c). This difference coincides with the difference in stress assignment, rubber boot has phrasal stress, whereas exercise shoe has compound stress. The word order facts in (23b) and (23d) provide further evidence for syntactically different structures for rubber boots and exercise shoe in that the prenominal modifier rubber may precede the compound exercise shoe (23b), while it may not separate the component nouns in the compound exercise shoe (23d). In the light of these differences in syntactic behavior, the difference in stress assignment can be interpreted as an indicator of structural differences. The word order in (23b) suggests

4

For lexicalization and productivity see also Section 1.2.2.1. Examples like (23c) depend on a special context in terms of their acceptability. Rubber exercise shoes might be exercise shoes made from rubber which runners use for training in slippery territory.

30

that incorporation precedes modification in the structure building process that forms the DP the rubber exercise shoe. This suggests (24) as the structural representation for complex structures such as (23b): (24) the rubber exercise shoe

x\

N rubber

N' v/\.

N

N

exercisej shoe

D N [μ specific] tj

t

"

l

The constituent ordering in (23b) points to regular syntactic adjunction as the process that has the prenominal modifier rubber merge with the incorporation structure exercise shoe. After shoe incorporates exercise, rubber is adjoined to the compound exercise shoe. Another option would be to incorporate rubber after exercise is incorporated. Such an account cannot, however, accommodate the differences in stress assignment for prenominal modifiers and compounds, which accompany the pronominalization and ordering phenomena in (23). Note that in rubber exercise shoe, exercise shoe has compound stress while rubber has secondary stress. This difference in stress corresponds to different generative processes. While phrasal stress (\ /) indicates adjunction and thus prenominal modification, compound stress (/ \) indicates incorporation. By extension, instances of prenominal modification for simplex nouns are also formed by adjunction, resulting in the structure given in (25): (25) the rubber boot

N rubber

N boot

While compounding involves incorporation movement, prenominal modification is the result of adjunction.

31

Adjunction as a basic syntactic process does not constitute a learnability problem. Noun modifiers merge with the structures they modify by the same process as adjective phrases (AP) as illustrated in (20b). Stress assignment can be used to differentiate adjunction from incorporation. In terms of the acquisitional focus of the current research, stress assignment in noun+noun sequences offers an empirical basis for the comparison of native speakers and non-native speakers in terms of the distinction between adjunction and incorporation.

1.2.1.2 Phrasal DP-modifiers In English DPs there is one other configuration in addition to compounds and prenominai modifiers where a nominal may precede the head noun of its extended projection, namely in DPs of the type the president's car. The DP the president serves as the specifier for a null determiner 0 (Abney, 1987). The suffix s marks a possessive relationship between the specifier DP the president 's and the zero determiner 0 in the same way as the possessive pronoun my marks a possessive relationship with the zero determiner 0 in the DP my car, Accordingly, these DPs have identical structural representations, as shown in (26): (26) a. the president's car

b.

my car

DP

DP

D'

D

[+ specific] D

N

D

[+specific] 0 the president's

N car

m

y

D

N

0 [+ specific] car

Evidence for this analysis comes again from ordering constraints and pronominalization. (27) a. a'. b. c. d.

[*the various j [presidents's car J]]DP [ [the various j presidents's; ]DP car]DP *the president's j new car is faster than the old one j the new president's ( car is faster than the old one's f was *the new president's; car is faster than the old one (

Adjectival modification in (27a) illustrates that the adjective various does not modify car since it requires plural concord and car is singular. (27a') is thus the adequate structural representation of the DP the various presidents 's car. The pronominalization facts in (27c) and (27d) also confirm the specifier analysis in (26a) and (27a'). In (27c), one has to be marked for possessive in order to have president as its antecedent; hence the unacceptability of (27d). Possessive DPs thus differ from compounding and prenominai noun adjunction. A DP node separates them from the head noun of the extended projection and they require

32

possessive case marking. These structural differences have specific semantic implications (Longobardi, 1994; Plank, 1992): (28) a. the president's car 'the car of the president'; * 'a car of the president' b. a car of the president's While the interpretation of incorporation DPs and DPs with prenominal modifiers depends on the [± specific] feature of the head D, possessive specifier DPs force a specific interpretation for the overall DP (28a). The grammar requires the special postnominal possessive structure in (28b) for [- specific] reference. These specificity facts set possessive DPs apart from prenominal noun combination in compounds and prenominal modification. While possessive DPs are ultimately relevant to the acquisition of English DP structures, their properties need to be considered separately from instances of prenominal noun combination that do not involve DP boundaries between the component nouns.

1.2.2 Comparing Prenominal and Postnominal Noun Combination In terms of defining learner choices for the acquisition of English noun combination it is necessary to compare prenominal noun combination to postnominal noun combination. The pattern for postnominal noun combination in English are DPs with phrasal noun combinations such as the song about love. Since incorporation structures such as the love song involve movement of the non-head noun from a postnominal postion to a prenominal position, incorporation structures are structurally related to phrasal noun combinations. In what follows I discuss the similarities and differences between such phrasal noun combinations and incorporation structures such as the love song.

1.2.2.1 Phrasal noun combinations versus incorporation structures In this section, I examine phrasal noun combination and its properties in detail, and I contrast these properties with those of incorporation structures. Despite their syntactic and semantic similarities, the two patterns differ with respect to their thematic explicitness. In each pattern a non-head noun modifies the head of the extended projection, i.e., love in the love song and the sons about love. But while the preposition in phrasal noun combination specifies the thematic role of the non-head noun, the thematic role for the non-head noun in incorporation structures remains unspecified. Both incorporation structures (3la) and phrasal noun combinations (31b) contain a postnominal DP2:

33 (31) a.

b. DP

DI [+ specific] the

D, the [+ s p e c i f i c ]

N OVC:

Ν song N

song

s D2

"*·» N

[μ specific] t ;

t

1

Ρ about

[- specific] 0

love

The phrase markers in (31) illustrate the structural similarity between the two types of noun combination. The head of the extended projection song has a modifier noun in both structures. In (31b), the [μ specific] feature of the null determiner in DP2 triggers the incorporation of love, and love modifies song. In (3 la) song takes a prepositional phrase (PP) complement which contains DP2 as complement of the preposition. DP2 has a set value for [- specific], obviating the need for incorporation. The presence of the preposition is the only true structural difference between (3la) as a phrasal noun combination and (31b) as an incorporation structure. This structural difference corresponds to a set of syntactic and semantic differences between the two patterns which I discuss next.

1.2.2.1.1 Syntactic differences Syntactically there are three main areas in which the DPs in (31) differ, namely their referential properties, the distribution of plurals in DP2, and case assignment. In each of these areas, different restrictions hold for incorporation structures than for phrasal noun combinations. The different referential properties of the nouns in DP2 in (31) have been discussed in terms of the general distinction between noun compounds as incorporation structures and phrasal noun combination (see Section 1.1 for a detailed discussion). In English DPs, referential properties set incorporated structures apart from their phrasal counterparts. The sentences in (32) illustrate this.

34 (32) a. *the truck, driver filled itt with gas

IP

the [+ specific]

ISP

NZ

N

.

D,

tiuckj driver

[μ specific]

*

0 D3 It:

\vithgas

35

b. the driver of the truck, filled it, with gas

IP

[+ specific] the

truckj

with gas

Only the non-incorporated noun in (32b) has füll referential properties, while the incorporated noun cannot serve as the antecedent for it. As was demonstrated earlier, this is a result of the [ specific] null determiner contained in the DP2 of the incorporation structure. In phrasal noun combinations, the value for specificity must be set, hence the unacceptability of *the food for dog. The difference in referential potential of truck in (32a) and (32b) is thus important to the acquisition of noun combination in English. Incorporation structures are also more restricted in terms of the pluralization possibilities for the noun originating in DP2. Typically, the incorporated noun may not be plural while the non-incorporated noun may be.6 (33) a.*the trucks driver, *the dogs food, *the claws marks, *the photos album b. the driver of trucks, the food for dogs, the marks of claws, the album for photos In phrasal noun combination, there are no restrictions on the pluralization of the noun in DP2 other than those depending on the choice of noun (cf. *geographies). The restriction on pluralization in compounds is not absolute, however (Gordon, 1985). Generally irregular plurals can occur inside of compounds (34),

36 (34) teeth marks, men-bashing, mice eater as can plural-only nouns (35), (35) news reporter, sports program and a certain number of regular plurals where the plural also marks heterogeneity (Alegre & Gordon, ms.): (36) claims applications, programs coordinator, rocks research, materials distributor, parks commissioner. While the restrictions on the referentiality of the noun in DP2 constitute language universal distinctions between incorporated and non-incorporated structures, the pluralization restrictions are particular to Spell-out structures in English and typologically related languages such as Dutch (Schaeffer, 1993) and German (Clahsen, 1995; Wiese, 1996). Another syntactic difference between incorporation structures and phrasal noun combinations involves case assignment. Case assignment serves to mark the internal relationship between non-head nouns and their heads in phrasal noun combinations (cf. Blake, 1994). In English no two DPs can be immediately adjacent without the possibility of case assignment to the second: (37) a. *the food the dog b. the food for the dog c. the dogj food 0 tj But while the phrasal noun combination in (37a) requires the insertion of the preposition^or as in (37b), there is no case assigner for dog in the incorporation structure (37c). Proponents of a lexical account of compounding argue that dog does not need case since case assignment is a requirement of phrases and thus does not apply to dog, which has word status. But from a syntactic point of view the incorporation process itself' identifies' the noun dog syntactically (see Baker, 1988), thereby obviating the need for syntactic identification through case marking. The requirement for case marking of the DP2 in immediately adjacent DPs can be evaded through incorporation.7 This peculiarity is thus also part of the acquisitional task for noun combination in English. It is important to note that the choice of case assigning preposition for phrasal noun combinations depends on the head noun. When the head noun is deverbal as in the driver of a truck, the preposition is usually o/(38b). Of, a semantically empty preposition, is inserted as a case assigner to satisfy the case requirement for the DP2 (cf. Chomsky, 1981; 1986). In the sentence in (38a), the truck is the complement of the verb drive, i.e., it is the internal argument of the verb. The preposition of marks this complement relationship in the nominalization in (38b).

37

(38) a. She drives the truck b. The driver of the truck In (38b) the DP2 is also a complement to the head noun, requiring of insertion for case marking, but with the same thematic role for the truck in (38a) and (38b) (cf. Lieber, 1992; see also Section. 1.2.2.1.2 for a semantic account of arguments in deverbal incorporation structures). While phrasal noun combinations with o/have a complement DP2, case assigning prepositions other than of usually depict an adjunct relationship between the non-head noun and the head noun. Structurally adjunct phrases are not as closely related to their heads as complement phrases as the ordering of constituents in in (39) illustrates: (39) a. b.

[the student [of physics]PPI [with long hair]PP,]Dp *[the student [with long hair]ppl [of physics]PP,]DP

The 0/-DP (PP,) in (39a) occupies the position closest to the head. When the with-ΌΡ (PP2) occupies the same position, the DP is ungrammatical. In what follows I continue to refer to the DP2 in phrasal noun combination and incorporation structures as 'modifier DP' and to the nominal head of this DP as the non-head noun. When relevant to the argument I point to the implications of the complement versus adjunct phrase distinction.

1.2.2.1.2 Semantic differences The semantic relationship between a phrasal noun combination such as the song about love and an incorporation structure such as the love song reflects the structural similarities of both strings. In both structures the modifying noun must match the subcategorization requirements of the head noun (see 40): (40) a. a medication for our dog dog = beneficiary b. a medication for a rock rock = beneficiary In (40b) for a rock matches the requirements of medication perhaps not as obviously as^or our dog in (40a). Given an appropriate context, however, it is conceivable that in geology, for example, a rock might receive a form of medication to prevent it from splitting apart. The phrasal noun combinations in the DPs in (40a) and (40b) involve a head-modifier relationship between the head noun and the PP they contain. The same relationship holds in the incorporation DPs in (40) between the head noun and the incorporated noun: (41) a. a dog medication b. a rock medication

dog = beneficiary rock = beneficiary

38

However, in their semantics, phrasal noun combinations and their compound counterparts do not always offer a one-to-one match, but there is often a one-to-many correlation. While phrases contain prepositions to specify, more or less, the relationship of the dependent noun to the head of the extended projection (Blake, 1994), the semantic relationship between the head noun in a compound and its modifier noun can be ambiguous. In general the interpretation of compounds depends much more on the discourse context than does the interpretation of phrasal noun combinations (Brekle, 1986; Downing, 1977; Wellmann, 1993; Zwicky, 1990). A.party candle, for example, could be 'a candle for the party' used to provide special lighting, or 'a candle from the party' brought from the occasion as a prize. Choosing the intended meaning for party candle requires contextual support, while in the phrasal noun combinations the prepositions for and from encode specific relational information that avoids the ambiguity inherent in party candle. But relational information plays an important role also in the interpretability ofnoun+noun compounds (Brekle, 1986; Levi, 1978). One way in which such information is available is through lexicalization, i.e. listing of form and meaning in a speaker's mental lexicon. In the process of lexicalization, one of the possible interpretations of a compound emerges as the preferred one. Thus a teapot is a 'pot for hot tea' and not a 'pot in which tea leaves are stored' because its meaning is listed that way. Lexicalization can be conceptualized as a gradual process. In hedgehog, for example, the nouns hedge and hog no longer have their usual meaning in the composition. Bauer (1983b) points out that speakers of present day English will most likely not interpret the compound to mean 'hog living in hedges'. In terms of the acquisition of noun combination, such extreme cases of lexicalization are of little interest, since it is unclear to what extent speakers still analyze them as instances of noun+noun (Howarth, 1998). Analyzability is still intact in compounds of the type love song. Here a preferred interpretation has become usualized in the language. The usualized meaning is a 'song about love', i.e., a song about the theme of love. This preferred interpretation is transparent, since it is clear that variable A, love, adds to the meaning of variable B, song, according to the formula AB=B (Marchand, 1969) where the result of the combination is still determined by the head song. Other interpretations in addition to the usualized one are also possible as in 'song of love' and 'song for love', but because of usualization, these alternative meanings are secondary to the preferred interpretation. Brekle (1986) illustrates how such secondary meanings can be arrived at within a theory of markedness. In Brekle's model, originally devised for the interpretation of ad hoc German compounds, ad hoc nominal compounds are structures not taken from the lexicon but formed ad hoc for communicative functions similar to those of sentences. In both lexicalized and non-lexicalized ad hoc compounds the meaning depends on the relationship between the variables A and B, but the knowledge required to identify the relationship may come from different sources. Based on the different types of knowledge which inform the interpretation of compounds Brekle identifies four different compound classes. The classes differ with respect to how the relationship between A and B can be identified. Identification of the relationship can either occur locally, i.e. as a function of the meaning of the constituent nouns, or it may require nonlocal information. In a compound such as a milk van, for example, the relation of transport

39

that makes milk an argument of να« comes from the lexicon as a stereotype associated with the word van. No contextual support is required to arrive at this local interpretation. Compounds such as a snake man, on the other hand, have no inherent relat^onality and therefore require contextual information to receive an interpretation. While local interpretation constitutes the unmarked case, non-local interpretations are marked in that they require information external to the lexical nouns that constitute the compound. For usualized compounds such as love song contextual information becomes crucial when the preferred reading does not fit the context (cf. Brekle, 1986; Downing, 1977; Howarth, 1998). In its preferred reading love song evokes that variable A love relates to variable Β song in terms of 'aboutness' or thematicity, i.e. the song is about love. Brekle (1986) notes, however, that usualized compounds can also be used as ad hoc compounds. Thus, a love song, for example, could also be a songfor love in the context of a medieval poet composing a song to obtain the love of an adored lady. Following Brekle such a context-dependent alternative interpretation involves discourse pragmatics. It requires noticing that the usualized reading of love song does not fit the context, and then a contextualized re-interpretation. The reinterpretation as such is not given, i.e. it is not locally available, but must be found in the context. Finding an interpretation in the context for ad hoc compounds links compound semantics to discourse pragmatics. This means that when no local interpretation is available, context will be used to arrive at an appropriate interpretation better suited to fit the contextual requirements (Brekle, 1986). Following the Gricean Maximes of conversation (Grice, 1975) appropriate interpretations are those which are present and identifiable in the context as well as relevant and applicable. In other words an appropriate alternative interpretation establishes the relationship between variable A and variable B contextually guided by pragmatic knowledge. The attempts to classify the possible relationships between head and modifier nouns in compounds (Lees, 1963; Marchand, 1969; Warren, 1978; Zimmer, 1971) have been numerous, and Downing (1977) concludes that there is no limit on the possibilities. But what governs interpretability of noun+noun compounds are not listed types of relationships but the interaction of semantic and pragmatic knowledge. When noun+noun compounds are not locally interpretable, knowledge of discourse appropriateness conditions restrict both their use and the availability of an interpretation (Brekle, 1986). In terms of structural considerations the compositional nature of the usualized interpretation of the love song and its other transparent interpretations warrant a grammatical account in terms of incorporation. Non-transparent forms such as hedgehog do not involve incorporation because the semantic drift over time resulted in a loss of internal structure. Interpretation of incorporation structures in general depends on the relation that holds between the two component nouns. In the case of lexicalized compounds the mental lexicon contains the information about the relationship between the two nouns, while the underlying relationship between the component nouns must be inferred in ad hoc compounds. If the ad hoc compound cannot be interpreted locally, the discourse context must contain the information necessary to identify the relationship between the two nouns. As shown above the instantiation of a particular meaning for party candle, for example, always depends on the situational context.

40 In the phrasal counterparts to this incorporation structure, namely 'a candle from the party' and 'a candle for the party', the ambiguity of the relationship between head and modifier in party candle is absent. Adding the preposition identifies the relationship between the two nouns. Along with assigning case, the preposition assigns a thematic role to the DP modifier (42): (42) a. a candle for the party 'for [PURPOSE] ^e Partv' b. a candle from the party 'from rsoURCEl ^e Party' Phrasal noun combinations thus differ from incorporation structures in that they give speakers the option of marking the relationship between the two nouns by using a preposition, which, in turn, makes transparent the thematic role of the modifier. In (42 a) the preposition for requires a complement with the thematic role of Purpose, and in (42b) the prepostion^row requires a complement with the thematic role of Source. The thematic marking by prepositions in (42) involves adjunct DPs. In the case of deverbal head nouns with complement DPs the preposition o/does not itself specify a thematic role for the complement DP. Instead it signals inheritance of the thematic role from the roles contained in the thematic grid of the underlying verb (see Baker, 1988; Lieber, 1992). (43) a.

the driver of [the truck]op; (=THEME) underlying νεΛ^,^ΟΚ.™^,^

b. the shooting of [the officers^?, (= AGENT/PATIENT) underlying verb:AGENTSHOOTPATIENT In agentive phrasal noun combinations the complement has the thematic role of the internal argument (43a), while the complement in gerundive phrasal noun combinations can also have the role of the external argument (43). In the structures in (44) the complement nouns from (43) were incorporated. It is important to note that only the internal arguments of the underlying verbs may incorporate. (44) a.

the [truck] (=THEME) driver underlying verb:

b. the [officer] (= *AGENT/PATIENT) shooting underlying verb: ΑοΕΝτ5ΗΟΟΤΡΑΤΙΕΝΤ The usualized meaning for deverbal incorporation structures associates the thematic role of the internal argument with the complement noun. But unlike in the case of the phrasal noun combinations in (43) other interpretations are still possible for the incorporation structures in (44). If the first prize in a car race was a truck, then the drivers going for the prize could be called 'the truck drivers' (cf. 'the drivers for the truck'). An Officer' shooting could mean a shooting contest whose benefits will go to the officers (cf. 'a shooting for the officers').

41

In concluding this comparison of phrasal noun combination and incorporation structures, it is essential to note that the preposition in phrasal noun combinations serves two functions. Structurally it functions as a case assigner and semantically it either assigns a thematic role or signals thematic role inheritance in the case of of. The [μ specific] value of the null determiner in the DP2 in incorporation structures emerges as the basic difference between noun compounds and phrasal noun combinations both syntactically and semantically. Its presence triggers incorporation, which in turn results in a generic reading for the incorporated modifier noun, leading to the ambiguous relationship between modifier and head. A set value for either [+specific] or [- specific] for the null determiner in the DP2, on the other hand, obviates the need for incorporation but requires a preposition for case assignment. Along with specifying case, the preposition disambiguates the relation between the two nouns in that it assigns a thematic role or, in the case of of m deverbal phrasal noun combinations, it specifies the thematic role which can be inherited from the underlying verb. Thus while the meaning of incorporation structures is ambiguous and disambiguation often requires contextual support, the thematic marking of the modifier DP in phrasal noun combination narrows the range of possible interpretations. In summary the acquisitional task in English noun combination can be seen to involve three steps. As a first step learners need to recognize the role of the [± specificity] value in modifier noun combinations. In so doing, they can simultaneously acquire compounding as an incorporation structure and phrasal noun combinations as non-incorporation structures. Second, learners need to separate the adjunction process in prenominal modification from incorporation structures and phrasal noun combinations. And third, learners need to differentiate between noun combinations involving modifiers and noun combinations involving specifiers. Possessive DPs in the specifier position of another DP, such as the president's car, and their properties are different from prenominal modification, noun incorporation, and phrasal noun combination. For the study of noun combination in interlanguage, the first part of the acquisitional task is the most important one in that it involves a choice between two options which are syntactically and semantically related. This makes usualized transparent noun compounds such as love song and their phrasal counterparts, such as the song about love, two options between which learners can choose when acquiring English. Incorporation structures and phrasal noun combinations are two options which can each be systematically related to the properties of noun combination in other languages. According to Klein and Perdue (1997) it is the LI grammar which guides learners when the TL has two options for the combination of nouns. While both phrasal noun combination and noun incorporation are available cross-linguistically (see Section 1.1), languages vary in terms of morphological options for the specification of case and thematic marking. It is thus possible to explore systematically how LI noun combination impacts the choice for noun combination patterns in interlanguage.

42

1.3 Summary

In this chapter I have discussed the grammar of noun combination across languages and specifically for English. Universally one can distinguish phrasal noun combination from compounding resulting from incorporation. Assuming incorporation obviates the need for separate parameter settings for compounds and phrases, which is an important consideration for leamability. The realization of universally available patterns for noun combination in English involves prenominal and postnominal noun combination. Possessive DPs, prenominal modification, and incorporation structures are the prenominal patterns and phrasal noun combination is the postnominal pattern. Although the total of the options together defines the acquisitional task for English, the discussion has shown that phrasal noun combination and incorporation structures are the two most closely related patterns. They make English noun combination a "variable target" in the sense of Klein and Perdue (1997).

Chapter 2: Noun Combination and Language Typology in First and Second Language Acquisition - A Review of the Literature

2.0 Introduction

The role of typology in the development of the grammar of noun combination has often been discussed in the literature on first and L2 acquisition but only in conjunction with more general questions. These questions usually involve the determination of universal characteristics and properties guiding the acquisitional process, and phrasal noun combinations and noun combination in incorporation structures have largely been explored separately. However, in the light of the findings from Chapter 1 it is important to base the analysis of noun combination in interlanguage on a comprehensive grammatical account of the relationship between phrasal noun combinations and noun compounds. In the following review of the literature I extract from the diverse body of scholarship relevant evidence for determining the role of typology in the acquisition of noun combination patterns. I show that a comprehensive account of noun combination in phrases and noun compounds is missing in both the LI and the L2 literature. This review of the literature is divided into two sections. I begin with a brief survey of studies concerned with noun combination in LI acquisition. In this section I address crosslinguistic differences in the acquisition process and factors promoting learning. In the second section I review the literature on noun combination in L2 acquisition. I critically evaluate several proposals for what guides the acquisitional process in interlanguage compounding and for how language typology motivates learner choices. In the conclusion of this section I argue that the study of noun compounding and phrasal noun combination must be undertaken simultaneously and cross-linguistically, with an eye to providing a comprehensive grammatical account of their interrelationship. In order to understand the effects of LI typology on noun combination in interlanguage it is necessary to take into account whether or not the learners' LI s mark the relationship between the component nouns in noun combination with overt morphology.

2.1 Noun Combination in First Language Acquisition

The majority of studies investigating noun combination in LI acquisition have been devoted to compounding. While there are many authors who discuss the acquisition of compounds, there are no studies explicitly devoted to noun combination within phrases. Evidence for phrasal noun combination can be gleaned only indirectly from studies of noun phrase

44

development. The reason for the separation of noun compounding and phrasal noun combination is the absence of a comprehensive and universal grammatical account relating the two, and this separation leads to explanatory problems for some of the evidence found in the data.

2.1.1 The Acquisition of C ompounding There are two main lines of LI research on compounding. The first is concerned with the development of acquisition and the factors motivating acquisitional stages. The second seeks primarily to explain the acquisitional process in terms of acquisitional principles derived from learnability considerations.

2.1.1.1 Factors determining development In general children learning different languages follow the same developmental stages (Clark, 1998). Children universally go through a phase of two-word utterances, for example (Brown, 1973), before forming more complex syntactic strings. Compounding poses some challenges to the universality of the developmental stages, making one of the tasks of acquisitional research to discover factors that can explain why cross-linguistic variation occurs here and not elsewhere in the grammar. In a study of the acquisition of word formation processes in the LI Clark and Herman (1984) identify four important factors relevant to the developmental stage at which compounding is acquired. Using Hebrew data from question elicitation tasks targeting production and comprehension they find that simplicity, transparency, productivity, and conventionality are the factors guiding the acquisition in the sixty children aged 3 to 12 in their study. Simplicity concerns differences in the complexity of morphological changes affected by a word formation device, and transparency concerns the degree of transparency of the output of a word formation process. Productivity is the range of forms to which a word formation device can apply, and conventionality concerns the frequency of application of a word formation device in actual language use. Subdividing their subjects into five age groups, Clark and Herman compare the data and find that simpler forms (e.g., open-thing) emerge earlier than more complex forms (e.g., canopener), and that more transparent forms (e.g., dog-house) precede more opaque ones (e.g., icebox). While simplicity overrides semantic transparency in younger children, Clark and Berman find that the factors together are important starting at age four. Productivity is important in all five age groups. Importantly the authors find that children's choices are guided by the forms they encounter most frequently in the input, and not by the virtual number of possible combinations for one pattern versus another. As children increase in age conventionality tends to influence their choices, i.e., the knowledge of how their LI conventionally expresses a certain meaning.

45

The four factors productivity (1), transparency (2), conventionality (3), and simplicity (4) can all lead to cross-linguistic differences in the acquisition of compounding. Although typological considerations were not their major concern, Clark and Berman observe that productivity and lexicalization of patterns can lead to different preferences in typologically different languages (1). The Hebrew-speaking children in their study, for example, show a preference for instrument compounds such as tape fixing. Instrument compounds answer the question 'how'. A similar study with English-speaking children showed a preference for agent compounds of the type mail man (cf. Clark & Hecht, 1982). Agent compounds answer the question 'who'. Children in both studies relied on productive patterns which have transparent and usualized meanings (2) (see Section 1.2.2.1.2). While instrument compounds are frequent in Hebrew and agent compounds are rare, the reverse is true for English, leading the children accordingly to favor one pattern over the other in each language (Clark & Berman, 1984). Conventionality is another factor leading to developmental differences in the emergence of compound nouns. While noun+noun (N+N) compounding is a conventionalized naming strategy in English (cf. Downing, 1977), Hebrew speakers opt for single words more frequently and rely on affixal morphology (3) (Clark & Berman, 1984). N+N compounds are therefore acquired later in Hebrew than they are in English. French makes little use of N+N compounds and has conventionalized phrasal noun combination for bringing new words into the language, e.g., la solle de bain 'the bathroom'. In accordance with the conventionalization patterns in each language, Clark (1998) observes that, while children learning Germanic languages such as English often use simple N+N compounds as early as age two, children acquiring Romance languages like French do not produce compounds before age five (see Clark, 1993). Another factor leading to typological variation is simplicity. Because of typological differences in case marking, compounding in some languages is more complex than in others, as Clark (1998) points out. In case marking inflectional languages, for example, every noun bears a case marker, while in isolating languages nouns are not inflected. Clark and Berman (1987) analyzed novel compounds from 60 children acquiring Hebrew, a highly inflected language which marks case. As head of a compound noun, many nouns in Hebrew undergo morphological changes. Feminine nouns ending in -a add a -t, for example. The time it takes to acquire the respective compound nouns increases proportionately with increasing complexity of the morphological changes, Clark and Berman (1987) note (4). While children learning an isolating LI form compounds from early on, compounding in inflecting languages, as the less simple process, emerges later.

2.1.1.2 Learnability considerations The other line of research investigating the acquisition of compounds in the LI makes a less obvious contribution to understanding the role of language typology in acquisition. The main concern of work is the 'how' of acquisition. Most authors offer a linguistic answer to the question of how children can acquire compounding and its properties given their cognitive development. These authors link the internal structure of compounds to principles of lexical

46 phonology or properties of verbal paradigms in the language being acquired. Cross-linguistic variation in this body of work can be conceptualized as variation in grammatical properties that children have to 'detect' in the input with the help of universal mechanisms of learning. For example, one such mechanism has been proposed to explain the distribution of inflected head nouns in English synthetic compounds, i.e., N+N compounds in which the head is deverbal such as bird catcher or truck driver. Gordon (1985) asked children acquiring English as their LI to state what they would call "someone who eats X." 98% of the responses to Gordon's picture elicitation task contained no regular plurals inside of the elicited compounds. Yet the children did use irregular plurals inside 98% of the elicited compounds targeting nouns with irregular plurals, indicating a robust distinction between forms like those in (la) versus (Ib) in the children's grammar: (1)

a. rat eater b. mice eater

Gordon's (1985) results can be linked to level-ordering in lexical phonology (Kiparsky, 1982). Figure 1 illustrates the ordering of morpho-phonological levels in Kiparsky 's model. Irregular and regular plural inflection take place at different derivational levels and are thus distinct entities. Irregular plurals are generated at Level 1 of the derivation, preceding the generation of compounds at Level 2, which is in turn followed by regular plural formation at Level 3. Examples

Properties

Level 1

-an, -ous, -ity,-th, inMice, oxen, scissors

Derivational, irregular, semantically idiosyncratic, host-deforming, stress shift, vowel reduction, unproductive

Level 2

-ness, -ism, -er, -ist, unCompounding

Derivational, nondeforming, (more) semantically predictable, productive

Level 3

-s, -ed, -ing

Regular inflections, nondeforming, semantically predictable

Syntax

Figure 1. Level-ordering, (adapted from Lardiere, 1995a) Gordon (1985) suggests that level-ordering can be conceptualized as a learning principle. Equipped with the principle of level-ordering children know that only irregular plurals can serve as input in noun compounding. Support for Gordon's claim about the role for level-ordering in learning the constraints on the use of regular plural nouns in compounds comes from Clahsen et al. (1992). These authors examine longitudinal data from conversations of German-speaking dyphasic children and data bases of non-dyphasic German-speaking children (ZISA corpus and Simone corpus). Dyphasic children suffer from dyphasia, i.e., the partial loss of language as a result of lesions in those parts of the brain that are directly related to language function. Following Wiese's (1988) analysis of German as a level-ordered language, Clahsen et al. identify -5 as the default regular plural affix for German nouns. Most German nouns have

47

irregular plurals, however, some of which are more frequent than -s plurals, as for example -τι plurals. In children without dyphasia, the authors find a correlation between overregularization of -5 and omission of -s in compounds. In the data from the dyphasic children a similar pattern emerges for -n and -s plural overregularization and omissions of-« and -s plurals in compounds. Clahsen et al.'s analysis shows that both children with and those without dyphasia differentiate regular and irregular plurals and are sensitive to the constraints of level-ordering. Lardiere (1994,1995b) questions the comparability of the results in Gordon (1985) and the results in Clahsen et al. (1992) because of the different data sources for these results. While the data in Gordon (1985) are all elicited novel synthetic compounds, Clahsen et al. (1992) do not differentiate between simple compounds that do not contain deverbal heads and synthetic compounds. They also do not focus on novel compounds alone, so that the subjects were likely to have previously encountered the compounds they used. Pointing to salient exceptions to level-ordering in German and English, Lardiere (1995a) questions the descriptive adequacy of level-ordering (see the examples in (35) and (36) in Section 1.2.2.1.1). In terms of language typology it is doubtful that all languages are levelordered (cf. Sproat & Shih, 1992), and restricting the principle to languages with the relevant properties weakens its explanatory power. Questions of applicability and the issues raised by Lardiere (1994, 1995a) lead to the obvious question of how otherwise to account for the learnability of the pluralization restrictions in English and German compounds. For synthetic compounds, Lardiere (1994) suggests an incorporation analysis for English, as illustrated in (2): (2) clambaker AGR°

She then explains the absence of regular plurals inside synthetic compounds as the result of the incorporation process, following the analysis in Roeper (1988) and in line with Anderson's (1985) argument that lack of nominal inflection is an indicator of incorporation.

48 Lardiere's proposal (1994, 1995a) differs from that of Gordon (1985) and Clahsen et al. (1992) in that it relates English compounding to other processes in the grammar. It sets out in linguistic terms what Clark, Hecht, and Mulford (1986) call "nominalization of the VP" in elicited data from forty eight English-speaking children age three to six. According to Clark, Hecht, and Mulford children go through a stage during the acquisitional process in which they correctly derive the nominalized head noun with the suffix -er, but do not observe compound word order, as illustrated by tokens such as cutter-grass andpuller-wagon. These forms seem to indicate that prior to the acquisition of incorporation, English-speaking children nominalize head nouns but do not incorporate the modifier noun. This corresponds to the word order in languages like Spanish where the modifier noun can remain unincorporated as in lava-platos (wash-3SG plate-PL: 'dishwasher') while children acquiring English need to add the step of incorporation. Although the incorporation analysis for English synthetic compounds reflects the correct order of acquisition in English and avoids the problems of restricting level-ordering to particular languages, it leaves open the questions of why regular plurals do not usually occur in simple compounds and why they may occur in some cases even in synthetic compounds (cf. red rats eater; Alegre & Gordon, 1996). Alegre and Gordon (ms.) show convincingly that when the incorporated pluralized nominals can have a generic, heterogeneous interpretation, adult native speakers of English accept them in compounds (cf. parks commissioner, rocks scientist). The modifiying nouns in such noun compounds never have a [+ specific] interpretation. Note that none of the analyses reviewed in this section address the semantics of the incorporans. The VP incorporation analysis does not motivate incorporation in terms of determiner features, and proponents of level-ordering do not consider the role of plural s in the English determiner system discussed in Section 1.2.2.1.

2.1.2 The Acquisition of Determiner Phrases According to Radford (1990) phrases in early child language acquisition differ crosslinguistically from phrases in adult language in that phrases at this stage lack functional categories. Using a large data corpus compiled from conversations with English-speaking children age 1.2 to 2.6, he shows that verb phrases, noun phrases, and sentences contain only lexical elements. This entails that determiners, as a functional category, are absent in the child's grammar. Radford explains how the data below evidence this absence: (3)

a. What's that? Good book (Leigh, 2.0) b. You were playing in the water - In water (Hayley, 1.7) c. Cup tea (= 'a cup of tea', Stefan, 1.4) d. Mouse in window (Hayley, 1.7)

Articles are absent from the children's utterances (cf. 3a), even from child imitations of adult DPs as in (3b). In (3c) the case assigning preposition of has been omitted. According to Radford, case assignment is tied in with the determiner system and therefore is absent when

49 determiners are not yet part of the grammar. However, children seem to have a notion of specifier as the underlying subject of a lexical head. As a consequence, Radford argues, the noun mouse in (3d) functions as the specifier of the prepositional phrase in window; i.e., the bracketing structure given in (4): (4)

[ [Mouse]NP [ [in]P [window]NP ]p.

PP

While the data in Radford (1990) illustrates the absence of determiners and therefore the absence of DPs, the corresponding discussion does not explore the issue of noun combination in depth. Although children use lexical prepositions to combine the nouns in (4), they do not use of in cup tea in (3c), because in contrast to in, of is reduced to the role of a mere case assigner devoid of independent meaning. The missing of indicates the absence of case assignment. Despite this absence, which is a consequence of the absence of a determiner system, Radford claims that children know how to combine nouns in compounds as illustrated in (5): (5)

big teddy bear (Jem. 1.9)

Compounding is treated independently of the development of the determiner system. Radford admits that his use of conversational data might suffer from underdetermination in that it might not contain relevant evidence or suggest patternings that more evidence would falsify. Yet he decides to classify adjective + noun (A+N) sequences as modification structures and noun+noun (N+N) sequences as compounds based on the ordering of constituents in just one token from his data, given in (5) above. Radford concedes that one token is scarce evidence, yet he sees a compounding analysis as the best decision. Surprisingly he does not address stress-patterns or the internal structures of the noun+noun sequences in his data, which causes a lack of clarity in his discussion, especially in the light of the similarities between teddy bear in (5) and cup tea in (3d). How do children know that bear is the head noun in (5), but cup is the head noun in (3d)? Distinguishing (5) from (3d) without an account of the structural differences involved leaves much room for imposition of adult grammar structures by the analyst. While Radford's account is built on the observation that early child grammars have lexical heads but lack referential constraints in the form of syntactic binding and a theta-system, no connection is established between these missing elements and the children's command of compounding. It is thus unclear how children distinguish between pre- and postnominal noun combination. A solidification of Radford's analysis could possibly come from the Initial Hypothesis of Syntax (Platzack, 1996) which is essentially a minimalist reconceptualization of absence of functional categories. The hypothesis states that all features are initially weak and would explain early incorporation structures as triggered by the weak determiner features of DPs in the intial grammar (cf. Section 1.1.1.2). However, to date a minimalist reanalysis of Radford's (1990) data has not been attempted and there is no comprehensive account of the acquisition of phrases and compounding. Because of the underdetermination in Radford's analysis it remains unclear how compounding and the acquisition of functional categories are related. The word order errors in synthetic compounding attested from Clark, Hecht, and Mulford

50

(1986) and Lardiere (1994) definitely point to a role for syntax. As the discussion in Section 1.2 has shown, compounding patterns and phrasal noun combination are functions of the referential properties of the modifier noun, but no acquisitional studies of the relevant referential properties are yet available. What seems fairly clear is that children learning typologically different languages acquire compounding at different developmental stages. The differences can be related to syntactic preferences in each language, as, for example, the choice of A+N over N+N. The review of the LI literature shows a role for language typology in two ways. First, the factors of productivity, simplicity, and transparency in Clark and Herman (1984) are interdependent with language typology in as much as they are a function of syntactic processes such as inflection and case marking (Clark, 1998; Clark & Berman, 1984). Likewise the occurrence of incorporation is dependent on language typology (Clark, 1998; Lardiere, 1994).

2.2 Noun Combination in Second Language Acquisition

The role of language typology in the acquisition of noun combination for L2s involves the language contact situation between the LI already in place and the L2 being acquired. In work on L2 vocabulary acquisition and the L2 lexicon, this language contact has been conceptualized as the driving force behind lexical processing (Singleton, 1994; Singleton & Little, 1991). Both languages offer resources for lexical coinage (Ridley & Singleton, 1995). In research investigating the combination of nouns in interlanguage, the grammatical properties of such combinations have been of foremost concern, with little attention being given to the developmental considerations of LI research. A majority of the interlanguage studies identify LI influence as a motivating factor in the grammar of noun combination. Evidence in support of level-ordering as a learning mechanism is scant. Early insights into the role of the LI in L2 acquisition come from work in the tradition of contrastive analysis (CA) and error analysis (see Introduction). Often motivated by the desire to predict learning difficulties or to improve L2 teaching, studies using the CA methodology predict acquisitional problems through a comparison of compounds and phrases in the languages in contact (Bauer, 1977, 1978; Voyles, 1967) and point to LI patterns as an explanation for errors (Sesay, 1986). The grammatical frameworks used in theses studies vary widely, and it is often unclear how compounds are distinguished from phrases by each author. Overall, however, a retrospective comparison shows that many of the difficulties perceived in earlier studies still play an important role in explanation in more recent work. Such difficulties are, for example, different head parameter settings in the languages involved in the contact situation or different conventionalization properties (e.g., a preference of A+N over N+N). In this review I focus on the newer studies because they are data-driven, in contrast to the CA studies, which consider differences between monolingual grammars without systematic recourse to actual data from learner language. First I discuss interlanguage compounding, and then I turn to the more general question of noun combination in compounds and phrases.

51

2.2. l Interlanguage Compounding: Level-Ordering or First Language Influence?

Analyzing the factors shaping learner choices for noun combination, like all research in interlanguage, involves the question of what sources of knowledge are available to the learners. For some authors the LI is the most likely source of knowledge while others argue that it is the universal resources available from LI acquisition that also remain accessible in interlanguage development. 2.2.1.1 The principle of level-ordering In a longitudinal study of compounding Clahsen (1995) investigates whether or not L2 learners of German are sensitive to the postulated levels of lexical phonology that separate regular from irregular pluralization. Clahsen et al. (1992) argue that in L l acquisition learners have access to level-ordering in the form of a universal learning mechanism that allows for irregular plurals as Level 1 phenomena to enter compounds while it prevents regular plurals inside of compounds. This is so because compounds are formed at Level 2 while regular plurals are formed at Level 3. The data in Clahsen (1995) come from interviews and free conversation with eleven adult learners of German between the ages of 14 and 37. Their LI s are Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, all Romance languages which have similar preferences for patterns for noun combination. The learners uniformly omitted the plural -n in German compounds, even in obligatory contexts, although they correctly supplied -n plurals for single nouns. (6) a. b. c. d. e.

Interlanguage data zitronetee (Giovanni I) kerzschlüssel (Bongiovanni I) straßebahn (Jose S) fraueklinik (Zita P) wocheende (Leonor P)

Standard German Zitronentee, 'lemon tea' Kerzenschlüssel, 'sparkplug wrench' Straßenbahn, 'street car' Frauenklinik, 'women's hospital' Wochenende, 'weekend'

For Clahsen (1995) the evidence in (6) suggests that L2 learners of German are guided by level-ordering. In the learners' interlanguage grammars, -n is the default plural for German nouns. Because of level-ordering learners classify -n as a Level 3 phenomenon which they accordingly omit inside of compounds.

2.2.1.2 First language syntax Lardiere (1995a) criticizes Clahsen's (1995) claims in the same manner she criticizes Clahsen et al. (1992). Clahsen's (1995) undifferentiated treatment of simple and synthetic compounds and of novel and existing compounds are her primary objections. In her own analysis Lardiere provides evidence that level-ordering does not constrain learner choices. Focusing on synthetic compounds in interlanguage, she uses elicited data from L2 learners of English,

52

fifteen with Spanish and eleven with Mandarin Chinese as their LI. The question "What would you call a person who cleans shoes/counts toes/bites hands?" triggered responses with regular plurals inside of compounds in both learner groups (e.g., *shoes cleaner, *toes counter, *hands biter)., although the Chinese learners used fewer plurals than the Spanish learners. Errors in head position occurred "almost exclusively" in the Spanish group (e.g., *wearer pants; my example - none are provided in Lardiere (1995a)). The regular plurals inside the compounds in both learner groups constitute counterevidence to Clahsen (1995). Lardiere (1995a) points to the Spanish learners to show how LI syntactic properties motivate the use of plurals. In Spanish, regular -s plurals may occur as complements in N+N compounds. The modifier noun occurs to the right of the head, i.e., it remains unincorporated. It occurs in the plural even in singular compounds because plurals are the Spell-out for a generic reading in Spanish (cf. Lardiere & Schwartz, 1994), as illustrated in (7): V

(7)

a. b. c. d. e.

un lava+platos un abre+lalas un toca+discos un corre+caminos un porta+herramientas

('a wash-3SG plate -PL') ('an open-3SG can-PL') ('a play-3SG record-PL1) ('a run-3SG road-PL') ('a carry-3SG tool-PL')

'dishwasher' 'can-opener' 'record player' 'road runner1 'tool holder'

Spanish speakers who use regular plurals inside English interlanguage compounds have acquired the movement for the pluralized noun, but they overgeneralize the Spanish marking for [+ generic]. Therefore they mistakenly assume that the incorporated noun must also carry the plural marker -s in English to receive a generic interpretation. The analyses in Lardiere (1995a) and Clahsen (1995) thus entail a very different conceptualization of compounding in interlanguage. The level-ordering effects observed by Clahsen (1995) imply that the TL in interaction with level-ordering motivates the interlanguage plural system and the lack of use of regular plurals inside compounds. Lardiere's (1995a) analysis of her data, on the other hand, suggests a crucial role for the LI. Certainly these viewpoints are not easily reconcilable. To clarify the situation it is necessary to enhance the comparability of data source and data quantification. This makes Clahsen's (1995) request for more specific evidence a point well taken. Another issue worth considering is Lardiere's claim (1995b) that the consistency criterion of 75% used in Clahsen (1995) is too lax to support a universal claim. In fact neither study is sufficiently general. The account of LI compounding in Clahsen (1995) is very brief and not tied in with other types of noun combination, and his LI s have identical typological features. Lardiere (1995a) limits her discussion of LI influence to syntactic differences between LI Spanish and L2 English. Moreover, Lardiere's (1995a) choice to restrict her analysis to synthetic compounding seems to imply that she sees a principled difference between synthetic compounds such as truck driver where the head is a nominalized verb and other compounds where the head is not a deverbal noun. It remains unclear how simple compounds are formed in interlanguage and whether there is a role for LI typology in the acquisition of simple compounds.

53

2.2.2 Interlanguage Choices: Compounds or Phrasal Noun Combinations? Noun combination in phrases and compounds has been looked at together in just a handful of studies. All of them have found traces of LI influence, which points to a role for typology.

2.2.2.1 Preferred patterns In a study concerned with the acquisition of word formation devices in interlanguage, Breeder, Extra, van Hout, and Voionmaa (1993) devote a large part of their analysis to phrasal noun combinations and noun+noun compounding which they subsume, slightly confusingly, under the heading "noun compounding." With twelve informants from six different LI s ( Finnish, Spanish, Arabic, Turkish, Italian, and Punjabi) and three different TLs (Dutch, Swedish, and English), their study has a wider typological scope than the studies reviewed so far. Breeder et al. analyze phrasal noun combinations and noun compounds in data from filmretellings and free conversation in the ESF corpus (Perdue, 1993). In compounds they find word order errors motivated by the head parameter in the learners's LI:

(8) a. LI Spanish (= head initial)/TL Swedish (= head final) IL form: tableter-vitamin 'tablets vitamin1 TL form: vitamintablets Vitamin pills' b. LI Finnish (= head initial)/TL Swedish (= head final) IL form: moment-den-arbets 'stage-that-works' TL form: arbetsmomenl 'stage' In Breeder et al.'s data learners generally avoid inflection inside of compounds, yet there are cases like (8a) that contain regular plurals (e.g., the regular Swedish plural -er in tableter). They found that noun compounds such as police van co-occurred with their phrasal counterparts the van for the police. According to Breeder et al., noun combination is the most basic word formation device, independent of LI and TL. Unfortunately Breeder et al. do not motivate this claim with a detailed grammatical account of compounds and phrasal noun combinations. They state that some languages prefer headinitial patterns to head-final patterns as in (9) and assign both combinations compound status, apparently on the basis of their semantic similarity. (9) a. la solle de bain (French/head initial)

b. the bathroom (English/head final)

In their analysis they do not address structural differences such as the presence of the preposition in (9a) and its absence in (9b). It therefore remains unclear why (9a) and (9b) are treated as equally basic.

54

In a re-analysis of the data in Broeder et al., Klein and Perdue (1997) also maintain that noun compounding (i.e., noun combination in compounds and phrases) is the most basic word formation device, and they develop a theoretical framework that reflects this basic status. According to Klein and Perdue, interlanguage grammars develop in most cases no further than a basic state, which they call the Basic Variety (BV). BV systems, they suggest, are truly minimal languages in the sense of the Minimalist Program, whereas fully developed natural languages are mere "borderline cases of learner varieties." On this view natural languages are thus departures from the minimal fully functional BV systems. The BV is equipped with everything minimally necessary for a system to serve the full communicative functions of a human language and, according to the authors, the BV grammar might be what is in fact specified in the human genetic endowment. In fully developed languages, devices such as inflectional systems add complexity to the minimal system of the BV. While this is not the place for an in-depth critical evaluation of the concept of the Basic Variety (see Bierwisch, 1997; Comrie, 1997; Meisel,1997; Schwartz, 1997a for detailed discussion), the theoretical status of noun combination as the most basic word formation device has interesting typological implications. Although Klein and Perdue (1997) do not discuss the grammatical structure of noun combination, they offer an interpretation for the cooccurrence of noun compounds and phrasal noun combinations in the data in Broeder et al. (1993). They relate the choice of head final or head initial patterns systematically to LI properties. In the BV lexicon, they distinguish three types of LI influence, namely in phonology, spatial and temporal expressions, and noun compounding. When the TL has either only head final or head initial organization, noun combination in B V is determined by the TL pattern. However, when the TL has variable options as, for example, English with the love song and the song about love, the likelihood for LI transfer increases. Like Broeder et al. (1993), Klein and Perdue subsume both phrasal noun combinations and noun+noun compounding under the heading 'noun compounding'. This is, of course, a simplified grammatical account, and relating it to the more detailed understanding of the differences between the love song and the song about love developed in Chapter 1 is necessary. In so doing, it becomes obvious that Klein and Perdue in fact make a statement about language typology in that they refer to the head parameter, i.e., one of the most basic criteria for typological classification in UG. When the TL in L2 acquisition of noun combination allows for different positions of the modifier noun with respect to the head, as for example in English, then learners are more likely to rely on the LI option according to Klein and Perdue.

2.2.2.2 Context dependency More evidence for the role of language typology in the choice of patterns for noun combinations comes from translation research. Olshtain (1986) investigates the translation of noun compounds from English into Hebrew using a set of translation experiments. Six subjects with Hebrew as their LI provided a written translation of a passage containing thirteen compounds from English into Hebrew. For the nine English compounds with no

55 lexicalized equivalent in Hebrew, they often used noun+adjective phrases instead of taking over the noun+noun pattern from the text. Five bilingual subjects gave an oral translation of the same passage into Hebrew. They relied even more on what Olshtain calls paraphrases; i.e., any equivalent of the original compound that is not a noun+noun sequence, including noun+adjective phrases. Although Olshtain does not make her statistics available her findings are suggestive in terms of language typology. Replacing N+N compounds with A+N phrases reflects the different conventionality of the patterns in English and Hebrew (cf. Section 2.1). In English N+N compounds are significantly more frequent than in Hebrew which uses A+N patterns to express the equivalent meaning (Clark & Berman, 1984; Olshtain, 1986). Olshtain (1986) also reports paraphrases that replace noun+noun compounds with phrasal noun combinations (e.g., the magnetism of the globe for earth magnetism). It is apparent that in this type of paraphrase, subjects chose the Hebrew head initial pattern. In general Olshtain observes that paraphrases serve the purpose of disambiguation since the meaning of the English compound may be opaque "unless the relation between the adjuncts or the meaning of the construct is crystal clear" (adjuncts are the component nouns of a compound in Olshtain's terminology). In other words, when the subjects could not rely on a translation into a lexicalized item in Hebrew, they resorted to paraphrases enhancing the clarity in their translations. This observation is significant in terms of interlanguage noun combination. Translations are, of course, not directly equivalent to the interlanguage data discussed so far. Yet they also reflect the language contact situation between two languages through the LI used to express the L2 content. The self-reports of the five bilingual subjects in Olshtain's study reflect their struggle to disambiguate the meaning of the compounds in their translations. While this struggle might in part be motivated by heightened awareness of translation problems through language training, it is also necessary to look at it in terms of typological considerations. Thus learners may use paraphrases to replace context-dependent novel compounds like earth magnetism with grammatical equivalents that make specific the relationship between the component nouns, as in the magnetism of the globe. In the Hebrew paraphrase case and thematic relationship between the head and its complement are specified by means of a case inflection, while in the English original earth magnetism the relation remains unspecified. It is possible, then, that the typological propensity of Hebrew for disambiguation through case inflections motivates the choice of paraphrase. By extension, this typological propensity can result in interlanguage preferences for combinatory patterns since interlanguage forms are generated in the same contact situation as translations.

2.2.3 Framing the Issues This overview has shown how choices for noun combination are embedded in the contact situation between the LI and L2. Evidence for the role of typological differences comes from learner errors in word order (Breeder et al., 1993; Clark, Hecht, & Mulford, 1986; Lardiere, 1995a) motivated by the LI head parameter setting. In fact, learner choices may depend on the LI parameter even when the LI parameters do not deviate from the L2 target setting. According to Klein and Perdue (1997), this happens when the TL has variable options, as

56

English does. In such situations, they claim, learners are more likely to be guided by LI typology than when the L2 serves as target with a single option. With respect to questions of transferability, Klein and Perdue's suggestion offers a potential explanation which, however, to date lacks empirical substantiation. Thinking of typological impact in terms of typological preferences is an attractive reconceptualization of the workings of LI influence. Studying such preferences must be based on a more detailed grammatical account than the one given in Klein and Perdue, however, an account that explains how compounding and phrasal noun combination are related. A uniform grammatical account is also important given learnability considerations. The evidence casts doubt on the availability of the principle of level-ordering in the L2 acquisition of compounds. At the same time the explanation of interlanguage forms in terms of LI syntax does not offer a solution to the learnability problem. The grammatical account of noun combination developed in Section 1.1 offers a comprehensive framework in which simple compounds, synthetic compounds, and phrases are systematically related. The findings from previous work show that it will provide a solid and comprehensive basis of the study of noun combination in interlanguage undertaken here. To explain the impact of typology on interlanguage noun combination structural considerations need to be combined with semantic considerations. I have included the Olshtain (1986) study here because it illustrates the importance of language typology with respect to the marking of the relationship between the component nouns in noun combination. In English phrasal noun combinations mark the relation between the component nouns by means of a preposition as in the song about love. As stated before incorporation structures in English as, for example, the love song, do not contain any morphological markers which make the relationship between the component nouns specific. Olshtain's study shows that LI typology impacts learner choices in that they choose phrasal noun combinations over noun+noun compounds in their English translations. In so doing they favor the pattern with overt marking of the relationship between the component nouns, i.e., the pattern that is used most frequently in their LI, Hebrew. Language typology is thus an important factor to consider in the study of noun combination in English interlanguage. While inflectional case marking languages like Hebrew usually mark the interrelation between elements with case marking, there are other languages that do not have inflections or prepositions. Isolating languages like Mandarin Chinese are a case in point. They rarely mark grammatical relations explicitly. These typological contrasts between languages represent the same contrast found between phrasal noun combination and incorporation structures in English. This contrast is of crucial importance in defining the nature of the transferability effects in noun combination observed in Breeder et al. (1993). Given the two English options for noun combination learners with an inflectional case marking LI are likely to prefer the phrasal option in their interlanguage choices, while learners with an isolating LI are likely to prefer incorporation structures. Typological transfer in terms of a preference for grammatical marking constitutes an instance of language transfer which is not immediately obvious. Rutherford (1984), in his conceptualization of interlanguage grammars as the typological intersections of the LI and the L2, emphasizes that discourse typology has an important role in learner choices, although this role may not be immediately obvious. Yet Rutherford points out that in terms of theory

57

development, those interlanguage phenomena are most interesting which are not related to the presence or absence of forms, but "rather a process, a propensity, a preponderance, a relationship, a special kind of grammatical sensitivity." I show in the present analysis that L1 typology and L2 options intersect in terms of learner propensity to choose options for noun combination with grammatical marking over those without grammatical marking or vice versa, as motivated by the learners' LI.

2.3 Summary

This literature review has presented previous work on noun combination in LI and L2 acquisition. In LI typological impact is reflected in developmental effects for the acquisition of noun combination. In L2 acquisition both head final and head initial noun combinations are present in the early, basic stages of acquisition (Broeder et al., 1993), so that noun combination ranks as the most basic word formation device in Klein and Perdue's (1997) Basic Variety. This prominent status makes noun combination an interesting and necessary area of further inquiry. The preferences attested in interlanguage production in Broeder et al. (1993) and Olshtain (1986) suggest that LI transfer in noun combination occurs as a function of LI typology. The crucial typological factor is the presence or absence of morphological marking of the relationship between nouns in a combinatory pattern.

Chapter 3: The Typological Intersection and the Empirical Study of Noun Combination in Interlanguage

3.0 Introduction

The investigation of the role of language typology in interlanguage noun combination turns out to be a complex task in the light of the grammatical and acquisitional phenomena discussed so far. The current chapter shows how the systematic study of interlanguage noun combination can draw upon the concept of the "typological intersection" (Rutherford, 1983) to reveal L l effects in learner language. With this concept, Rutherford captures two properties of interlanguage which had not been considered in earlier studies relying on the methodology of contrastive analysis. First, the notion of typological intersection acknowledges that interlanguage grammars can be affected by the learners' LI in subtle ways not readily observable in the data. As a case in point, Rutherford observes how LI discourse can affect interlanguage syntax for Chinese learners of English as a L2. In the notion of 'intersection' lies the second improvement in the concept of the typological intersection over traditional contrastive approaches to interlanguage analysis. The notion entails the importance of considering the particularities of the language contact situation between the first and the L2. It is well known that interlanguage grammars undergo development as learner proficiency increases, giving a potentially different weight to the L2 under acquisition at different stages of development (see Section 3.2.1.2.1). Another well known fact about interlanguage is its variability across situational contexts and related differences in communicative task (see Section 3.2.1.2.2). Applying the notion of'typological intersection' to interlanguage noun combination thus means to consider LI and L2 typology along with developmental variation and variation in communicative task. Typological differences in grammatical marking emerge as the main predictors of differences in the typological intersections between typologically distinct LI s and English as a TL with two options. The chapter is divided into three sections. In the first I briefly review the typological considerations which have been introduced above. Then I introduce the LI s in this research and examine the relevant properties of noun combination in each. Specifically I describe noun combination in the typologically distinct L l s, Czech and Mandarin Chinese, and then contrast these languages with English. The contrastive analysis serves as input to the second section where I develop a set of research questions about the typological intersections between each LI and English and hypotheses for answering them. The hypotheses target linguistic factors and non-linguistic factors known to motivate learner production and grammaticality judgments. Finally, in the last section, I discuss the empirical evidence bearing on these research questions and the proposed hypotheses.

60

3.1 The Contrastive Analysis of Noun Combination

The value of employing a contrastive analysis as a tool in the empirical investigation of typology effects in noun combination lies in the language contact situation between LI and L2 conceptualized in Rutherford's (1983) typological intersection. According to Rutherford, typological differences between LI and L2 result in a contact grammar which reflects these differences. Thus typologically different LI s will form a different typological intersection in contact with the same L2, and contrastive analysis can be used to predict the properties of these different typological intersections. Relevant typological contrasts can be described and then serve as the input for specific, testable hypotheses. Methodologically, such an approach is indispensable for testing Klein and Perdue's (1997) claim that language typology motivates transferability when the TL has variable options.

3.1.1 Criteria for the Determination of the Typological Intersection In describing the typological intersection between languages, it is necessary to consider the properties of determiner phrases and the possibility of using overt grammatical marking to specify the relationship between the nouns in combination. One criterion for devising the typological intersection by means of a contrastive analysis concerns DP properties (cf. Section 1.1). Word order differences between noun compounds and phrasal noun combination can be conceptualized in terms of determiner feature strength, and the variation in determiner feature strength in turn motivates whether a language involves incorporation in compounding as in English or whether it does not, as in Spanish. In addition to determiner features, the comparative analysis of DP structure also needs to address the status of the different combinatory options for nouns in actual language use. While patterns for noun combination exist universally, languages can favor one pattern over the other, and this can potentially motivate preferred options in the typological intersection (Clark, 1998; Olshtain, 1986; cf. Section 2.1). When in contact with another language that has conventionalized compounding as the means of naming nominal entities, a language which has conventionalized phrasal noun combination will form a different typological intersection with this language than when in contact with a language that also has conventionalized phrasal noun combination. A final typological distinction between languages concerns grammatical marking. English as a TL is ambiguous, for example, in that it has two options for noun combination in 'the lovesong' and' the song about love'. Phrasal noun combination offers a prepositional marker (e.g., about) whereas noun compounds do not contain any overt marker. In this sense English is in an intermediate position on a typological continuum with languages at one pole that do not overtly mark grammatical relations and languages at the other pole that always mark grammatical relations. The LI s to be considered, Czech and Mandarin Chinese, are at opposite poles of the continuum. To understand the nature of the differences between Czech, Mandarin Chinese, and English it is necessary to survey the implications of the presence or absence of overt grammatical

61

marking. Traditionally, languages have been classified typologically on the basis of employment of overt grammatical marking. Languages that mark grammatical relations using case inflections and prepositions are classified as inflecting languages, as for example Czech, Languages that do not mark grammatical relations using case inflections and do not have prepositions with semantic content are classified as isolating languages, as for example Mandarin Chinese. Languages like English, which represent a mixed type in that they make use of prepositions but have an otherwise impoverished case system, belong to a group classified as analytic languages in the traditional typological literature (Crystal, 1987). In the framework of UG, and specifically in the MP, these traditional classifications are treated as language-specific realizations of the same abstract processes, i.e., the process in which heads select their complements. This process consists of s-selection (semantic selection) in association with c-selection (categorial selection). Nominal heads, such as medication, for example, have a subcategorization frame which specifies that they s-select a lexical item which must match the thematic role of Beneficiary ((la) and (lb)), that they cselect a lexical item of the category N (Ic), and that the N must bear the objective case (Id). All three specifications need to be met, as illustrated in (1): (1)

a. */? the medication for the antidote b. the medication for the child c. *the medication for he d. *the medication for childish

The subcategorization frame of the non-head noun child in (1 b) matches that of the head noun and contains information relevant to inherent case marking. Inherent case marking means that the non-head noun must "get its case and theta role from the same category [i.e., the head noun]" (Rappaport, 1998). The non-head noun must accordingly be case marked for the case specified in the subcategorization frame of the head noun. In the MP category-selection and case selection can be subsumed under the single heading of f-selection (feature selection) in that both are features of the lexical head noun which the modifier noun must match (Rappaport, 1998). It is important to note that both f-selection and s-selection are universal processes and not restricted to languages of a particular type. Morphological marking of case through inflections or through the use of case assigning prepositions is one possible realization of these processes in Spell-out structures. The same processes are at work in isolating languages (see A. Li, 1985, for a discussion of abstract case assignment in Mandarin Chinese). Case is an abstract requirement for all nouns and follows from the case features of the noun as a lexical item, but it may or may not be indicated morphologically. Case features serve to link nouns to their syntactic context through percolation to the functional head D which selects the N as its complement. The DP can in turn match the selectional requirements of yet some higher head in the clause, for example as the complement of a verbal head. The universality of s-selection and f-selection are significant with respect to leamability considerations, and it is quite obvious that heads and their complements must be an acceptable match in order to be interpretable, regardless of overt grammatical marking (cf. Mandarin Chinese *qianbizhuzuo 'pencil work', where the noun 'work' cannot take 'pencil'

62

as its adjunct). The question of the relationship between thematic marking and case marking has been much debated. The notion of thematic role is tied closely to Fillmore's (1968) seminal concept of case roles, in which case inflections are paired with the thematic roles they express. However, there is no one-to-one relationship between case inflections and thematic roles, which is why s-selection on the one hand and case assignment as part off-selection on the other are conceptualized as different processes in the MP. But overt grammatical marking using case inflections and prepositions serves a function in the interpretation of utterances because it narrows the range of possible relationships between the elements in a syntagma. Noun combinations without overt grammatical marking, for example, require contextual support in order to identify the meaning of party candle as 'the candle from the party' and not as 'the candle for the party'. Variation in grammatical marking thus entails variation in the role that discourse context has in determining the relationship between a head noun and its complement or adjunct noun. This makes grammatical marking an important component in the contrastive analysis of the languages in this study. The determination of the typological intersection between a first and a L2 thus involves a cross-linguistic comparison of noun combinatory patterns in terms of DP properties and grammatical marking. These criteria constitute what O'Grady (1997), calls "a mix of structural and thematic notions" that guide the acquisitional process. In what follows, I discuss these criteria for Czech and Chinese so as to create a basis for the contrastive analysis of these languages with English.

3.1.2 Noun Combination in Czech Determiner Phrases The inflections in the nominal paradigm are of primary relevance for the study of noun combination. Nouns in Czech DPs are always inflected for case, number, and gender. In many instances, Czech DPs do not contain overt determiner heads but consist of bare nominals and their complements and adjuncts. While inflections carry f-selectional and sselectional information, position in the syntagma indicates the [± specificity] features of Czech DPs. In what follows, I discuss the role of inflections in the nominal paradigm and the issue of empty determiner heads in detail.1 Czech is an inflectional language. Inflectional morphology encodes tense, aspect, and agreement in the verbal paradigm and case, number, and gender in the nominal paradigm. Czech is often referred to as a "free-word order" language (Short, 1993; Webelhuth, 1992). This entails that the relationship between the elements in a Czech sentence must be obvious from the grammatical marking on the component phrases; so there is no need for fixed word order to identify the grammatical roles of the DPs in the syntagma, as illustrated in (2):

For expository purposes, I have used the demonstrative pronouns ta NOM SG FEM, lento NOM SG MASC, and {en

NOMSGNEi/r'th's/these' and the numeralsyWe« NOM so MASC 'one> and dva NOM PL MASC ana PLMEur'two' as heads in some of the DP examples in the discussion below. Note that all these DPs could have zero determiner heads instead.

63

(2) a.

U telk-a vid-ί knih-u teacherNOM see3SG bookACC 'The teacher sees a book'

b.

Knih-u vid-ί u telk-a bookACC see3SG teacherNON Ά teacher sees the book'

Case inflections and prepositions are the means which specify the relation between the participants in the action expressed by the verbal predicate. Similarly, they indicate the relationships between nouns in phrasal noun combination, (3) a.

odolnost-0material-uvuakoroz-i resistancCfjoM materialGEN vis-a-vis corrosion GEN: 'resistance of a material to corrosion'

b.

nevolnost- 0 dovek-a pn let-u sicknessNOM manGEN during flightLOC: 'a person's air sickness'

c.

odvah-a bojovnik-a ν boj-i courage^fighterGENin fightABL: 'a fighter's courage in battle'

d.

state cnost- 0 zen-y pn porod-u bravenesSflOM womanGEN during childbirthLOC : 'a women's btaveness during childbirth'

as well as the connectedness of DP elements since there is agreement between adjectival modifiers, specifiers, and the head noun of an extended nominal projection, (4) a.

ta dobr-ά studentk-a this

NOM-F-SG i°°dNOM-F-SG

StU

dentNOM.F.SG:

'this good (female) student' b.

jeden slavn-y profesor- 0 one NOM-M-sG famousNOM-M-sc ProfessorNOM.M.SG: 'a famous (male) professor'

c.

dv£rychl-a aut-a two fastNOM_NEUT_PL carsNOM_NEUT_PL: 'two fast cars'.

With respect to the combination of nouns within DPs, inflections and prepositions have a crucial role in pattern structuring and thematic marking.

64

In Czech DPs, nouns can be combined in phrases or through incorporation as noun compounds. In phrasal noun combinations, a head noun selects complements and adjuncts to its right. The non-head noun must match the subcategorization requirements of the head noun for case and thematic role. The case inflections on the modifier noun or a preposition in combination with the case inflections satisfy the case requirements specified in the subcategorization frame of the head noun (5a-h) (PiTha, 1984; Rappaport, 1998): (5) a.

tento uatel-0biologi-e thisNOMteacherNOM scienceGEN: 'this science teacher'

b.

lato hudb-a z radi-a musc NOM 'that radio music'

c.

sluA-a pracujic-im serviceNOM workersDAT: 'a/the service for workers'

d.

jeden bojovnik-eprotizloän-u NOM fighterNOM against crimeDAT: 'a crime fighter'

one

e.

tento gen- 0 pro ri£t- NOMgeneNOM for 'this growth gene'

this

f.

dva dark-y pro tyto uatel-e twoNOM presentsNOM for theseACC teachersACC: 'two presents for these teachers'

g.

pohyb-y ruk-ama movementsNOM handsINSTR: 'hand movements'

h.

ten lek- 0pro kamen- 0 mis medicme thisNOM NOMmedicine NOM for rockACC: Noi» 'this rock medicine'

Czech has weak determiner features, so that nouns not inflected for case must incorporate to form noun compounds with the head to the left. When the first noun stem ends in a consonant, the linking vowel is inserted between the two nouns in the compounds to ease articulation of the incorporation structure (6a-e). No morphological change occurs when the first noun stem ends in a vowel (6f) (Hronovä, 1993):

65 (6 ) a. b. c. d. e. f.

ten zver-o-lekaf 'this animal+doctor: veterinarian' ten les-o-park 'this forest+park: tree park' aut-o-skola 'car+school: a/the drivers' school' lid-o-jed 'people+eater: a/the anthropophage' let-o-hradek 'summer+castle: a/the summer residence' cti-zadost 'honor+demand: a/the ambition'

A handful of lexicalized abstract compounds show singular modifier nouns with genitive case inflection. This pattern is no longer productive in Modern Czech, so that the compounds in (7) are listed in the mental lexicon; i.e., they are no longer transparent and enter the syntagma as a single unit (cf. Howarth, 1998). (7) a. b. c. d. e.

obran-y-schopnost-e> defenseGEN+capabilityNOM: 'striking power' pozor-u-hodnost-0 specialtyGEN+characterNOM: 'singularity' pravd-e-podobnost- truthGEN+similari tyNOM: 'probability' pravd-y-milovnost-0 truthGEN+affectionNOM: 'love of truth' lid-u-milnost-0 personGEN+loveNOM: 'philanthropy'

Aside from these exceptional items, Czech noun compounds do not contain incorporated nouns with inflections for case, number, or gender. In the syntactic string, the features of the head noun determine case, number, and gender for the whole compound, and adjectives and determiners agree with these features. In contrast to the modifier noun in phrasal noun combination, the modifier noun in incorporation structures cannot occur with modifiers or determiners: (8) a.

*divok-eho zvif-ete lekaf-0 NOMSG animal NOMSG doctor NOM '*[wild animal] doctor' *divok-e zvef-e leka/--tz> wiW NOM PL animal NOM PL doctor NOM *[wild animals] doctor lekaf-0 divok-ych zvimt -0 doctorNOM wildGEN PL animalsGEN PL: 'a/the doctor for wild animals' wild

a'.

b.

66

b'.

lekaf-& pro divok-ά zvinit-a doctorNOM for wildACCPL animalsACC PL'a/the doctor for wild animals'

Phrasal noun combinations and noun compounds differ in their referential properties in that only the modifier noun in phrasal noun combinations is anaphorically active: (9) a.

b.

Lekaf-0 zvinit-e\ jet krmi doctorNOM animalsGEN PL them feed: 'the doctor; of animals feeds them;' *Zva-lolekaf-