Harvard University November 5, 2007 Spanish Object Expression under Incomplete L 1 and L 2 Acquisition Silvina Montrul University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Acknowledgements • Center for Advanced Studies, UIUC • Arnold Beckman Award from UIUC Campus Research Board • RAs and colleagues Rebecca Foote Silvia Perpiñán Dan Thornhill Susana Vidal Melissa Bowles Brad Dennison Alyssa Martoccio Lucía Alzaga 2
Reality of Today’s L 2 classrooms (Spanish and LCTLs) Two Types of Adult Language Learners • Typical L 2 learners (late bilinguals) • Speakers of ethnic-minority languages (early bilinguals) Increasing numbers of heritage language speakers are turning to typical L 2 classrooms to learn, regain, or maintain skill in the heritage language. 3
L 2 classrooms • Having learners with different linguistic/cultural backgrounds in the same class poses serious challenges for teachers. • How do we make sure that the linguistic and cultural needs and goals of both L 2 learners and heritage language learners are met? 4
Heritage Language Practitioners • Hold the belief that, in general, heritage language (HL) learners are a very heterogeneous group (even within a language) • L 2 learners and HL learners are different • In many ways, HL learners know “more” than L 2 learners who start learning the language from zero. • L 2 learners and HL learners should be placed in different classrooms (tracks) 5
Yet • Any pedagogical practice must be informed by a deep understanding of what L 2 learners and HL learners have and do not have in common. • Basic systematic empirical research on the linguistic and cognitive abilities of heritage language learners using experimental methods is only just emerging. (HSs have been the domain of sociolinguistics) 6
Lynch (2003), Valdés (1997, 2006) • So far, research on heritage language teaching and learning has proceeded atheoretically. • Heritage Language Acquisition is in need of a theory. 7
Valdés (Valdés et al. 2006, p. 119) “Second language acquisition theories, as well as traditions now guiding traditional foreign language instruction have little to say about these students and what they should be taught. Existing research on incipient or developing bilingualism in foreign or second languages is of little relevance to teachers of heritage students. Moreover, views about second language (L 2) developmental sequences and second language (L 2) proficiency hierarchies can contribute little to the understanding of the instructional needs of this population. Taking on the challenge of maintaining and developing existing language resources among immigrants, refugees, and their children will involve a dramatic shift in focus by the profession. The dimensions of this shift in orientation can perhaps best be appreciated by comparing the characteristics of traditional foreign language students with those of the new target population of immigrant students. ” 8
Second Language Acquisition • Current theoretical views/theories of (L 1 and) L 2 Acquisition are VERY relevant to approach and explain the nature of linguistic knowledge in both L 2 learners and heritage speakers. • Heritage language learners afford the field of second language acquisition, and linguistics more generally, a unique opportunity to evaluate, from a different perspective current claims about 9
The basic and essential innate and environmental ingredients for successful, complete language acquisition OR What is a mature “idealized” native speaker? At what age does one become a mature L 1 speaker and under what environmental conditions? 10
Adult Bilingualism Late bilingualism or adult L 2 acquisition • L 2 acquisition after puberty: foundations of the L 1 are fully established Early bilingualism • Simultaneous L 1 acquisition: 2 languages acquired since birth or before age 3 • Sequential or child L 2 acquisition: L 2 acquisition before puberty: foundations of the L 1 are established 11
Typical Approach to adult SLA Comparison of child L 1 with adult L 2 Similarities L 1 and L 2 learners must construct a linguistic system based on input Differences Outcome of L 1 and L 2 acquisition (i. e. , endstate of linguistic competence) are different Child L 1: always uniform and complete Adult L 2: typically variable and incomplete 12
The Incompleteness Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman 1989; Clahsen & Muysken 1989; Meisel 1997; Hawkins & Chan 1997; Schachter 1990) • L 1 and L 2 Acquisition are Fundamentally Different • L 1 acquisition is guided by Universal Grammar • Past a critical period, L 2 learners no longer have access to Universal Grammar • L 2 learners use general-problem solving cognitive mechanisms rather than an implicit linguistic mechanism to build a grammatical representation of the L 2 Compatible with other cognitive approaches to SLA (e. g. , De. Keyser 2000, 2003; Ullman 2001; 13
Bottomline Incomplete acquisition and impaired linguistic representations in the L 2 are due to a late age of onset of acquisition. Late age of acquisition has consequences for the linguistic, neurological and cognitive mechanisms that subserve fast and efficient language acquisition that typically occurs in childhood. 14
Theories of Full Access (White 2003) Access to Universal Grammar is not subject to a maturational effect. • Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz & Sprouse 1996) • Full Access Hypothesis (Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono 1996) • Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis (Prévost & White 2000) Abstract linguistic knowledge is present but not always accessible due to a production or a processing problem. 15
Incomplete Acquisition 1. Developing grammars (L 1, L 2, bilingual) 2. Fossilized grammars (L 2) Incomplete grammars (fossilized) are common in early bilingualism as well e. g. , many bilingual speakers of etnnic-minority or heritage languages fail to acquire ageappropriate linguistic competence in the heritage language (their L 1). 16
What are the linguistic characteristics of Heritage Language Acquisition? How does it compare with L 1 and L 2 acquisition?
HS look like L 1 learners Early exposure to the language Naturalistic setting (aural input) Abundant input Control of features of language acquired very early in life (phonology, some vocabulary, some linguistic structures) Developmental errors Outcome is successful and complete Fossilization/stabilization does not occur. No clear role for motivation and affective factors to develop linguistic competence More complex structures, vocabulary, and pragmatic aspects of language developed at school after age 5 when metalinguistic skills emerge. 18
HS also look like L 2 learners Late exposure to the language Instructed setting (aural and written input) Varying amount of input Developmental and transfer errors Grammar may be incomplete Outcome is variable proficiency. Fossilization is typical Motivation and affective factors play a role in language development Experience with literacy and formal instruction 19
L 1 acquisition L 2 acquisition HL acquisition 20
In GENERAL, HL learners (Valdés 2000, Carreira & Kagan 2007) • Have good oral comprehension of the language • May be able to speak the language to different degrees • Have good pronunciation • Have lexical gaps • Make grammatical errors • Poor to minimal reading and writing skills • Self-identify with their ethnic community • Have a strong interest in learning more about their language 21
Heritage speakers • Received input during the Critical Period • Yet, input in middle-late childhood may have been insufficient to develop full linguistic skills in the heritage language (limited literacy) • Cases of L 1 attrition or fossilized L 1 acquisition 22
Research questions (1) Do Spanish heritage speakers have some advantages over post puberty L 2 learners? (2) If advantages are found, are these global or selective, i. e. , only found in certain grammatical domains and language skills? 23
Au et al. (2002), Knightly et al. (2003) Study of Spanish language overhearers (i. e. , HS) and typical late L 2 learners Advantages for HS were found in phonology (VOT production) but not in morphosyntax. 24
VOT Results Native speakers Heritage speakers L 2 learners Word initial /p, t, k/ 19. 3 19. 6 *36. 2 Word medial /p, t, k/ 22. 4 23. 4 *31. 2 25
Accent ratings (max 5) Native speakers Heritage speakers L 2 learners voiceless /p, t, k/ 4. 3 a 3. 5 b 2. 2 c voiced /b, d, g/ 4. 4 a 3. 3 b 2. 7 c 26
Knightly et al. (2003) No differences 27
Other Findings Au et al (2002), Knightly et al (2003) Studied very low proficiency Korean and Spanish heritage speakers and L 2 learners. Advantages for HS were found in phonology (VOT production) but not in morphosyntax. Håkansson (1995) Swedish expatriates and L 2 learners of Swedish expatriates compared to native speakers on V 2 order. L 2 learners produced above 80% SV order instead of V 2. gender agreement: L 2 learners outperformed the Swedish expatriates Montrul (2005) Studied advanced, intermediate and low proficiency Spanish L 2 learners and heritage speakers’ knowledge of lexico-semantic and syntactic properties of unaccusativity (intransitive verbs) Advantages were found for low proficiency HS. Montrul (2006) Heritage speakers are better than L 2 learners with some aspects of the Null Subject parameter (word order, agreement) 28
3 Features of Spanish Object Expression 1. Clitic pronouns 2. Variable word order 3. Differential object marking 29
1. Clitic Placement Object clitics precede finite verbs (1) Patricia vio la novela. Patricia saw the soap opera ‘Patricia saw the soap opera. ’ (2) Patricia la vio. vs. *Patricia vio la. Patricia it saw ‘Patricia saw it. ’ 30
Object clitics follow non-finite verbs (3) Ana canta la canción sin entenderla bien. *Ana canta la canción sin la entender bien. ‘Ana sings the song without understanding it well. ’ In restructuring contexts, Spanish clitics can climb up to the finite verb or stay low next to the infinitive. (4) Olga lo puede comprar. Olga puede comprarlo. *Olga puede lo comprar ‘Olga can buy it. ’ 31
2. Word Order Postverbal Subjects (5) La mujer lo besa. S-Ocl-V Lo besa la mujer. Ocl-V-S ‘The woman kisses him. ’ Topicalizations: Clitic Left Dislocations (6) a. Juan tiene las carpetas en la oficina. S-V-O b. Las carpetas las tiene Juan en la oficina. O-cl-VS ‘Juan has the folders in the office. ’ 32
![3. Differential Object Marking (DOM) In general, Spanish objects that are [+ specific] and](https://present5.com/presentation/6c7c6cb90b8231d7f6ae0f05f38ac3d3/image-33.jpg "3. Differential Object Marking (DOM) In general, Spanish objects that are [+ specific] and")
3. Differential Object Marking (DOM) In general, Spanish objects that are [+ specific] and [+animate] are marked with the dative preposition A. (7) Juan vio a María. Juan saw A Maria [+animate, + specific] *Juan vio María ‘Juan saw Maria. ’ 33
Other objects are unmarked (8) Juan vio el tren. ‘Juan saw the train. ’ [-animate, +specific] (9) Juan necesita un abogado. ‘Juan needs a lawyer. ’ (10) El huracán destruyó una ciudad. ‘The hurricane destroyed a city. ’ [+ animate, - specific] [-animate, - specific] 34
Semantic notions like specificity, agentivity, telicity and topicality seem to play a role in explaining the optionality of A with animate and inanimate objects (Aissen 2003; Torrego 1998; Leonetti 2004). 35
Some Theoretical Assumptions • In Romance languages, object clitics head their own functional projections (Uriagereka 1995). • Clitic Left Dislocations are part of the leftperiphery of the clause (CP and higher functional projections that interface with pragmatics). • DOM is marked accusative case (Torrego 1998): inherent, semantically based accusative case; the dative preposition is a functional category. Marked objects move 36
Contact Language: English • lacks clitic projections; • has stricter S-V-O order (although it has topicalizations); • does not have DOM. 37
L 1 acquisition Clitic pronouns and DOM with animate and specific direct objects are acquired before the age of 3 (López Ornat 1994; Domínguez 2003; Rodríguez. Mondoñedo 2006) Clitic-climbing emerges in Spanish speaking children between 2; 00 -2; 8 (Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Snyder and Sugisaki 2005) Topicalizations emerge soon afterwards, by 38 the age of 3. (Grinstead 2004)
L 2 Acquisition Beginner and Intermediate L 2 learners • make clitic-placement errors (especially if L 1 is French) (Liceras 1986, Bruhn-Garavito & Montrul 1996) • have problems interpreting clitics and objects with alternative word orders (Van. Patten & Cadierno 1993) • do not recognize DOM in Spanish (Farley & Mc. Collam 2004) Advanced L 2 learners • eventually acquire clitics and clitic placement in Spanish (Duffield & White 1999) 39 • have residual problems with topicalizations (Valenzuela 2006)
Spanish Heritage Speakers (Silva-Corvalán 1994, Montrul 2004) • Robust control of the object clitic system (accusative and dative structural case) • Omission of DOM in oral production Group Control Advanced HSs Interm. HSs % a-omission (*NP) 0 6 21. 3 40
Hypotheses Critical Period Position Heritage speakers should show evidence of parameter setting in Spanish, whereas L 2 learners should show no evidence of parameter resetting in Spanish. Predictions English-speaking L 2 learners should have problems with Spanish clitics, clitic placement, word order, and DOM. Spanish heritage learners should bring knowledge 41 of clitics, clitic placement, word order, and DOM
No Critical Period Position Parameter resetting is (eventually) possible in L 2 learners regardless of age of acquisition Prediction L 2 learners and HL learners will have knowledge of Spanish clitics, clitic placement, word order, and DOM. L 2 learners may show transfer effects from English as predicted by the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis 42
Method Participants 22 Spanish native speaker (baseline group) 67 US born 2 nd generation Mexican speakers (acquired English before age 6) 72 English-speaking L 2 learners of Spanish L 2 learners and HL learners divided into 3 proficiency groups: Low, Intermediate, Advanced (based on a short proficiency test) 43
Instruments 1. Elicited Production (Oral narrative) clitics, word order, DOM 2. Web-based off-line Grammaticality Judgment Task clitics, ciltic placement, word order and topicalizations, DOM 3. On-line Visual Picture-Sentence Matching Task clitics, word order 44
Proficiency Scores Mean 48. 5 SD 1. 00 range 45 -50 Mean 35. 34 SD 9. 24 Mean 36. 88 range 16 -50 SD 8. 17 range 15 -48 45
Oral Narrative: Clitic production 46
47
48
49
1. Clitics and Clitic Placement GJT: 90 sentences (45 gram, 45 ungram, 18 sentence types x 5 tokens) Randomized sentences presented with a 5 point Likert scale underneath 1 = totally ungrammatical 5 = completely grammatical 50
Grammaticality Judgment Task ns differences 51
Grammaticality Judgment Task ns differences 52
Grammaticality Judgment Task ns differences 53
Grammaticality Judgment Task Differences for clitic climbing 54
2. Word Order (SVO vs. OVS) Grammaticality Judgment Task 55
On-Line Visual Picture-Sentence Matching Task Procedure • Participants were presented with two pictures, A and B, on a computer screen with a sentence underneath. • The pictures depicted the same action, but with the participants reversed (e. g. , a boy calling his parents vs. the parents calling their son). • Participants had to decide as fast as possible which picture the sentence described, by pressing A or B on the keyboard. • The target pairs of pictures appeared 4 times, with one of the following sentences with alternative word orders underneath. • (The task included 20 target sentences (5 of each) and 20 distractor/fillers. ) 56 sentence types: Preverbal Subject: S-V-O and S-cl-V
On-Line Visual Picture-Sentence Matching Task Preverbal Subject: Juan llama por teléfono a sus padres. Sus padres lo llaman por teléfono. (S-V-O) (S-Cl-V) Preverbal Object: Lo llaman por teléfono sus padres. (Cl-V-S) A sus padres los llama Juan por teléfono. (O-Cl-V-S) 57
Example from the online Visual PMT A B Lo llaman por teléfono sus padres. (Cl-V-S) 58
Analysis • Two Factorial ANOVAs with Repeated Measures • One for Accuracy, and one for Speed (RTs) • Independent variables: Group (3), Proficiency Level (3), Word Order (2), Sentences (4) Accuracy: No difference between L 2 learners and HS main effect for Preverbal argument Speed: HS faster than L 2 learners and no different from Control main effect for preverbal argument Preverbal subject sentences faster and more accurate than Preverbal Object sentences 59
Overall Results Accuracy: no differences between heritage speakers and L 2 learners Speed: heritage speakers faster than L 2 learners 60
On-line Visual SPMT No effect by group Main effect by object position 61
On-line Visual SPMT 62
Summary so far • L 2 learners and Heritage Speakers know Spanish clitics and their placement (GJT). But heritage speakers use/produce more clitics than L 2 learners. • HS have an advantage over L 2 learners with clitic left dislocations (GJT) • HS are overall faster than L 2 learners when interpreting Spanish sentences with clitics and alternative word order. They do not differ from native speaker controls in 63 speed.
3. Differential Object Marking Main Study: Oral Narrative Grammaticality Judgment Task Follow-up study (Montrul & Bowles, under review) 64
Oral Narrative 65
Grammaticality Judgment Task 66
Follow-up Study with Heritage Speakers • • (Montrul & Bowles, under review) Written Elicited production Task GJT (similar to that of main study) Instructed Intervention (Pretest-Posttest design) 70 sentences (different sentence types) DOM sentences Animate object (grammatical, ungrammatical) Inanimate object (grammatical, ungrammatical) 67
DOM with animate direct objects 68
DOM with inanimate direct objects 69
Main Study HL learners are worse than L 2 learners with DOM sentences in the GJT (better in production). Follow-up study Problems with DOM persist with advanced proficiency in HL learners. 70
Research Questions (1) Do heritage speakers have an advantage over L 2 learners? YES (2) Are advantages selective? YES 71
Are there advantages for HS over L 2 learners? Clitics Word Order DOM findings Yes No support No CPH (FT/FA) No CPH FT/FA neither 72
L 2 Acquisition Results are entirely consistent with the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (White 1989; Schwartz & Sprouse 1996) although individual results need to be examined closely) Full Access: Success with clitics (parameter resetting) Full Transfer: Difficulty with word order and 73 DOM
Heritage Language Acquisition Results are consistent with the Critical Period position HL learners have advantages over L 2 learners in use and distribution of clitics, some complex areas of syntax (word order with dislocations), in oral tasks, and in online tasks (processing). 74
Input Mode and Frequency Clitics Taught in yes L 2 classroms? Input Frequent frequency? in oral and written discourse Word Order DOM mentioned More frequent in oral than in written discourse Frequent in oral and written discourse 75
Types of Linguistic Knowledge Cognitive and Neurolinguistic Approaches to SLA (De. Keyser 2000, 2003; Paradis 2004; Ullman 2001) Implicit vs. explicit acquired knowledge The critical period affects implicit competence • L 2 learners have explicit, metalinguistic knowledge at this stage of development (GJT) • HS may be using implicit knowledge acquired in childhood (oral task, RT times) Support for the CPH position. 76
PROBLEM But what about DOM? • Early acquired in L 1 acquisition • very frequent in input. 77
Linguistic Interfaces (White 2007) Grammar: Lexicon + computational system Computational system interfaces with 1) the articulatory-perceptual system (PF) 2) The conceptual-intentional system (LF) PF and LF are external interfaces 78
Internal Interfaces • • Syntax-semantics Syntax-morphology-phonology Syntax-pragmatics 79
Interfaces are Vulnerable Interface areas between syntax and other cognitive systems (i. e. , discoursepragmatics, lexical semantics) exhibit a great deal of developmental instability. Adult L 2 acquisition: fossilization, indeterminate or incomplete representations Child bilingual acquisition: cross linguistic influence Adult L 1 attrition: instability Child L 1 attrition: incomplete 80 acquisition/fossilization
Linguistic Complexity Clitics Word Order Grammatic Syntax al domain Syntax/ Pragmatics Grammatic Case/Agr referential Specificity al topicality information ity word with DOM A littlemeaning! a lot of Syntax/ Semantics/ morphology Inherent Acc Case Definiteness Specificity Animacy 81
Child L 1 Attrition affects DOM Sorace (2004): developmental instability in incomplete acquisition is related to the complexity of the interfaces Language attrition process Simplification, loss of restrictions, return to the basics (universals) (consistent with Jakobson’s Regression Hypothesis) Syntax is resilient, interfaces are vulnerable. Of all the structural domains tested, DOM is the most linguistically complex phenomenon. 82
Loss of Inherent Case • Happened in the History of English (Lightfoot 1991) • Has also been attested in Russian as a heritage language (Polinsky 1997, 2006) • Syntactic convergence with English (probably) • Convergence does not introduce new elements into the weaker language: it biases the grammar toward the selection, retention and strengthening of structures 83 shared by the minority and majority
Conclusions • The nature of Incomplete, fossilized grammars of adult early bilinguals in a language minority situation is very complex. • Understanding how the linguistic knowledge of heritage speakers is different/similar to that of L 2 learners will require a variety of experimental methodologies. • Current theoretical approaches to SLA/Bilingualism that emphasize age of acquisition and nature and timing of input are a good starting point but cannot always predict and explain the patterns of incomplete acquisition found in adult early bilinguals, or why these differ or not from those of L 2 learners. • Explanations may be found in a deeper understanding of the structural complexity of the human language faculty and how it behaves during the normal processes of 84 development and change observed in different learning
Current Research Montrul & Bowles (in under review a) Do problems with DOM in Spanish heritage speakers generalize to other instances of inherent case? YES Montrul & Bowles (under review b) Does explicit instruction help instructed Spanish HL learners overcome incomplete acquisition of inherent dative case? YES Montrul, Bhatt & Girju (in progress) Is DOM affected in other heritage languages in contact with English, such as Hindi (dative marker postposition -ko), or Romanian (marker is pe)? Are patterns of incomplete acquisition similar to those observed in Spanish heritage speakers? Does the acoustic salience of the object marker in Spanish makes it more vulnerable to language loss in this language? 85
THANK YOU! 86
Скачать презентацию Harvard University November 5 2007 Spanish Object Expression
6c7c6cb90b8231d7f6ae0f05f38ac3d3.ppt