Adult instructed SLA of English subject properties

Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 58(3): 465–486, 2013

Adult instructed SLA ofEnglish subject properties

ELISABET PLADEVALL BALLESTER

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

1. INTRODUCTION

The present study aims to explore how adult English L2 learners who have been ex-

posed to instructed SLA acquire subject properties at three stages of development.1

The L2 acquisition of subject properties has been thoroughly analyzed in both child

(Hilles 1991; Lakshmanan 1991, 1994; Park 2004; Mobaraki, Vainikka, and Young-

Scholten 2008; Pladevall Ballester 2010, 2012) and adult L2A (White 1985, 1986;

Phinney 1987; Liceras 1989; Tsimpli and Roussou 1991; Wakabayashi 2002; Lozano

2002, 2006; Montrul 2004; Montrul and Rodríguez Louro 2006; Rothman and Iver-

son 2007a, 2007b; among others) and this has been done in naturalistic as well as

in classroom setting contexts, longitudinally and cross-sectionally and in null and

non-null subject languages.

However, more recently, the study of non-native subject properties has focused

on child L2A in educational immersion settings and adult L2A of null subject lan-

guages (NSLs) in study-abroad and classroom contexts (Isabelli 2004; Rothman and

Iverson 2007a, 2007b). The syntax of subjects in L2 English still constitutes an area

of difficulty for adult learners in a situation of minimal exposure in instructed set-

tings and no explicit teaching of subject properties is usually carried out in EFL

classrooms.

1Abbreviations used in this article include:

A′-position non-argument position Pers person

Asymp.sig asymptotic significance PersP person phrase

Agr agreement SLA second language acquisition

DP determiner phrase Spec-TP specifier tense phrase

EFL English as a Foreign Language Spec-vP specifier (small) verb phrase

EPP Extended Projection Principle sub subordinate

L1 first language T tense

L2 second language TP tense phrase

L1A first language acquisition UG Universal Grammar

L2A second language acquisition V verb

NSL null subject language vP (small) verb phrase

©c Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue canadienne de linguistique 58(3): 465–486, 2013

466 CJL/RCL 58(3), 2013

In order to explore this, the present study attempts to revisit L2 English learn-

ers’ judgments on the main properties traditionally associated with the Null Sub-

ject Parameter (i.e., null/overt pronominal subjects in main and subordinate clauses,

null/overt expletive subjects, and pre/postverbal subjects).2 We will be able to see

how these properties are acquired as proficiency increases and how different they

are from target-like structures, contributing new data to the question of parameter-

resetting in adult L2A. Three groups of adult Spanish L2 learners of English in an

instructed setting are tested, representing the beginner, intermediate, and advanced

state of language learning. The three groups are statistically compared to a control

native group to determine if and how L2 English subject properties are acquired in

an instructed classroom environment.

The article is organised as follows: a brief summary of the syntactic properties

of English and Spanish subjets appears in Section 2. Section 3 reviews the most im-

portant studies related to the L2 acquisition of English subjects. Section 4 introduces

in detail the aims and research question of the present study. Section 5 summarizes

the methodology used. Section 6 presents the results. The discussion of the results is

found in Section 7. Section 8 concludes.

2. SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF SPANISH AND ENGLISH SUBJECTS

Early research on the L2A of English subjects adopted the traditional version of the

Null Subject Parameter (NSP) (Chomsky 1981; Jaeggli 1982; Rizzi 1982, 1986; Jaeg-

gli and Safir 1989). The traditional version of the NSP, which provided an account of

a cluster of phenomena present in null subject languages but absent in overt subject

languages, was formulated on the basis of parametric variation related to richness

of inflection as well as identification properties. The idea was that languages with a

positive null subject value (i.e., Spanish and Italian but not English or French) share

a number of properties that include null subjects, the absence of expletive pronouns,

subject–verb inversion, that-trace sequences, and rich verbal agreement.

Within Minimalism, the NSP is accounted for differently, which means the pu-

tative related clustered properties of subjects in English and Spanish are analyzed in

a different way. The present research follows Platzack’s (2004) syntactic account of

subjects: the Person Phrase Hypothesis, which provides a unified way of accounting

for subjects and agreement in both null and non-null subject languages according to

a minimalist view of parameters and the EPP.3 It excludes that-trace effects from the

cluster of properties.

Following Ritter (1995), Platzack (2004) argues that agreement (Agr) originates

as the head of a Person Phrase (PersP), which can take a DP as a complement that is

2That-trace effects, although present in some of the earlier studies on L2 subjects, will not

be included in the present study, as they have been given totally distinct syntactic accounts

(see Pesetsky and Torrego 2001, 2004).3Similar minimalist accounts of properties of the Null Subject Parameter include Alex-

iadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998), Manzini and Roussou (2000), Ordóñez and Treviño

(1999), among others.

©c Revue canadienne de linguistique / Canadian Journal of Linguistics 58(3): 465–486, 2013

PLADEVALL BALLESTER 467

merged in a theta position, as the subject in Spec-vP. Depending on the element taken

from the lexicon to express Pers0 several possibilities arise. If the element expressing

Pers0 has grammatical but not phonological features, PersP will appear as a DP. This

could be the case of the DP ‘the girl’ in English, analyzed as in (1):

(1) [PersP [Pers0 G(rammatical features) [DP the [NP girl] ] ] ]

If the element merged as Pers0 has grammatical as well as phonological features,

this element can either be a free morpheme (in English and Spanish) or a bound

morpheme (only in Spanish). If it is a free morpheme, it will be a pronoun with or

without a DP complement, as in (2a) and (2b):

(2) a. [PersP [Pers0 he [DP the [NP handsome man] ] ] ]

b. [PersP [Pers0 he [DP G(rammatical features)] ] ]

If it is a bound morpheme (Agr), as it happens in languages with rich agreement,

such as Spanish or Italian, it should find a host outside PersP. T will assign Case to

PersP and the EPP feature in T will attract Pers0 (Agr) to T, projecting a new PersP.

V will also be attracted to T and then internally merged to PersP without projecting.

Finally, morphological merger will take place and Pers0+T will be realized as an

affix on V.

In languages without V-raising, such as English, agreement is not an argumental

affix and Pers0 is either a free morpheme (i.e., a pronoun) or it is not phonologically

realized and PersP is represented as an ordinary DP. In languages such as English,

PersP (i.e., the subject) would subsequently raise to Spec-T attracted by the EPP

feature in T.

To illustrate, consider now the Spanish subjectless sentence in (3) with the cor-

responding phrase marker:

(3) Compraron manzanas ‘(They) bought (some) apples.’

PersP

compra- PersP

-ron TP

compra- vP

PersP v′

Pers0 v0 VP

-ron compra- V0 DP

compra- manzanas

The derivation unfolds as follows: the subject is a PersP (with no DP complement)

appearing in Spec-vP, where it is assigned an Agent theta-role. T assigns Case to

PersP and the EPP feature in T attracts Pers0 (-ron) to T. The verb (compra-) is


468 CJL/RCL 58(3), 2013

also attracted to T and then internally merged to PersP. After morphological merger,

Pers0+T is realized as an affix on V.

Importantly, under this approach, the existence of pro as a null subject is there-

fore unnecessary, as the EPP feature is already satisfied and Case and theta-role are

already assigned to PersP.

Turning now to structures where Pers0 has a complement DP, consider (4) and (5).

(4) llamaron mis padres ‘called my parents’

PersP

llama- PersP

-ron TP

llama- vP

PersP v′

Pers0 DP v0 VP

Agr D0 NP llama- V0

-ron mis padres llama-

(5) Mis padres llamaron. ‘My parents called.’

CP

Topic

DP

mis padres PersP

llama- PersP

-ron TP

llama- vP

PersP v′

DP Pers v0 VP

mis padres Pers0 DP llama- V0

Agr mis padres llama-

-ron



The DP subject can either remain in situ (in Spec-vP), thus resulting in a postverbal

subject, as in (4), or can move out of the PersP to an A′-position in the C-domain,

presumably checking pragmatic features, as in (5). This overt DP can either be a full

DP or a focused pronoun in Spanish. When the subject is a pronoun, Pers0 will be

represented as a pronoun in English but still as Agr in Spanish and the pronoun will

be the complement DP. The DP subject mis padres is the complement of Pers0 in

Spec-vP.

Platzack assumes that PersP is a phase and as such, no element can move out

of it before being moved to Spec-PersP. He further assumes that such movement

within PersP must be an instance of A′-movement since, if it were an instance of

A-movement, we would expect the DP to bind Agr and Agr would be an anaphor.

As previously noted, Agr is pronominal in Spanish and hence does not need an

antecedent within the clause, as subjectless derivations such as (3) indicate. Be-

cause movement of the DP to Spec-PersP is an instance of A′-movement, Platzack

concludes that the movement of the DP out of PersP to the C domain must be A′-

movement as well.4 Thus, preverbal subjects cannot be in an argument position. Such

an approach to Spanish preverbal subjects is in line with previous accounts of Agr

as [+interpretable], such as Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998), Ordóñez and

Treviño (1999), among many others.

In sum, within the present approach, the contrast between Spanish and languages

with obligatorily overt subjects is captured by Platzack’s claim that “T with [uφ]EPP

can be satisfied either by PersP raising to Spec-TP (visible subject) or agreement

merging to TP (potential null subject)” (2004:107). That is to say, the way in which

T, which bears uninterpretable φ-features and the EPP-feature, satisfies and checks

all its features is parameterised. Spanish merges Agr to TP and languages such as

English raise PersP to Spec-TP. It follows then that English will only allow preverbal

overt subjects, whereas Spanish, by virtue of the fact that the EPP feature in T is

already checked by Agr merging, does not require preverbal overt subjects but allows

null and postverbal subjects.

The present study will attempt to find out whether adult learners of English

retain their L1 feature specifications with regards to subject use or are capable of

acquiring the new L2 features. In the next section, I summarize the literature on the

acquisition of L2 English subjects.

3. THE ACQUISITION OF L2 ENGLISH SUBJECTS

Early research on the L2A of English subjects adopted the traditional version of the

Null Subject Parameter outlined above. This is the case for three of the most relevant

accounts of adult English L2 subjects, namely White (1985, 1986), Phinney (1987),

and Tsimpli and Roussou (1991), which all followed Rizzi’s (1982, 1986) seminal

work on the topic.

4The exact position of the preverbal subject DP within the C domain is beyond the scope

of the present study. It suffices to say that preverbal subjects in NSLs do not raise for EPP

reasons to Spec-TP but for pragmatic reasons to an A′-position within CP.


470 CJL/RCL 58(3), 2013

Both White (1985, 1986) and Tsimpli and Roussou (1991) explored missing

subjects, subject–verb inversion, and that-trace effects. White used grammaticality

judgments and analyzed five levels of proficiency from beginners to advanced in

Spanish and French L1 speakers (1985) and intermediate L1 Spanish, French, and

Italian speakers (1986), whereas Tsimpli and Roussou (1991) used grammaticality

judgments and a translation task with intermediate and post-intermediate Greek stu-

dents. Both studies examined an instructed acquisition setting. Only White (1985,

1986) carried it in an English-speaking country.

White (1985, 1986) found that the acceptance of missing subjects was initially

transferred (more in the Spanish and Italian groups than in the French group) but

decreasing with proficiency and that there was optionality of that in that-trace se-

quences that also decreased with proficiency. Acceptance of subject–verb inversion

was found to be low, which led the author to conclude that this property might not be

part of the cluster and, while acknowledging that resetting of the value of the param-

eter might be difficult, she stated that the observed gradual improvement indicated

that transfer errors would not persist.

Tsimpli and Roussou (1991) reported rejection of null referential pronouns and

of postverbal subjects, but also high acceptance of null expletive subjects and high

acceptance of that-trace sequences. The authors posited that the Greek positive null

subject value is transferred into English and impossible to reset, as parametric values

that are not part of the L1 are inaccessible to adult L2 learners. Correct rejection

of null referential subjects was accounted for by means of non-parameterized UG

principles, which are accessible and make the morphological and syntactic pro-drop

properties of English compatible with the Greek setting of the parameter. Subject–

verb inversion and the fact that learners correctly rejected all its instances are simply

not addressed in the analysis.

Phinney (1987) examined null and overt subject pronouns and subject–verb

agreement in advanced beginners and low intermediate Spanish learners of English

and English learners of Spanish in an instructed setting through their written pro-

duction. The author found that both groups displayed an accurate use of verbal

agreement and that Spanish learners of English omitted many more expletive subjects

than referential subject pronouns, which were never omitted in sentence-initial po-

sition. English learners of Spanish omitted most referential subject pronouns and all

expletive subjects in accordance with the target language. Leaving methodological

shortcomings aside, Phinney argues for the importance of directionality differences

and states that resetting the parameter from English, considered the marked value, to

Spanish, the unmarked value is easier and faster than the reverse process in which

L1 Transfer remains much longer.

Wakabayashithat-trace sequences. The authors posited that the Greek positive

null subject value is transferred into English and impossible to reset, as parametric

values that are not part of the L1 are inaccessible to adult L2 learners. Correct re-

jection of null referential subjects was accounted for by means of non-parameterized



UG principles, which are accessible and make the morphological and syntactic pro-

drop properties of English compatible with the Greek setting of the parameter. Subject–

verb inversion and the fact that learners correctly rejected all its instances are simply

not addressed in the analysis.

Phinney (1987) examined null and overt subject pronouns and subject–verb

agreement in high beginners and low intermediate Spanish learners of English and

English learners of Spanish in an instructed setting through their written production.

The author found that both groups displayed an accurate use of verbal agreement and

that Spanish learners of English omitted many more expletive subjects than referen-

tial subject pronouns, which were never omitted in sentence-initial position. English

learners of Spanish omitted most referential subject pronouns and all expletive sub-

jects in accordance with the target language. Leaving methodological shortcomings

aside, Phinney argues for the importance of directionality differences and states that

resetting the parameter from English, considered the marked value, to Spanish, the

unmarked value is easier and faster than the reverse process in which L1 Transfer

remains much longer.

Wakabayashi’s (2002) minimalist account studied the acquisition of non-null

subjects in English by intermediate to advanced Spanish and Japanese adult learn-

ers in an instruction setting in an English-speaking country. Wakabayashi assumed

that L2 learners fully access UG mechanisms and only partially transfer L1 features.

Japanese learners of English, who do not transfer subject-related L1 features and

only have to learn a new L2 feature specification, were found to acquire the obliga-

toriness of subjects much more readily than Spanish learners, who transferred their

L1 feature specification and gradually de-learned it before acquiring the L2 feature

specification. The present study will provide new data to explore whether adult Span-

ish learners of English are capable of acquiring L2 features or simply use general

learning mechanisms and strategies to adopt target-like structures.

4. THE STUDY: AIMS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Whether adult L2 learners can acquire L2 feature specifications from minimal ex-

posure to input and whether they can reset parameters already specified in their L1

in the way child L2 learners in immersion settings do, has been a central question

in generative L2A. Assuming that the initial state of L2 grammars is necessarily af-

fected by L1 Transfer, research has yet to determine if adult L2 learners have Full

Access to UG and can therefore successfully acquire L2 feature specifications not

present in their L1 in order to restructure their L1 transferred grammars (Schwartz

and Sprouse 2000; White 2003; Slabakova 2006a, 2006b; Jason and Rothman 2007a,

2007b; among others) or if adult L2 learners only partially access UG and cannot re-

set parameters (Liceras 1996, 1998; Hawkins and Chan 1997; Hawkins 2005; among

others).

Not being able to acquire new L2 feature specifications (i.e., to reset parameters)

does not imply that adult L2 interlanguage grammars are not constrained by UG.

Non-native adult grammars are indeed natural languages, which might locally re-

structure L1 linguistic representations through general learning explicit mechanisms


472 CJL/RCL 58(3), 2013

and achieve superficial similarity to the target grammar. However, partial access to

UG cannot entail parameter-resetting in the L1A sense.

Recently, the Partial Access Hypothesis has been analyzed under the minimalist

Interpretability Hypothesis (Hawkins and Hattori 2006; Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou

2007; Tsimpli and Mastropavlou 2008; among others), by which uninterpretable fea-

tures are hypothesised to be inaccessible for the adult L2 learner. In this way, if these

uninterpretable features are not selected in the process of L1A, they are persistently

problematic for the L2 learner, which accounts for adult L2 learners’ permanent

variability or lack of convergence with respect to the native speaker. UG still con-

strains L2 adult grammars, as UG computational devices, their operating principles,

interpretable syntactic features, and uninterpretable features acquired in the learner’s

L1A process remain available to the adult L2 learner. If the L2 grammar presents

uninterpretable features that are not present in the learner’s L1, then these remain

unavailable. However, adult L2 learners might make use of the other UG options that

remain available to the learner’s general learning mechanisms to identify, analyze,

and produce L2 structures which involve uninterpretable features and diverge from

their L1. Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) suggest that L2 learners might make

use of interpretable features to “compensate” for the unavailability of uninterpretable

features and they can then create structures that are superficially native-like.

The present study assumes that the Interpretability Hypothesis accounts for the

fact that adult L2 learners might indeed be sensitive to grammaticality distinctions

in their L2 and might superficially learn L2 properties that diverge from their L1

and involve uninterpretable features. The goal is to determine how adult English L2

learners acquire subject properties at three stages of development, how they differ

from control native speakers, and if all properties examined develop in the same

way.

The present study will explore these issues by means of an untimed judgment

and correction task which, by virtue of the fact that it is untimed, will provide infor-

mation on the learners’ explicit knowledge of the linguistic items under analysis (see

Ellis 2009). At the same time, the fact that exposure is minimal (i.e., ≤ 4 hours per

week) and that L2 English subject properties are rarely explicitly dealt with in class,

but might be acquired implicitly, will be taken into account in the analysis.

In summary, three research questions guide the present research:

(i) How do Spanish adult L2 learners of English in their beginner, intermediate,

and advanced stages develop their acquisition of the three subject properties

traditionally associated together as a cluster under the Null Subject Parameter

(i.e., null/overt pronominal subjects in main and subordinate clauses, null/overt

expletive subjects, and pre/postverbal subjects)?

(ii) How do the learners’ judgments differ from those of the control native group?

(iii) Are the results coherent with the Interpretability Hypothesis (Tsimpli and

Dimitrakopoulou, 2007) proposed for adult L2A?

We hypothesize that the learners under consideration will be sensitive to gram-

maticality distinctions but their judgments will radically differ from those of the



native control group, especially in the beginner group, where the presence of Span-

ish L1 transferred structures is assumed to take over.

As explained in Section 2, subject–verb agreement in English involves unin-

terpretable features, which are assumed to be inaccessible to L2 learners. These

learners are expected to accept instances of null subjects in main and subordinate

clauses as well as postverbal subjects and null expletive subjects, as they will still

assume that Agr is an argumental affix of the verb, as it happens with their L1, and

will hence merge Agr (i.e., PersP) to TP to satisfy the EPP feature on T. Yet, as

their proficiency increases, learners are predicted to accommodate L2 structures and

superficially restructure their L1 assumptions, although, under the Interpretability

Hypothesis assumed here, learners will continue using the L1 subject syntax and the

relevant interpretable features as a “compensatory” strategy. How and whether the

superficially restructured L1 assumptions are reflected in the learners’ judgments and

corrections will also be analyzed. In the next section, I turn to the methodology used.

5. METHODOLOGY

In order to study subject development in Spanish adult L2 learners of English, data

from three groups who attend the same language school were collected a month

after the start of the academic year, namely Pre-Intermediate (second year), First

Certificate (fifth year), and Proficiency (eighth year) classes. All students in the three

groups tested took the Oxford University Press placement test at the beginning of the

study in order to check that they had been placed in the right group. Table 1 shows

the OUP mean scores and the Standard Deviations for each group.

Table 1: Oxford University Press mean scores

Level Mean OUP SD

Beginners (80–104) 91.33 6.31

Intermediate (120–134) 125.92 4.91

Advanced (150–169) 158.38 6.17

The beginner group was exposed to approximately 150 hours of input. The in-

termediate group was exposed to approximately 570 hours of input. The advanced

group was exposed to approximately 990 hours of input. Except for the beginner

group, who had not had any previous exposure before starting classes in the lan-

guage school the previous year, the other two groups had started learning English at

school when they were teenagers and had retaken it in the language school. There-

fore, the intermediate and advanced groups had had previous exposure to English

before starting their classes in the language school.

The beginner group had 33 participants with an average age of 32.33, ranging

from 18 to 58. They were mainly professional graduates and students, although the

group also included four housewives and they had all been learning English for one

year. The intermediate group had 27 participants with an average age of 22.66, rang-

ing from 18 to 37. They were university students and professional graduates and they


474 CJL/RCL 58(3), 2013

had all learnt some English at school and had been studying it again for two to three

years, since pre-intermediate or intermediate levels (i.e., second or third year in the

language school). The advanced group had 31 participants with an average age of

25.90, ranging from 19 to 45. They were university students and professional gradu-

ates and again they had all learnt some English at school and had studied it again for

more than seven years.

An untimed grammaticality judgment and correction task consisting of 26 sen-

tences was administered to the students of the three levels tested in sessions of 20–30

minutes. The task included 16 ungrammatical and 10 grammatical sentences which

displayed instances of null/overt pronominal subjects in main and embedded clauses

(including backward and forward anaphora), null/overt expletive subjects in weather,

raising, unaccusative, existential, and extraposed structures, and pre/postverbal sub-

jects in main and embedded clauses (Appendix).

The grammatical sentences were designed to act as counterparts of each un-

grammatical type of sentence and, at the same time, served as fillers to see whether

the informants were paying attention to the task.

The experimenter observed a number of classes of all the levels tested before

designing the task and carried out a pre-test consisting of sentences totally unrelated

to subject properties to familiarise the students with the format of the task.

Before the task was carried out, some vocabulary help was provided to the begin-

ner group so that the students could cope with the task without lexical interference.

The sentences in the task were presented in an order that could not create a pattern

for the informants, thus grammatical and ungrammatical sentences alternated and

sentences that tested the same linguistic phenomenon were obviously not presented

together. The students were told to imagine they were language teachers and to care-

fully and individually read the sentences and decide whether they sounded right or

wrong. They were also given the possibility of not being sure about the sentence,

although it was emphasised that they should leave this option as a last resort. It was

specifically clarified that they did not have to focus on the content of the sentences

but on their structure.

Once they had decided, they had to circle Right, Wrong, or Not Sure below the

sentence and if they had decided Wrong they were told to correct what they thought

had to be corrected. They were also told to imagine a context if that was easier

for them and to specify such a context in the space provided for the correction of

the sentence. It was also emphasized that the task was by no means assessing their

knowledge and that any kind of answer was equally relevant. They were allowed to

ask the experimenter if they had any doubts about the task or the sentences. After

the allotted time, the tests were collected. Informants were extremely interested in

knowing how well they did in the tests and what the expected responses should have

been. Therefore, after the tests were collected, students had a feedback session with

their teachers where they went over the sentences as a follow-up activity.

Control group data from monolingual adult English speakers were obtained from

monolingual English speakers living in an English-speaking country, who were nei-

ther linguists nor language teachers in order to avoid bias in the results. Thirteen

British informants who were aware of the study but had no relationship with the



research field of language acquisition were contacted and asked to participate in the

control group task. The informants were first introduced to the task and given specific

instructions on how to carry it out. The test was sent to the native speakers and they

were specifically asked to complete the test in a 15-minute session. The informants

had an average age of 34.15 and were all university graduates working in a variety

of areas which were not related to linguistics. The general procedure of the task, the

sentences, the order of presentation, and the linguistic items to be tested were the

same as in the experimental group.

The data obtained from the experimental and control groups were transcribed,

coded, and statistically analyzed to compare the three stages of development in adult

L2A, to compare control native and non-native data at the three stages of develop-

ment and for each condition examined in the task, and to compare the development of

subject properties among themselves at each of the three stages. In the next section,

I turn to the results of the experiment.

6. RESULTS

As the sample size of participants in this study was rather small, the Kolmogorov–

Smirnov test of normality of distribution with the Lilliefors significance correction

was applied to all variables. The data were not normally distributed, as indicated by

the results (p < .05) and hence non-parametric tests, namely, Kruskal–Wallis tests,

Mann–WhitneyU tests, and Wilcoxon Z tests, were applied. The level of significance

was α = .05 all throughout the analysis.

In order to analyze the development of the learners’ judgments along the three

learning stages, a non-parametric one-way analysis of variance Kruskal–Wallis test

was first applied to the three groups with respect to their correct judgments, namely

rejection of ungrammatical sentences and acceptance of grammatical sentences. As

for rejection of ungrammaticality, all variables (i.e., referential null subjects in main

and subordinate clauses, null expletives and postverbal subjects) displayed signifi-

cant p-values, which indicates that at least one of the level groups had a significantly

different median in each variable. Regarding acceptance of grammaticality, only

overt expletives displayed a significant p-value (H 13.798, p = .001), which indi-

cates that in the case of overt and preverbal subjects all groups performed similarly.

In order to see where exactly the differences emerged, the Mann–WhitneyU test was

applied to each variable concerning ungrammaticality and only to grammatical overt

expletives.

Table 2 illustrates significantly different percentages of correct judgments of

ungrammatical sentences between the three levels in all variables, always following

an increasing tendency. In the case of judgments of grammatical sentences, Table 3

shows very high percentages of correct judgments except in overt expletives, where

the beginner and the intermediate groups obtained significantly lower percentages

than the advanced group (i.e., U 240.000, p= .003).5

5U is the value of the statistics test.


476 CJL/RCL 58(3), 2013

Table 2: Rejection of ungrammatical sentences: Mann–Whitney U Test between

beginner/intermediate and intermediate/advanced groups

Variable/Levels N Median Mean Mann– Asymp.

% % Whitney U sig.

Null referential subjects:

Beginners 33 49.99 46.46 169.500 .000*

Intermediate 27 83.33 79.93 —————————

Advanced 31 100.00 96.23 231.000 .001*

Null expletives:

Beginners 33 50.00 47.06 162.000 < .001*

Intermediate 27 83.33 74.07 —————————

Advanced 31 100.00 92.25 185.000 < .001*

Postverbal subjects:

Beginners 33 50.00 46.97 257.500 .004*

Intermediate 27 75.00 67.59 —————————

Advanced 31 100.00 87.90 228.500 .002*

* means p-value is significant.

Table 3: Acceptance of grammatical sentences: Mann–Whitney U Test between

beginner/intermediate and intermediate/advanced groups


% % Whitney U sig.

Overt subjects:

Beginners 33 100.00 93.74 — —

Intermediate 27 100.00 92.59 —————————

Advanced 31 100.00 98.92 — —

Overt expletives:

Beginners 33 80.00 75.62424.000 .730

Intermediate 27 80.00 78.51

Advanced 31 100.00 90.80 240.000 .003*

Preverbal subjects:

Beginners 33 100.00 90.62 — —

Intermediate 27 100.00 96.29 —————————

Advanced 31 100.00 95.16 — —

Our second comparative analysis contrasts non-native and native judgments in

each level group. As percentages of acceptance of grammaticality were generally

very high, the analysis focused on the judgments of ungrammatical sentences in the

experimental groups as opposed to those of the control group. As can be seen in Ta-

ble 4, the beginner group significantly differed from the control group in all variables.

Results from the intermediate group, displayed in Table 5, show a slight develop-

ment of the learners’ reaction to ungrammatical properties, but significant differences



Table 4: Mann–Whitney U Test between the beginner and the control group


% % Whitney U sig.

Referential null subjects:

Beginners 33 49.99 46.6618.500 .000*

Control group 13 100.00 96.15

Null expletives:

Beginners 33 50.00 47.062.000 < .001*



Beginners 33 50.00 46.9719.500 < .001*

Control group 13 100.00ca 100.00

ac is the constant value.

Table 5: Mann–Whitney U Test between the intermediate and the control group


% % Whitney U sig.


Intermediate 27 83.33 79.9398.500 .015*


Null expletives:

Intermediate 27 83.33 74.0740.000 < .001*



Intermediate 27 75.00 67.5945.500 < .001*

Control group 13 100.00c 100.00

between the groups still emerge in the three variables. Regarding the advanced group’s

judgments, Table 6 indicates that significant differences were still observed in two

of the three properties tested, namely in null expletives and postverbal subjects, al-

though percentages of correct judgments increased considerably in all variables.

The three variables under analysis (i.e., learners’ judgments of ungrammatical

sentences) were statistically compared to one another at each of the three proficiency

levels so as to explore whether the different subject properties tested in the task de-

veloped in a similar way. The variables including grammatical sentences were not

compared among themselves since, as already mentioned, their values were all sim-

ilarly high, indicating the learners’ sensitivity to the grammatical–ungrammatical

distinction in their L2. For each level group, paired comparisons of related sam-

ples were carried out using the non-parametric Wilcoxon Z test with the Bonferroni

correction to test equality of two related medians. Equality of medians could not

be rejected for any paired comparison in any of the groups (p > .005), suggesting


478 CJL/RCL 58(3), 2013

Table 6: Mann–Whitney U Test between the advanced and the control group


% % Whitney U sig.


Advanced 31 100.00 96.23195.500 .826


Null expletives:

Advanced 31 100.00 92.25138.000 .040*



Advanced 31 100.00 87.90123.500 .010*

Control group 13 100.00c 100.00

similar development of the three subject properties examined. The next section dis-

cusses in detail the results of the experiments.

7. DISCUSSION

Results indicate that L2 subject development in adult L2 instruction can take place

in a minimal exposure situation and that percentages of correct judgments differ sig-

nificantly from one group to another in all variables and with an increasing tendency,

particularly in the case of ungrammatical sentences.

Percentages of correct judgments and accurate corrections are below chance-

level in the three variables in the beginner group, whereas they reach percentages

which are around 90% in the advanced group, indicating a clear and relevant devel-

opmental process in adult L2 English subject properties. In the case of grammatical

sentences, the three experimental groups obtained much higher and more uniform

results within and between groups. No clear development is observable in terms

of learners’ judgments of grammatical sentences, most of which are very accurate

already in the beginner group. Only overt expletives show a significant difference

between the beginner/intermediate groups and the advanced group, although per-

centages of correction are remarkably high in the lower groups. Hesitations about

judgments were also measured, although they were not statistically analyzed as they

were extremely low in both grammatical and ungrammatical sentences.

Such accurate judgments with respect to grammatical sentences already in the

beginner group and the lack of hesitations point to the fact that adult L2 learners in

this study are somehow sensitive to grammaticality/ungrammaticality distinctions.

Although development has been shown to occur through the three learning stages

under analysis here, learners’ judgments were found to clearly differ from those of

the native control group in all three groups. As for the beginner group, the learners’

percentages of correct judgments were significantly lower than those of the control

group in the three subject properties. Not surprisingly, after a year of being exposed

to L2 classroom instruction English in a minimal input situation and not actually



receiving explicit instructions on how subjects are used in English, Spanish adult

learners allow a statistically significant percentage of null subjects in main and em-

bedded clauses, null expletive subjects, and postverbal subjects, which are the L1

properties derived from the way the EPP feature is satisfied on T, namely by merg-

ing Agr (i.e., PersP) to TP in Spanish (Platzack 2004). L1 feature specifications are

clearly transferred to the learners’ L2 English at this stage, as access to the L2 unin-

terpretable features of subject use is assumed not to be possible under the approach

adopted here. Since these L1 features are responsible for the three subject proper-

ties under consideration here, we would expect those properties to display similar

results in the beginner group and hence behave as a cluster of subject properties.

This was shown in Section 6, where the Wilcoxon Z test results were reported. The

paired comparisons between the results of the three subject variables in the beginner

group did not display any significant differences among them and the three vari-

ables significantly diverged from those of the native control group. This suggests

that adult beginner learners in this study found it similarly difficult to judge and cor-

rect ungrammatical null referential subjects, null expletives, and postverbal subjects,

confirming neither the advantage of null referential pronouns over expletives and

postverbal subjects reported by Phinney (1987) and Tsimpli and Roussou (1991) on

L2 English nor the low acceptance of postverbal subjects found in White (1985).

Learners’ judgments in the intermediate group improved considerably in the

three subject properties analyzed. However, results remained significantly different

from those of the control group in all variables. Development was observed but re-

sults were still non-native-like and the paired comparisons from the Wilcoxon Z

test indicate that all subject properties also behaved similarly at this stage. Although

learners apparently rejected more non-target structures they do not seem to have done

so in a native-like manner. Assuming that uninterpretable features are not accessible

to L2 learners, resetting the value of the parameter at hand is not possible in adult

L2A and learners are expected to keep the same feature specifications as in their L1.

The advanced group obtained higher percentages of correct judgments, although they

were a bit lower than those of the control group and significantly different from them

in two of the three properties, namely in null expletives and in postverbal subjects.

Again, the paired comparisons of the subject properties indicated that they were

non-significantly different from each other, suggesting that the three properties be-

haved similarly, although, as corroborated in other studies and even if it is not sta-

tistically significant, the fact that null referential subjects are not permitted seems to

be more easily learned than expletive subjects in adult L2 English (Phinney 1987,

Tsimpli and Roussou 1991). That results were remarkably high and accurate but

still non-native-like and significantly different from the control group in two of the

variables in the advanced group is in line with our assumption that adult learners of

English in an instructed minimal exposure setting have partial access to UG and can

therefore make grammaticality judgments but cannot reset L1 feature value specifi-

cations to those of the target language associated with uninterpretable features.

Spanish adult learners of English in the advanced group might still merge argu-

mental Agr to TP. Yet, resorting to learning strategies such as analogy or deduction

and using available interpretable features create, superficially, native-like structures,


480 CJL/RCL 58(3), 2013

with the consequence that learners are able to interpret and judge some sentences

correctly. In other words, the L1-based interlanguage grammar will accommodate

L2 structures that are different from the L1.

Our results confirm the assumption that adult interlanguage grammars are unim-

paired and hence UG-constrained but L2 learners cannot acquire uninterpretable

feature specifications, which is consistent with the Interpretability Hypothesis as pro-

posed by Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007).

Our reasoning is based on the fact that not even in the advanced group, with

almost 1000 hours of exposure in an instructed setting (plus previous exposure at

school when the informants were children) do we find results that are native-like in

all variables. Only judgments related to referential null subjects in main and subor-

dinate clauses were not significantly different from those of the native speakers.

It might be argued that it is not necessary to obtain native-like results in all

subject properties to claim that L2 parameter resetting is possible in a classroom

instruction context. As Rothman and Iverson argue in relation to the resetting of

the Null Subject Parameter by adult English learners of L2 Spanish, “it is not clear

that the L2 learner would need to demonstrate target-like knowledge of all these

properties [. . . ] for one to claim that the parameter has been reset” (2007b:199). The

authors justify this by stating that it might be the case that the Null Subject Parameter

does not include all the properties so far assumed. More specifically, they claim that

subject–verb inversion does not follow from the same parameter (Safir 1982, 1985;

Jaeggli and Hyams 1988).

However, in our study, this would leave the non-target results of the expletive

subjects unexplained. The authors also claim that clustering effects have been argued

not to hold in adult L2A, at least in adult L2 Spanish (Ayoun 1999, Isabelli 2004)

and that the cluster of properties of the parameter emerges gradually in L2 learners

and the least salient properties in classroom input, among which postverbal subjects

are included, would be best acquired with naturalistic input (e.g., in a study-abroad

context). In our study, this would explain why postverbal subjects are delayed with

respect to null subjects in main and subordinate clauses but again it would leave null

expletives with no explanation.

More importantly, one of the essential properties of a parameter is its clustering

effects. If properties of a parameter need to be learned one by one then it is unrea-

sonable to assume that the parameter still exists in the learners’ L2. In other words,

if clustering effects do not exist in adult L2A, as Isabelli (2004) seems to suggest

for L2 Spanish, it makes little sense to talk about parameter resetting. Adult learn-

ers, at least in classroom contexts and contrary to child L2A in immersion contexts

(Schwartz 2003, 2004), are not actually acquiring any L2 feature specification but

rather, are learning and accommodating target-like structures by means of the still

available UG learning mechanisms and strategies.

The data of the present study should also be discussed in relation to the fact

that L2 English subject properties are rarely taught in an explicit way in a class-

room context and that adult L2 learners have to learn them implicitly from the input

they receive. Since the learners under study receive minimal input (i.e., ≤ 4 hours

per week), implicit teaching might not be really effective and the learners’ strategies



might not be enough to fully learn the four subject properties. As mentioned above,

the experimental task employed here measures explicit L2 knowledge (Ellis 2009)

and it seems that, especially in the cases of expletive subjects and postverbal subjects,

intermediate learners and to some extent also advanced learners did not manage to

turn their supposedly implicit knowledge into explicit judgments. It seems reason-

able to suppose that any L2 knowledge transmitted in class should be explicit in

minimal input situations and that only with more intensive exposure would implicit

teaching be more effective.

The mere fact that null subjects are not permitted in English has been somehow

easier for the L2 learners under analysis, although this has not been evident until the

advanced group and the difference is not statistically significant. This might be due

to the fact that, despite not being explicitly taught, pronominal (and lexical) subjects

are more salient or frequent in the input they receive. In addition, the learners in this

study are assumed to make use of interpretable features associated with subject use,

which are available in L2A and help them create superficially native-like structures.

This is also shown in the learners’ corrections of the ungrammatical sentences, where

sometimes in order to correct a sentence with a null expletive or a postverbal subject

they inserted a pronominal or lexical subject or simply an element that would fill a

preverbal position, making some of these sentences still ungrammatical and hence

not counting as correct responses. Some strategies used by both intermediate and

advanced learners are illustrated in (6)–(11).

(6) a. Sentence 6: Has just come my sister from the United States.

b. Target sentence: My sister has just come from the United States.

c. Learners’ strategies and corrections: *Today has just come my sister from the

United States/*Has just come my sister from the US?/*It has just come my sis-

ter from the united States.

(7) a. Sentence 8: Surprised me that everyone came to the meeting.

b. Target sentence: It surprised me that everyone came to the meeting.

c. Learners’ strategies and corrections: I’m surprised that everyone came to the meet-

ing/That everyone came to the meeting surprised me.

(8) a. Sentence 9: Is said that rainforests are in danger.

b. Target sentence: It is said that rainforests are in danger.

c. Learners’ strategies and corrections: People said that rainforests are in danger/They/He/It

said that rainforests are in danger.

(9) a. Sentence 10: They didn’t know when finished the class.

b. Target sentence: They didn’t know when the class finished.

c. Learners’ strategies and corrections: *They didn’t know when did they finish the

class/*They didn’t know when they finished the class.

(10) a. Sentence 16: Appeared a dinosaur in the playground.

b. Target sentence: There appeared a dinosaur in the playground.

c. Learners’ strategies and corrections: A dinosaur appeared in the playground/*It

appeared a dinosaur in the playground/*In the playground appeared a dinosaur.


482 CJL/RCL 58(3), 2013

(11) a. Sentence 25: She didn’t explain why complained the students.

b. Target sentence: She didn’t explain why the students complained.

c. Learners’ strategies and corrections: *She didn’t explain why she complained the

students/*She didn’t explain why did complain the students.

Learners beyond the beginner group are aware that some sentences are incom-

plete but since they have not reset the value of the parameter (i.e., they have not

acquired the L2 uninterpretable feature specification by which L2 English subjects

need to be raised to Spec-TP positions and hence be overt and preverbal) they can

only rely on learning strategies which do not always result in superficially target-like

structures.

8. CONCLUSION

The present research has contributed new data to adult instructed SLA in relation to

the syntax of subjects of L2 English. Results from a grammaticality judgment and

correction task, carried out with three level groups of Spanish L2 learners of English

minimally exposed to the target language, indicate that adults are indeed capable of

judging sentences in their L2. However, their responses are far from being native-

like, even in the advanced group.

After initial L1 transfer, the data show learning development of the L2 subject

properties, since learners reject more null pronominal and expletive subjects and

postverbal subjects. However, their progress does not result from parameter resetting

but from an approximation to the input with the help of interpretable features, which

are assumed to be accessible by general learning mechanisms, as is postulated by the

Interpretability Hypothesis approach to adult L2A.

It was also been found that learners’ strategies and mechanisms that would com-

pensate for the lack of availability of L2 uninterpretable features are not enough in

cases of minimal exposure in instructed settings where the properties to be acquired

are not explicitly taught. If L2 explicit knowledge is to be measured it might be the

case that L2 explicit teaching is necessary in minimal input situations to help reach

target-like interlanguage and that implicit teaching is only effective when exposure

is more intensive.

REFERENCES

Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-

movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:491–540.

Ayoun Dalila. 1999. Verb movement in French L2 acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and

Cognition 2:103–125.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Ellis, Rod. 2009. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. In Implicit

and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, ed. Rod Ellis,

Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Rosemary Erlam, Jenefer Philp, and Hayo Reinders,

31–65. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Isabelli, Casilde. 2004. The acquisition of the null subject parameter properties in SLA: Some

effects of positive evidence in a naturalistic learning context. Hispania 87:150–162.



Hawkins, Roger. 2005. Revisiting wh-movement: The availability of an uninterpretable [wh]

feature in interlanguage grammars. In Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to

Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004), ed. Laurent Dekydtspotter, Rex

A.|Sprouse, and Audrey Liljestrand, 124–137. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Hawkins, Roger and Cecilia Yuet-hung Chan. 1997. The partial availability of Universal

Grammar in second language acquisition: The failed functional features hypothesis. Sec-

ond Language Research 13:187–226.

Hawins, Roger and Hajime Hattori. 2006. Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions

by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Re-

search 22:269–301.

Hilles, Sharon. 1991. Access to Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. In Point

counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language, ed. Lynn Eubank, 305–338.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Nina Hyams. 1988. Morphological uniformity and the setting of the

null-subject parameter. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the North East

Linguistic Society (NELS), ed. James Blevins and Juli Carter, 238–253. Amherst, MA:

Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).

Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth Safir. 1989. The null subject parameter and parametric theory.

In The null subject parameter, ed. Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir, 1–44. Dordrecht:

Kluwer.

Lakshmanan, Usha. 1991. Morphological uniformity and null subjects in child second lan-

guage acquisition. In Point counterpoint. Universal Grammar in the second language,

ed. Lynn Eubank, 389–410. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lakshmanan, Usha. 1994. Universal Grammar in child second language acquisition. Amster-

dam: John Benjamins.

Liceras, Juana Muñoz. 1989. On some Properties of the ‘pro-drop’ parameter: Looking for

missing subjects in non-native Spanish. In Linguistic perspectives on second language

acquisition, ed. Susan M. Gass and Jacquelyn Schachter, 109–133. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Liceras, Juana Muñoz. 1996. La adquisición de las lenguas segundas y la gramática universal.

Madrid: Editorial Sintesis.

Liceras, Juana Muñoz. 1998. On the specific nature of non-native grammars: The whys,

whens, wheres and . . . hows. In Issues in second language acquisition and learning, ed.

Juan Fernández-González and José de Santiago-Guervós, 58–96. València: Universitat de

València Servei de Publicacions.

Liceras, Juana Muñoz. 2003. Monosyllabic place holders in early child language and the

L1/L2 ‘Fundamental Difference Hypothesis’. In Theory, practice and acquisition: Pa-

pers from the 6th Linguistics Symposium and the 5th Conference on the Acquisition of

Spanish and Portuguese, ed. Paula Kempchinsky and Carlos-Eduardo Piñeros, 258–283.

Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Liceras, Juana Muñoz and Lourdes Díaz. 1999. Topic-drop versus pro-drop: Null subjects and

pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese

speakers. Second Language Research 15:1–40.

Liceras, Juana Muñoz, Raquel Fernández-Fuertes, and Rocío Pérez-Tattam. 2008. Null and

overt subjects in the developing grammars (L1 English/L1 Spanish) of two bilingual

twins. In A portrait of the young in the new multilingual Spain, ed. Carmen Pérez, Aurora

Bel, and María Juan, 111–135. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.


484 CJL/RCL 58(3), 2013

Lozano, Cristóbal. 2002. The interpretation of overt and null pronouns in non-native Spanish.

Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 8:53–66.

Lozano, Cristóbal. 2006. Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alterna-

tions in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research 22:145–187.

Manzini, M. Rita and Anna Roussou. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control.

Lingua 110:409–447.

Mobaraki, Mohsen, Anne Vainikka, and Martha Young-Scholten. 2008. The status of subjects

in child L2 English. In Current trends in child second language acquisition: A gener-

ative perspective, ed. Belma Haznedar and Elena Gavruseva, 55–80. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Montrul, Silvina A. 2004. The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in mono-

lingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Ben-

jamins.

Montrul, Silvina A. 2004. Psycholinguistic evidence for split intransitivity in Spanish second

language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 25:239–267.

Montrul, Silvina A. and Celeste Rodriguez Louro. 2006. Beyond the syntax of the Null Subject

Parameter. In The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages, ed. Vicenç Torrent and

Linda Escobar, 401–418. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ordóñez, Francisco and Estela Treviño. 1999. Left dislocated subjects and the pro-drop pa-

rameter: A case study of Spanish. Lingua 107:39–68.

Park, Hyeson. 2004. A minimalist approach to null subjects and objects in second language

acquisition. Second Language Research 20:1–32.

Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C Movement: Causes and consequences. In

Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 326–355. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories.

In The syntax of time, ed. Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme, 495–538. Cam-

bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Phinney, Marianne. 1987. The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. In Param-

eter setting, ed. Thomas Roeper and Edwin Williams, 221–238. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Pladevall Ballester, Elisabet. 2010. Child L2 development of syntactic and discourse properties

of Spanish subjects. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13:185-0216.

Pladevall Ballester, Elisabet. 2012. Child L2 English acquisition of subject properties in an

immersion bilingual context. Second Language Research 28:217–241.

Platzack, Christer. 2004. Agreement and the person phrase hypothesis. Working Papers in

Scandinavian Syntax 73: 83–112.

Ritter, Elizabeth. 1995. On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Lan-

guage and Linguistic Theory 13:405–443.

Rizzi, Luiggi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

Rizzi, Luiggi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17:501–

557.

Rothman, Jason and Michael Iverson. 2007a. Input type and parameter resetting: Is naturalistic

input necessary? International Review of Applied Linguistics 45:285–319.

Rothman, Jason and Michael Iverson. 2007b. The syntax of null subjects in L2 Spanish: Com-

paring two L2 populations under different exposure. Revista Española de Lingüística

Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 20: 185–214.

Safir, Kenneth. 1982. Inflection, government and inversion. The Linguistic Review 1:417–467.

Safir, Kenneth. 1985. Syntactic chains. New York: Cambridge University Press.



Schwartz, Bonnie D. 2003. Child L2 acquisition: Paving the Way. In Proceedings of the 27th

Annual Boston University Conference of Language Development (BUCLD), ed. Barbara

Beachley, Amanda Brown, and Frances Colin, 26–50. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Schwartz, Bonnie D. 2004. Why child L2 acquisition? In Proceedings of Generative Ap-

proaches to Language Acquisition (GALA) 2003, vol. 1, ed. Jacqueline van Kampen and

Sergio Baauw, 47–66. Utrecht: LOT (Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap) Pub-

lications.

Schwartz, Bonnie D. and Rex Sprouse. 2000. When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences

for L2 acquisition research. In Second language acquisition and linguistic theory, ed.

John Archibald, 156–186. Oxford: Blackwell.

Slabakova, Rouymana. 2006a. Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Re-

search 22:302–338.

Slabakova, Rouymana. 2006b. Learnability in the L2 acquisition of semantics: A bidirectional

study of a semantic parameter. Second Language Research 22: 498–523.

Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria and Maria Dimitrakopoulou. 2007. The Interpretability Hypothesis:

Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Re-

search, 23:215–242.

Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria and Maria Mastropavlou. 2007. Feature interpretability in L2 acqui-

sition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. In The role of formal features in second

language acquisition, ed. Juana Liceras, Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck, 143–183.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria and Anna Roussou. 1991. Parameter Resetting in L2? University Col-

lege London Working Papers in Linguistics 3:149–169.

Wakabayashi, Shigenori. 2002. The acquisition of non-null subjects in English: A minimalist

account. Second Language Research 18:28–71.

White, Lydia. 1985. The ‘pro-drop’ parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language

Learning 35:47–62.

White, Lydia. 1986. Implications of parametric variation for adult second language acquisi-

tion: An investigation of the ‘pro-drop’ parameter. In Experimental approaches to second

language acquisition, ed. Vivian Cook, 55–72. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

White, Lydia. 2003. Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cam-

bridge University Press.


486 CJL/RCL 58(3), 2013

APPENDIX:

SENTENCES AND LINGUISTIC ITEMS IN THE ADULT L2 ENGLISH TASK

Linguistic Grammaticalitems Sentences feature

Null referential subjects:

11 Jane likes football. Plays in a team every

day.

15 Walks to school every morning at 8.30.

21 Finally decided to go to the party and had a

lot of fun.

3 My sister is always tired because works a

lot.

23 If don’t finish the homework we will not go

home.

19 Our French teacher said had a dog.

Null expletives:

1 Are five American students in my class. existential

5 Seems that our students are working well. raising

8 Surprised me that everyone came to the

meeting.

extraposed

16 Appeared a dinosaur in the playground. unaccusative

9 Is said that rainforests are in danger. raising

26 Is raining a lot these days. weather verb


6 Has just come my sister from the United

States.

24 Cried the baby all night long.

10 They didn’t know when finished the class.

25 She didn’t explain why complained the stu-

dents.

Grammatical sentences:

2 My cousins came over for the vacation. postverbal subj. main clause

4 There are two music teachers in the school. existencial expletive

7 They went to a birthday party and had a lot

of fun.

null pron. subj. main clause

12 It snowed very little last winter. weather expletive

22 It surprised Mike that she couldn’t pass the

exam.

extraposition it

13 My sister loves apples so she eats one every

day.

null pron. subj. main clause

17 It seems that we are going on a trip next

week.

raising expletive

20 There arrived two new students. unaccusative expletive

18 We will be late if we don’t take the train. null pron. subj. sub. clause

14 He didn’t know when the class started. postverbal subj. sub. clause


Adult instructed SLA of English subject properties

Documents

Transcript of Adult instructed SLA of English subject properties