Focus at the syntax-discourse interface: optionality reconsidered

Focus at the syntax-discourse

interface: optionality

reconsidered

Timothy Gupton University of Georgia

HLS17, University of Ottawa

October 17, 2013

email: [email protected]

optionality in developing grammars

o in L1A:

o Poeppel & Wexler (1993); Wexler (1994, 1998)

o in child SLA:

o Pladevall Ballester (2010)

o in adult SLA:

o e.g. White (1992), Sorace (1999, 2000)

o in Spanish HS:

o Silva-Corvalán (1994), de Prada Pérez & Pascual y Cabo

(2012)

2

optionality in advanced L2 learners

o Interface Hypothesis (e.g. Sorace 2004, 2005, Sorace & Filiaci 2006, Tsimpli et al 2004)

o residual optionality at the interface of syntax and the external modules (discourse, pragmatics, information structure)

o predictions

o advanced learners will show signs of grammar restructuring at the level of the narrow syntax consistent with FT/FA accounts (Schwartz & Sprouse 1996)

o advanced learner behavior will be very native-like, but will also show signs of residual optionality of forms in the end state, suggesting fossilization

3

previous studies of focus

in Spanish SLA

Hertel (2003), Lozano (2006), Domínguez &

Arche (2008)

o examine acq. of word order in narrow-focus

and all-focus contexts

o unergative and unaccusative predicates

o L2ers: differences of L1, age, level

o L1 controls: variety of countries, experience

with English via grad study

4

the acquisitional task – narrow syntax

Split Intransitivity (Perlmutter 1978)

TP 2

T[EPP] VP unaccusative predicate 2

V DP (subj.)

• learners must learn that the [EPP] can be checked

by Agree in Spanish (impossible in English, only external merge in Spec, T possible)

grammar restructuring involves VS in all-focus contexts with unaccusative predicates

5

the acquisitional task –

syntax-information structure interface

Zubizarreta’s (1998) C-NSR and FPR

Spanish NSR

a. Given two sister nodes Ci and Cj, the one lower in asymmetric c-command ordering is more prominent

FPR (focus prominence rule)

Given two sister nodes Ci (marked [+F]) and Cj

(marked [-F]), Ci is more prominent than Cj

result of p-movement: [-F] constituents must move to avoid projection of focus at the right-most edge

6




(1) Who ate the apple?

a. #Juan[+F] comió la manzana[-F].

b. Comió la manzana[-F] Juan[+F].

interface success involves encoding focus

in syntax; not via prosody (as in English)

7




T’ 3

T vP comió 3

DP v’ Juan 3

v VP <comió> 3

V DP

<comió> la manzana

8




T’ 3

T vP comió 3

DP v’ Juan 3

v VP <comió> 3

V DP

<comió> la manzana

9




T’

3

T vP

comió 3

DP vP

la manzana 3

DP ...

Juan

10

the acquisitional tasks

both present a challenge for learners

neither are explicitly taught in the

classroom or in texts; learners are simply

told that word order is flexible

input provides conflicting data via a variety

of word orders

11

findings: L2A of focus

o low-level L2ers favor SV word orders,

suggesting no early grammar restructuring

o higher-level L2ers show acq. of VS order

differing conclusions

o Hertel (2003), Lozano (2006) – signs of

residual optionality among adv. L2ers

o Domínguez & Arche (2008) – rejection of VS

orders across contexts in low, int.-level

learners suggests a syntactic deficit 12

findings: L2A of focus

o curious findings (Hertel 2003, Lozano 2006)

o L2ers show overgeneralization of VS with

unergative predicates in all-focus contexts

o Hertel (2003)

o NS group preferred VS more than expected

13

research questions

1. Do L2 learners show evidence of grammar restructuring for unaccusative predicates?

2. In what way(s) do advanced L2er grammars differ from NS grammars?

3. Do L2 learners also exhibit interface instability with transitive predicates?

4. Do native speakers exhibit optionality with respect to interface phenomena?

5. If so, is learner optionality native-like?

6. Are there differences in NS optionality?

14

methodology

o participants:

o learner group 1 (LG1, n=15)

o learner group 2 (LG2, n=18)

learners all Y3, Y4 undergrads at UGA, placed by

modified U. Wisconsin placement test

o advanced learners (AGG, n=13)

o Spanish NS controls (NS, n=20)

15

methodology

o tasks completed using SurveyGizmo.com o linguistic history questionnaire

1) contextualized AJT stimuli (n=20) 5 all-focus (transitive predicates)

5 all-focus (unaccusative predicates)

5 subject narrow-focus (trans. pred.)

5 subject narrow-focus (unacc. pred.)

randomized SV(O) & VS(O) response pairs provided with accompanying audio (read by NS) following Kitagawa & Fodor (2006)

responses rated on a 4-point (1-4) Likert scale, plus “I don’t know” option

16

methodology – contextualized

sentence-pair replies

Estás en una reunión con tus colegas de la universidad. Tu compañero Julio se va un momento al baño. Mientras él está en el baño, Patricia y Maite salen a comprar unos refrescos. Vuelve Julio y te pregunta: “¿Quién ha salido?” Tú le contestas:

a. Han salido Patricia y Maite.

b. Patricia y Maite han salido.

17

methodology: AJT

4-point appropriateness scale

4 – totalmente aceptable

3 – bastante aceptable

2 – poco aceptable

1 – no aceptable

0 – no lo sé

18

methodology

2) contextualized WPT stimuli (n=20) 5 subject narrow-focus (transitive predicates)

5 object narrow-focus

5 subject contrastive focus

5 object contrastive focus

preference scale A. Oración A es claramente preferible a Oración B.

B. Oración B es claramente preferible a Oración A.

C. Las oraciones A y B son igualmente preferibles.

D. Ninguna de las dos oraciones es preferible.

E. No lo sé.

19

predictions of the study

o internal interface: If L2ers have restructured their mental grammar, they will accept SV and VS in a native-like manner in all-focus contexts (notably, for unaccusative predicates)

o external interface: L2 interface instability will be evidenced by similar ratings for SV(O) and VS(O) word orders for subject narrow-focus replies

o NS optionality will be evidenced by statistically similar results on the AJT and/or by preference for answers indicating both replies as equally preferable on the WPT

20

results – AJT, transitive predicates

21

LG1 LG2 AGG NS

SVO 3.8 4 3.8 4

VSO 1.6 2.4 2.8 2.8

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Median mean appropriateness ratings - all-focus replies, transitive predicates

LG1 LG2 AGG NS

SV 3.75 4 3.4 3.6

VS 2.8 3.2 4 4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Median mean appropriateness ratings - subject narrow-focus, transitive predicates

results – AJT, unaccusative preds

22

LG1 LG2 AGG NS

SV 4 4 3.2 3

VS 2.6 3.5 4 3.8

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Median mean appropriateness ratings - subject narrow-focus, unaccusative predicates

LG1 LG2 AGG NS

SV 4 4 3.4 3.9

VS 2.4 2.9 3.4 3.4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Median mean appropriateness ratings - all-focus replies, unaccusative predicates

comparisons – LG1 v. NS

predicate type discourse context word order p-value

transitive

thetic (all-focus) SVO 0.023

VSO 0.003

SNF SV 0.549

VS 0.000

unaccusative

SNF SV 0.001

VS 0.000

thetic (all-focus) SV 0.591

VS 0.007

23

Table 1. Independent Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test, comparison of

LG1 group and NS group.

(H0= distribution of means is the same across speaker groups)

comparisons – LG2 v. NS

24


transitive


VSO 0.091

SNF SV 0.011

VS 0.000

unaccusative

SNF SV 0.002

VS 0.123


VS 0.185

Table 2. Independent Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test, comparison of LG2

group and NS group.


comparisons – AGG v. NS


transitive


VSO 0.941

SNF SV 0.444

VS 0.982

unaccusative

SNF SV 0.657

VS 0.116


VS 0.764

25


AGG group and NS group.


results – WPT, object narrow-focus

26

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

LG1 LG2 AGG NS

WPT preference proportion with Wilson 95% c.i.

Object narrow-focus context, VO order

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

LG1 LG2 AGG NS


Object narrow-focus context, VO=OV

LG1 LG2 AGG NS high c.i. 0.8563 0.8329 0.9069 0.7899

prop. 0.7636 0.7579 0.8333 0.71 low c.i. 0.6365 0.6628 0.7197 0.6146


prop. 0.1818 0.1895 0.1167 0.25 low c.i. 0.1019 0.1233 0.0577 0.1755

results – WPT, subject narrow-focus

27

LG1 LG2 AGG NS

high c.i. 0.1958 0.2914 0.7291 0.5377

prop. 0.0909 0.2 0.6167 0.44

low c.i. 0.0395 0.1319 0.4902 0.3467

LG1 LG2 AGG NSU

high c.i. 0.4403 0.4581 0.4251 0.5962

prop. 0.3091 0.3579 0.3 0.5

low c.i. 0.2028 0.2688 0.199 0.4038

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

LG1 LG2 AGG NS


Subject narrow-focus context, VS order

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

LG1 LG2 AGG NS


Subject narrow-focus context, SV=VS

results – WPT, subject narrow-focus

28

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

LG1 LG2 AGG NS


Subject narrow-focus context, SV order


prop. 0.5818 0.4421 0.0833 0.05 low c.i. 0.4503 0.3464 0.0361 0.0215

discussion: research questions

1. Do L2 learners show evidence of grammar restructuring

for unaccusative predicates?

2. In what way(s) do advanced L2er grammars differ from

NS grammars?

3. Do L2 learners also exhibit interface instability with

transitive predicates?

29



for unaccusative predicates? YES (in LG2)


NS grammars?



30

discussion: predictions

o internal interface: If L2ers have restructured their

mental grammar, they will accept SV and VS in a

native-like manner in all-focus contexts (notably, for

unaccusative predicates)

already in LG2 group

31





NS grammars?



32





NS grammars? all-focus replies to unacc. preds.



33







o external interface: L2 interface instability will be

evidenced by similar ratings for SV(O) and VS(O) word

orders for subject narrow-focus replies

confirmed (*unexplained unaccusative all-focus)

34





NS grammars? all-focus replies to unacc. preds.


transitive predicates? NO?

35


4. Do native speakers exhibit optionality with respect to

interface phenomena?



Two NS groups determined (based on linguistic history)

1) native speakers who have spent more than one year

outside of their home country (NGU, n=11)

2) native speakers who have spent less than one year ouside

of Valencia, Spain (NSV, n=9)

36

comparisons – NSU v. NSV


transitive


VSO 0.444

SNF SV 0.939

VS 0.814

unaccusative

SNF SV 0.939

VS 0.722


VS 0.156

37


NS groups


AJT results: NS groups

38

predicate type discourse context

speaker group

median rating by word order p-value

SV VS

transitive

thetic (all-focus)

NS 4 2.8 0.000

NSU 4 2.8 0.003

NSV 4 2.8 0.012

SNF

NS 3.6 4 0.003

NSU 3.6 4 0.049

NSV 3.6 4 0.027

unaccusative

SNF

NS 3 3.8 0.001

NSU 3 3.8 0.024

NSV 3 3.8 0.020

thetic (all-focus)

NS 3.9 3.4 0.006

NSU 3.8 3.4 0.003

NSV 4 3.6 0.350

Table 5. Word order comparisons by speaker group, Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.

variation – WPT, subject narrow-focus

39

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

AGG NSU NSV

Subject narrow-focus context, VS order

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

AGG NSU NSV

Subject narrow-focus context, SV=VS order

AGG NSU NSV

high c.i. 0.7291 0.6697 0.4566

prop. 0.6167 0.5455 0.3111

low c.i. 0.4902 0.4152 0.1953

AGG NSU NSV high c.i. 0.4251 0.5319 0.7489

prop. 0.3 0.4 0.6222 low c.i. 0.199 0.2812 0.4763


4. Do native speakers exhibit optionality with

respect to interface phenomena?

YES (especially NSV group)



40






YES (like NSU) and NO (not like NSV)


41






YES (like NSU) and NO (not like NSV)


YES

42







o external interface: L2 interface instability will be

evidenced by similar ratings for SV(O) and VS(O) word

orders for subject narrow-focus replies

confirmed (*unexplained unaccusative all-focus)

43


o NS optionality will be evidenced by statistically similar

results on the AJT and/or by preference for answers

indicating both replies as equally preferable on the

WPT

AJT: confirmed, NSV do not distinguish between SV &

VS with unaccusative predicates (all-focus)

WPT: confirmed, NSV group preferred both orders

option (SV=VS)

44

summary: observations

o advanced learners restructured their

grammars - perhaps too categorically - for

unaccusative predicates

o NS groups rated VS lower than expected by

the Unaccusative Hypothesis (as in Hertel

2003)

o for SNF contexts, NSV group preferred

SV=VS, suggesting a re-examination of

Zubizarreta (1998)

45

further directions encouraged

o further study of unaccusativity in Spanish

o further study of NS optionality

o in particular, judgments of SV for SNF

• preference for SV in Mexican Spanish: Slabakova & Leal-Méndez (2011), Hoot (2012)

o prosody of SV/VS order in NSF replies

o effects of contact with English on NS participants

o more solid definition of “native-like” for future studies of the interfaces, the IH

46

gracias

o email: [email protected]

o special thanks

o ground & tech support: Gary Baker, Stacey

Casado, Nicole DeCraene, Inma Garnes, Jim

Jones, Araceli Peris, Leonor Sales, Julia Sturm

o discussion: Tania Leal-Méndez, Kim Love-Myers,

Melissa Whatley, Wenbo Wu

47

selected references Domínguez, Laura & María J. Arche. 2008. Optionality in L2 grammars: the

acquisition of SV/VS contrast in Spanish. BUCLD 32 Proceedings, 96-107. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Hertel, Tammy. 2003. Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research 19(4), 273-304.

Lozano, Cristobal. 2006. Focus and Split intransitivity: the acquisition of Word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research 22(2), 145-187.

Sorace, Antonella and Francesca Filiaci. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22. 339-368.

Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Syntactic optionality in non-native grammars. Second Language Research 16. 93-102.

Sorace, Antonella. 2004. Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7. 143-145.

Sorace, Antonella, 2005. Syntactic optionality at interfaces. In L. Cornips and K. Corrigan (eds.). Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the biological and the social. 46-111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge: MIT Press.

48

contrastive focus

For Zubizarreta (1998), English-like prosody

(1c) forces a contrastive focus reading in

Spanish

(1) Who ate the apple?

c. #JUAN comió la manzana.

Q: Do Spanish L2ers (English L1) acquire

the (syntax-discourse-prosody) interface

properties of contrastive focus?

50

contrastive focus

Miquel, uno de tus compañeros de piso, llega a casa. Entra en la cocina y después te viene y te dice: “Por fin. Marc ha limpiado la cocina. ¿La has visto?” Tú le corriges:

a. La ha limpiado SERGI.

b. SERGI la ha limpiado.

51

subject contrastive focus

52

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

LG1 LG2 AGG NS

WPT Preference proportion with Wilson 95% c.i.

Subject contrastive focus, SV word order


prop. 0.6364 0.5474 0.15 0.16 low c.i. 0.5042 0.4474 0.081 0.101

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

LG1 LG2 AGG NS


Subject contrastive focus, VS word order


prop. 0.1455 0.1684 0.5833 0.36 low c.i. 0.0756 0.1064 0.4573 0.2727

subject contrastive focus - optionality

53

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

LG1 LG2 AGG NS


Subject contrastive focus, SV=VS word order


prop. 0.2 0.2737 0.25 0.48 low c.i. 0.1155 0.1941 0.1578 0.3846

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

AGG NSU NSV


Subject contrastive focus, SV=VS word order


prop. 0.25 0.4545 0.5111 low c.i. 0.1578 0.3303 0.37

object contrastive focus

54

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

LG1 LG2 AGG NS


Object contrastive focus, OV word order


prop. 0.0545 0.0526 0.1167 0.1 low c.i. 0.0187 0.0227 0.0577 0.0552

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

LG1 LG2 AGG NS


Object contrastive focus, VO word order


prop. 0.6909 0.6737 0.6667 0.54 low c.i. 0.5597 0.5743 0.5406 0.4426

object contrastive focus - optionality

55

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

LG1 LG2 AGG NS


Object contrastive focus, VO=OV word order

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

AGG NSU NSV


Object contrastive focus, VO=OV word order

LG1 LG2 AGG NS

high c.i. 0.3437 0.3484 0.3178 0.4576

prop. 0.2182 0.2526 0.2 0.36

low c.i. 0.1295 0.176 0.1183 0.2727


prop. 0.2 0.3091 0.4222

low c.i. 0.1183 0.2028 0.2897

contrastive focus - observations

o for SCF, AGG group disprefers SV and prefers VS at native-like levels

o for SCF, AGG group (and L2ers overall) does not recognize both orders as equally acceptable at native-like levels when NS are considered as a group, but AGG does compared to the NS sub-groups

o for OCF, all L2er groups prefer all word order options in a native-like manner, including recognizing both word orders as equally acceptable

56

Focus at the syntax-discourse interface: optionality reconsidered

Documents

Transcript of Focus at the syntax-discourse interface: optionality reconsidered