This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of the article in Bilingualism: Language and

Cognition 8 (3), 2005, 177–193 available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728905002245

The publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use or reprint the material in any

form.

Optionality in non-native

grammars: L2 acquisition

of German constructions

with absent expletives*

ALDONA SOPATA Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

This paper investigates the knowledge of constructions with absent expletives by advanced and high-proficiency non-

native speakers of German whose first language is Polish. German grammar is known to license null subjects due to the

strength of AGRP but not to identify them. Therefore only expletive subjects can be absent in German, except for Topic-

drop and, crucially, the expletive subjects have to be absent in certain cases due to the Projection Principle. The

knowledge of this phenomenon by second language (L2) learners has been investigated by two methods, elicited written

production task and grammaticality judgment tests. High-level non-native speakers of German differ significantly from

native speakers in both types of tasks. The differences are clearly not the result of transfer. The results reported here

reveal permanent optionality in L2 grammars suggesting a deficit in the grammatical representations of L2 learners.

1. Introduction Syntactic optionality in the grammars of proficient non-

native speakers raises questions concerning the nature of

adult second-language (L2) acquisition. A possible

explanation of this phenomenon concerns changes in the

language faculty affecting the way languages are acquired

in post-childhood. A broad range of hypotheses on the

fundamental nature of L2 knowledge has been developed. One of the approaches concerning the problem of the

role of Universal Grammar (UG) in L2 acquisition is the

hypothesis put forward by Vainikka and Young-Scholten

(1994, 1996), which claims full access to UG and transfer

from the L1 to contribute to L2 development. Vainikka and

Young-Scholten argue that interlanguages are initially

defined by L1 lexical categories. Functional projections

subsequently evolve, triggered by L2 input. According to

their hypothesis, the full success of L2 learners is possible

in all language areas. Full access to UG is also claimed by Schwartz (1998)

and Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996, 2000). Syntactic

representations in the interlanguage are unimpaired and

accessible for the purposes of reparameterisation. The

initial state of the L2 acquisition process is said to be the

full L1 grammar. The differences between the native and

non-native grammars are claimed to be a result of mapping

* I would like to thank Jurgen¨ Meisel and other researchers in

Collaborative Research Center on Multilingualism in Hamburg for

their valuable discussion of the issues and problems involved in this

research. I am grateful to Lynn Eubank and two anonymous

reviewers for their valuable comments on the early versions of this

paper. All remaining errors are my own.

Address for correspondence Adam Mickiewicz University, ul. Pasieka 6/2, 61-657 Poznan, ́Poland E-mail: sopata@amu.edu.pl

difficulties (Lardiere, 1998a, b, 2000) from syntactic

fea-tures to overt forms (viz. the Missing Surface

Inflection Hypothesis of Haznedar and Schwartz, 1997;

Prevost and White, 2000) or of L1 transfer. This

hypothesis predicts that the functional categories are

initially transferred from L1 and then parameters are

reset. L2 acquisition should result in the successful

acquisition of phenomena connected with functional

categories in L2 provided that such problems as L1

transfer or mapping difficulties are not involved. Another way of explaining the differences between

native and L2 grammars is attributing them to some

kind of impairment of the language faculty. Tsimpli and

Smith (1991), Tsimpli and Roussou (1991), and Smith

and Tsimpli (1995) argue that the features of functional

categories become connected with the morphophonolo-

gical surface paradigm in the L1 acquisition process,

and that this connection cannot be reset in L2

acquisition. Whereas unparameterised UG principles

constrain inter-language, parameterised UG principles

become unavail-able to second language learners. The impairment of the syntactic module of language

faculty is also claimed by Hawkins and Chan (1997).

According to their hypothesis, L2 acquisition is constrained

by UG, but functional categories are restricted to the L1

repertoire of interpretable features. L2 learners cannot reset

the features from the L1 value to the L2 value. The

checking of features is substituted in L2 by associ-ative

memory processes, the use of which in turn results in

optionality throughout the L2 acquisition process. Beck (1997, 1998) and Eubank, Bischof, Huffstutler,

Leek and West (1997) argue that lexical and functional

2 Aldona Sopata

categories are transferred initially from L1, but crucially

functional categories are transferred without the feature

values. The strength of values of V-features cannot be

specified in the course of L2 acquisition, which results

in permanent optionality. This hypothesis predicts

therefore that the interlanguage will be UG constrained

but the phenomena connected with the specification of

features (e.g. verb raising) will be optional even in the

interlanguage of very advanced L2 learners. These hypotheses can be summed up in the following

way. All researchers cited above claim that the

interlangu-age is UG-constrained, but to varying

degrees. Predictions differ in respect to the development

of functional cate-gories in L2 acquisition. On the one

hand, we have those hypotheses claiming the possibility

of specification of features (triggered directly by L2

input or reset from the transferred L1 value). By

contrast, other hypotheses argue for the impairment of

the syntactic module of language faculty. Values of

features are transferred from L1 and not reset or remain

unspecified. The failure of specification of features

results in the optionality in related syntactic phenomena. Empirical research can therefore show if the develop-

ment of phenomena connected with the specification of

features results in the successful acquisition of them or

remains optional to the advanced stages in SLA (second

language acquisition). The acquisition of constructions

with absent expletives in L2 German by L1 Polish speakers

serves as a good testing ground for this problem.

2. Linguistic background Expletives are semantically empty elements which play

only a syntactic role. Safir (1984, p. 203) defines them

in the following way: “An NP is expletive if it does not

count as an argument for the Theta Criterion”.1

The presence of expletives in a language was at first

claimed to depend on its status as a null subject language

or as a non-null subject language. Expletives are absent in

null subject languages, which allow the empty category

pro, while in non-null subject languages, which do not

allow pro, expletives are present. German is an interesting case in this respect.

Referential subjects cannot be null in German: (1) Er sagte, dass er tanzt.

he said that he dances

“He said that he danced.” 1 In German it is necessary to distinguish between quasi-arguments

(Chomsky 1981, p. 325; Grewendorf 1989, p. 149) (cf. i) and non-arguments – expletives.

i. Gestern regnete *(es) hier.

yesterday rained it here “Yesterday it rained here.”

(2) *Er sagte, dass tanzt.

he said that dances “He said that dances.

There are expletives in German (EX = EXPLETIVUM): (3) Es wird getanzt.

EX is danced

“It is danced.” In some cases, however, the expletives have to be absent: (4) Er sagte, dass (*es) getanzt wird.

he said that EX danced is

“He said that it is danced.” Rizzi (1986) proposes a modified version of pro. He

denies the close relation between the licensing of pro in

one language and its inflexional richness. The richness

of a inflexional paradigm is said to play a role only in

the identification of pro, but not in its licensing. Two

principles are proposed by Rizzi: (5) a. Licensing principle for pro (Rizzi 1986, p. 519)

pro is governed by X0 y.

b. Identification of pro (Rizzi 1986, p. 520)

Let X be the licensing head of an occurrence of

pro: then pro has the grammatical specification

of the features on X coindexed with it. Muller¨ and Rohrbacher (1989) investigate numerous

languages from various language families to see how the

principles of licensing and identification of pro function.

They distinguish four language groups: (6) a. languages which do not allow pro because INFL

is not a licensing head b. languages which allow pro but INFL is not richly

enough specified to supply an argument with the

necessary grammatical features c. languages in which INFL can determine only

some but not all features d. languages which make the reconstruction of all

grammatical specifications possible An example of the first group can be English, where INFL

is not a pro-licensing head. In German INFL is a pro-

licensing head, but it cannot specify phi-features (person,

number, gender), which results in the fact that only

expletives can be pro (Safir, 1984; Sternefeld, 1984;

Grewendorf, 1989). German therefore belongs to the

second group according to the classification of Muller¨ and

Rohrbacher. The third group can be represented by

Icelandic, in which the pro-licensing head can supply the

argument with some (but not all) phi-features. In Icelandic

not only expletives but also quasi-arguments can be empty

(e.g. with weather verbs). Languages in which pro is

formally licensed and INFL is specified richly enough to

allow for referential elements to be empty make up

the fourth group. Italian is a well-known example of this group of languages.

The split of the null subject parameter into two

principles helps one to understand the empirical data. It

does not, however, define what the necessary conditions

are under which a language allows for null subjects. The

intuition that null subjects appear in languages with rich

agreement features is quite strong. The difficulty lies in

the formulation of conditions that are theoretically and

descriptively adequate. Speas (1994) proposes a solution

to this problem. Speas follows a proposal of Rohrbacher (1992), who

claims that in languages with strong agreement – that is,

with agreement that licenses null arguments – each

agreement morpheme has its own lexical entry; by con-

trast, languages that have weak agreement – that is,

agree-ment that does not license null arguments – the

morphemes do not have independent lexical entries. In

languages with weak agreement, verbs are listed in the

lexicon in verbal paradigms. Speas (1994, p. 185) calls

this Rohrbacher’s Generalisation: (7) a. Strong morphemes have individual lexical entries.

b. Weak morphemes do not have individual lexical

entries.

In languages with strong agreement, an agreement

morpheme heads the AGR projection. In languages with

weak agreement, the agreement morpheme is a part of

the inflexional paradigm. The descriptive generalisation

as follows (Speas, 1994, p. 186): (8) a. A language has null subjects if AGR is base

generated with a morpheme in it. b. A language cannot have null subjects if AGR is

base-generated on the verb. c. A language has null subjects if it has no AGR.

Speas (1994, p. 186) explains this generalisation by

using a principle of Economy, a sub-case of the general

principles of Economy of representation, which is stated

in the following way: (9) Project XP only if XP has content. A projection without content is a representation that

cannot be interpreted. A projection in which the head

and the specifier are empty (i.e. are without content)

would violate the principle. In non-null subject languages, in which the agreement

morphemes cannot head the AGR-projection, the overt

subjects have to license the AGR-projection. Therefore,

either an NP must move to Spec,IP or an expletive must be

inserted. In null subject languages, in which AGR is base

generated with a morpheme in it, AGR-projection has

content and there is no necessity for the specifier of AGR-

projection to be filled. In languages such as Japanese the

AGR-projection is not projected at all. Speas (1994,

Optionality in non-native grammars 3 p. 188) claims that the AGR-projection is necessary

only in languages which have some sort of residual

agreement. Languages like Japanese and Chinese do

have functional heads such as TENSE and ASPECT, but

they lack the head AGR. Speas’ proposal explains the licensing condition for

pro; it does not, however, eliminate the need for the

identification principle of pro. Speas (1994, p. 191)

states explicitly: There can be languages in which AGR has its own lexical

entry and hence suffices to license the AGR projection, but

whose AGR features are not strong enough to identify pro.

German is such a case. The fact that German allows dropped expletives shows that German licenses pro. Referential subjects, however, cannot be dropped in German except for cases of Topic-

drop2 (see Sigurdsson, 1993 for various strategies of

identification of pro). That referential subjects are required indicates that pro cannot be identified because the Agreement features are not richly enough specified.

Polish is a null subject language. Like Italian, Polish

allows referential subjects to be null: (10) Mowie´ po polsku.

speak Polish “I

speak Polish.” AGR is strong in Polish, so AGR affixes are sufficient to

license the AGR projection; therefore subjects may be null.

Moreover, AGR affixes in Polish are rich enough to assign

phi features, so referential subjects can be null. As in other

“genuine pro-drop languages” (Sigurdsson, 1993, p. 247),

Polish has no expletives. Given Speas’ analysis, this is not

surprising because the verbal paradigm in Polish is very

rich. It contains not only person- and number-features, but

also gender-features in the past forms. The effects of the strong or weak value of AGR in

languages are shown in Table 1. Languages with no

AGR (Chinese, Japanese) are omitted. German has null subjects only when the subject is

expletive, but not all expletives are null in German.

Speas (1994) proposes an explanation of the distribution

of overt vs. null expletives in German using the

Projection Principle. Overt expletives show up only

clause-initially in matrix clauses, but not claused

internally or in any embedded clause: (11) Es wurde gestern auf dem Schiff getanzt.

EX is yesterday on the ship danced

“There was dancing on the ship yesterday.” 2 Topic-drop is a phenomenon restricted to colloquial German. Null

subjects are identified here by discourse-identified operator. See Rizzi (1994) for detailed discussion.

4 Aldona Sopata

Table 1. The effects of strong or weak value of AGR

AGR – strong (morpheme generated

under AGR so pro licensed)

AGR – weak (morpheme

generated onV so pro not licensed) A. Phi features – rich (A1) (A2)

No expletive in Spec,AGR Referential or expletive subject required in Spec,AGR

Null referential subject optionally permitted in Spec,AGR

[This is Polish] B. Phi features – not rich (B1) (B2) No expletive in Spec,AGR Referential or expletive subject required in Spec,AGR Referential subject required in Spec,AGR

[This is standard German]

(12) Gestern wurde (*es) auf dem Schiff getanzt.

yesterday was EX on the ship danced “There was dancing on the ship yesterday.”

(13) Er sagte, dass (*es) getanzt wurde.

he said that EX danced was

“He said that it was danced.” In (11) we see that overt expletives show up in Spec,CP,

but they do not appear in Spec,IP (AGRP) in (12) and (13).

Spec,AGRP may be null when the subject is non-

referential because the agreement morphology in German

suffices to license the AGR projection. According to Speas

(1994, p. 191), examples (12) and (13) do not have a null

expletive. Rather, Spec,AGRP is here truly empty because

the head of AGRP is an affix which has its own lexical

entry and suffices to license AGRP. An expletive is necessary in Spec,CP if COMP does

not have a contentful item base-generated in it but only

the moved verb occupies C (e.g. example (12)). Verb

movement is not in itself sufficient to license a

projection and the functional projection must be

licensed by distinct content prior to verb movement. Considering the AGR strength parameter and the

Projection Principle, the situation in Polish and German

can be presented as follows: (14) Polish: No expletive in Spec,AGR

Null referential subject optionally

permitted in Spec,AGR (15) German: No expletive in Spec,AGR

Referential subject required in Spec,AGR REFERENTIAL OR EXPLETIVE SUBJECT REQUIRED IN SPEC,CP IF ONLY THE MOVED VERB OCCUPIES C

Children acquiring German as their L1 begin with a mental grammar allowing them to produce subjectless

constructions.3 In the course of L1 acquisition they

come to a developmental stage in which referential subjects are required and expletive subjects are absent in Spec,AGR. This development can be explained with the specification of the features of AGR.

Likewise, L2 learners have to specify the strength of

the AGR projection in the acquisition process. Learners

of German whose native language is Polish have to find

out that the AGR projection in German is strong and

therefore licenses null subjects. The AGR affixes are,

however, not sufficiently rich to assign phi features to

referential subjects, which results in the fact that only

expletives and not referential subjects can be null.4

3. Considerations for SLA The possibility of specifying features under a functional

head in the course of L2 acquisition has received

increasing attention in SLA research. As already

indicated, the present study investigates the possible

effects of specifying the strength feature under AGR in

the process of SLA. The various possibilities of AGR

specification and its effects in languages with rich and 3 See Weissenborn (1992) for detailed discussion.

4 There are other proposals of explaining the null subject phenomenon in

the literature (e.g. Haider, 1994; Vikner, 1995). Rohrbacher (1999, p.

246) argues, on the basis of Speas’ theory, that only the phono-logical

content and not the semantic content of a phrase is relevant for the

Principle of Economy of Projection. He defines “strong” agree-ment in

terms of minimal distinctive marking of [1st] and [2nd] person.

Eguzkitza and Kaiser (1999) and Kaiser (2002) deny the connection

between non-referential pro and the null subject phenomenon. They

connect them, however, with the V2 parameter. Adopting this view

would change the linguistic background of the study, but it would still

lead to similar conclusions in the aspect of L2 acquisition.

Optionality in non-native grammars 5 Table 2. The various possibilities of AGR specification

AGR – strong (morpheme

generated under AGR, so

pro licensed)

AGR – weak (morpheme

generated on V, so pro

not licensed)

AGR – unspecified

(morpheme generated either on

V or licensed) A. Phi features – rich (A1) (A2) (A3) No expletive in Spec,AGR Referential or expletive subject Expletive optionally permitted required in Spec,AGR in Spec,AGR Null referential subject Null referential subject optionally permitted in optionally permitted in Spec,AGR Spec,AGR REFERENTIAL OR EXPLETIVE REFERENTIAL OR EXPLETIVE SUBJECT REQUIRED IN SPEC,CP SUBJECT REQUIRED IN SPEC,CP IF ONLY THE MOVED VERB IF ONLY THE MOVED VERB OCCUPIES C OCCUPIES C [This is Polish except for the V2 effect with subject in

Spec,CP]

B. Phi features – not rich (B1) (B2) (B3) No expletive in Spec,AGR Referential or expletive subject Expletive optionally permitted required in Spec,AGR in Spec,AGR Referential subject required in Referential subject required in Spec,AGR Spec,AGR REFERENTIAL OR EXPLETIVE REFERENTIAL OR EXPLETIVE SUBJECT REQUIRED IN SPEC,CP SUBJECT REQUIRED IN SPEC,CP IF ONLY THE MOVED VERB IF ONLY THE MOVED VERB OCCUPIES C OCCUPIES C [This is standard German]

not rich phi features are shown in Table 2. It contains

not only the cases that occur in mature languages, but

also a possibility proposed by Beck (1997, 1998) in

regard to verb raising. Beck (1998, p. 317) argues that

an impairment to the strength feature under the

functional head would effectively cause verb raising to

become optional because the strength feature either

requires or prohibits verb raising in mature languages.

The same situation is possible in the case of morpheme

generation. If AGR is unspecified, a morpheme is

generated either on the verb or under AGR. This would

cause the related phenomena to become optional. In light of the discussion presented above, it is now

possible to consider different scenarios of L2 acquisition

of German constructions with absent expletives by

Polish native speakers. Adopting the full- access

hypothesis of Schwartz and Sprouse, we should expect

full transfer from the L1 by early learners. This means a

transfer of the strength feature under AGR from L1

Polish. As the value of this feature in Polish is strong,

this value should be transferred into early interlanguage

and cause the requirement of no expletives in Spec,AGR

(i.e. no expletives sentence-internally). Crucially, this

value should stay the same during the whole course of

L2 acquisition, as the subsequent restructuring of the

grammar occurs, according to Schwartz and Sprouse,

only to the extent to which positive data are available

from L2. Consequently, according to this hypothesis, L2

learners of German with Polish as a native language will

have the strong value of AGR, a value which prohibits

the appearance of expletives in Spec,AGR at each stage

of L2 acquisition. The full-access proposal made by Vainikka and Young-

Scholten differs from that of Schwartz and Sprouse to

some extent, but it makes the same predictions about the

acquisition of constructions with absent expletives at an

advanced stage of the acquisition of German by Polish L2

learners. After the very early stage of only lexical

projections in interlanguage, L2 learners will first develop

underspecified functional projections which will later

become fully specified. According to this view, at the

underspecified FP stage the (obviously underspecified)

value of AGR will cause the optional use of expletives in

Spec,AGR (Table 2, column 3). However, the more

advanced learners at the specified FP stage will have the

strong value of AGR (Table 2, column 1). Therefore,

6 Aldona Sopata

Table 3. Predictions based on the various SLA approaches

Schwartz & Sprouse from the beginning to the end state of L2 acquisition

AGR – strong

⇓ no expletive in Spec,AGR

Vainikka & Young-Scholten early stage* advanced stage

AGR – unspecified AGR – strong

⇓ ⇓ expletive optionally permitted in Spec,AGR no expletive in Spec,AGR

Beck from the beginning* to the end state of L2 acquisition

AGR – unspecified

⇓ expletive optionally permitted in Spec,AGR

optional insertion of expletives in Spec,AGR should

diminish over the course of L2 acquisition and finally

result in the successful acquisition of the phenomena

connected with the appropriate value of AGR. In contrast to hypotheses claiming full access to UG,

there are approaches that argue for an impaired access of

adult L2 learners to UG. With regard to the specification of

features of FP in the course of L2 acquisition the most

explicit proposal has been made by Beck (1997, 1998). She

predicts that the specification of the strength feature under

a functional head is impossible in L2 acquisition, and that

an impairment of this feature would effectively cause

optionality in the phenomena controlled by it. In our case,

then, the hypothesis would predict an unspecified value of

AGR during the whole course of L2 acquisition, causing

the optional appearance of expletives in Spec,AGR

throughout. Predictions based on these approaches are

summarised in Table 3.

4. Hypotheses The purpose of the study is to investigate the

interlanguage of Polish L2 learners of German regarding

their use of expletives claused internally. This can prove

or disprove the predictions made by the hypotheses

regarding the role of UG in L2 acquisition. Hypotheses

for the study are thus presented as follows: (16) Expletives do not appear in Spec,AGR (i.e. clause

internally) in the interlanguage of German L2

learners. (17) Expletives appear optionally in Spec,AGR (i.e.

clause internally) in the interlanguage of German

L2 learners.

5. The study 5.1. Subjects A total of 176 subjects participated in the study. There was

a control group of 25 native speakers of German and four

groups of Polish learners of German as L2. They learned

German primarily in the classroom/university setting. The subjects were divided into groups according to their

general language proficiency. The first group was made up

of final year pupils of two high schools. They had 3–6

German language lessons per week. The dominant teaching

method was the communicative one. Contact with the

target language in the group was relatively weak. The second, third and fourth groups were respectively

first, second and third year students at the German

Philology Department and at the German Department of the

Teacher Training College at Adam Mickiewicz University

in Poznan, Poland. Each year these students participate in

an intensive language course: They have 12 hours of

language classes per week, and most of their theoretical

lessons (e.g. Descriptive Grammar of German, German

Literature, German Culture) are also conducted in German.

Contact with the target language is quite intensive. Various

learning materials, intended to develop all language skills,

are used. Most of the subjects, especially participants of

groups 3 and 4, have a longer stay in Germany behind

them. They can be considered as quite highly motivated

with a great deal of interest in the Q1 German language.

Tables 4-7 provide general information about the

subjects, their exposure to the target language and their

knowledge of other languages.

5.2. Materials and procedures It is desirable to validate accounts of L2 competence by

using diverse evidence. Grammaticality judgments are

Table 4. General information about subjects

Number of Age

Group persons Sex mean from–to

Optionality in non-native grammars 7 Table 7. Knowledge of other languages in groups 3 and 4 Group 3 Group 4

1 49 female – 37 17.9 17–18

male – 12

2 37 female – 28 20.7 19–25 male – 9

3 30 female – 26 21.8 21–26 male – 4

4 35 female – 29 23 21–26 male – 6

Table 5. Information about the exposure to

target language

English – 24 people

(worse than German)

English – 1 person

(better than German)

Russian – 3 people

(worse than German)

French – 2 people

(worse than German)

English – 31 people

(worse than German)

Russian – 15 people

(worse than German)

French – 3 people

(worse than German)

Spanish – 1 person

(worse than German)

Italian – 1 person

(worse than German)

Mean time of Age at language exposure the onset Group Level (years) (years)

intermediate

1 Zertifikat Deutsch 6.9 9–15 als Fremdsprache

upper-intermediate

2 Deutsche 7.5 9–16 Mittelstufen-prufung¨

advanced

3 Kleines Deutsches 7.9 11–16 Sprachdiplom

4 very advanced 8.3 9–20

Table 6. Knowledge of other language in groups 1 and 2 Group 1 Group 2

grammaticality judgments and elicited written production tasks.

The elicited written production task consisted of various

reformulation tasks. Crucially, the reformulation of

sentences required the use of a sentence structure where the

expletive subjects had to be absent. In order to get intuitive

answers from the participants, the tasks contained many

sentences not connected with the problem under

investigation. They functioned as distractions. The tasks

were explained in both Polish and German. The first task was a completion task. The participants

were asked to complete sentences according to the

following sentences: (18) Es wird an die Oma gedacht.

Ex is of the grandmother thought “Grandmother is being thought of.”

Er sagte, dass.................... he said that

Target form: Er sagte, dass an die Oma he said that of the grandmother

English – 10 people

(worse than German)

English – 4 people

(better than German)

Russian – 31 people

(worse than German)

Russian – 4 people

(better than German)

English – 27 people

(worse than German)

English – 1 person

(better than German)

Russian – 5 people

(worse than German)

French – 4 people

(worse than German)

gedacht wird. thought is “He said that grandmother is being thought of.”

The second task was a transformation task. Students

were asked to transform active sentences into passive

sentences. The word given in the second line exhorted

the use of the target structure. postulated to be combined with other measures on the

same or comparable items and subjects (Chaudron, 1983,

p. 369; Birdsong, 1989, pp. 116–118; Mandell, 1999). By

using a multiplicity of tasks, it might be possible to tease

apart knowledge from the task effects (Klein and

Martohardjono, 1999, p. 16). Two methods were used in

the study in order to ensure the validity of the results:

(19) Immer reist man mit viel always travels PRONOUN (person) with a lot of

Gepack¨.

luggage “People always travel with a lot of luggage.”

Immer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . always

8 Aldona Sopata

Target form: Immer wird mit viel Gepack¨ always is with a lot of luggage gereist.

travelled “People always travel with a lot of luggage.”

The third task consisted of connecting sentences with

the appropriate conjunction from a given set, e.g. dass

“that”, weil “because”. To fulfil this task, the given

sentences had to be reformulated. (20) Die Jugend jubelt. Es wird ihm geholfen.

the youth cheers EX is him helped “The youth cheers. The people will help him.” Target form: Die Jugend jubelt, weil ihm

the youth cheers because him

geholfen wird. hepled is “The youth cheers because the people will help him.”

The fourth task was a typical reformulation task.

Students were asked to reformulate given sentences in

such a way that they would begin with the given words. (21) Jetzt geht aber schnell ins Bett!

now go-PLURAL but fast to bed “But now go to bed fast.”

Jetzt wird.................... now is Target form: Jetzt wird schnell ins Bett gegangen.

now is fast to bed went “Now go to

bed fast.” Each task contained two sentences involving the use of

ex-pletives and three or four sentences not connected

with the investigated problem. The time was limited to

30 minutes. Students were encouraged to ask for

clarification of lexical problems. Many potential (lexical

and formal) problems were clarified at the outset of the

session in the mother tongue of the participants. The second method used in the study was a test of

grammaticality judgments. Our understanding of

various factors involved in the creation of linguistic

intuitions of L2 learners is very limited. The learning

environment that fosters the development of

metalinguistic knowledge is connected with additional

difficulties. As Sorace (1996, p. 385) puts it: It can be a more complex task, however, to decide about the kind

of norm consulted by learners in the process of producing a

judgment . . . It is difficult to tell whether subjects reveal what

they think or what they think they should think. The elicitation of

immediate judgment responses under well-defined time

constraints may provide a partial solution to this problem. To ensure the elicitation of intuitive judgments in the study

the time was limited to 15 minutes. So the second method

used in the study – grammaticality judgments can be seen

as indicators of internalised grammars of interlanguage. The test was constructed in such a way which should

exclude the potential influence of performance and some

task dependent factors. The tasks were clearly and

explicitly formulated in Polish and German and were

explained orally at the beginning of each session. The

target sentences were mixed up with other sentences not

involving the problem under investigation. Out of 32

sentences, 16 items included the phenomena relevant to

this study. Eight items were connected with referential

subjects, eight items were connected with absent explet-

ives. The test contained sentence pairs with and without

subjects. The sentences were mixed in a way that the

following sentences never belonged to the same group.

This reduced the possibility that the students would be

aware of the knowledge in which they were being tested.

The examples were sentences not connected with the

investigated problem. The students were asked to judge the sentences in regard

to their correctness and to indicate how sure they were

about their judgments. They had to therefore choose from

seven blanks. Three of them could be marked if the

students judged the sentences to be correct. The first blank

was to be chosen when the subjects were absolutely sure

about their judgment, the second when the subjects were

quite sure, and the third when the subjects were quite

unsure about their judgments. They could choose from

amongst three similar possibilities if they judged the

sentences as incorrect. The seventh blank would be marked

if the subjects did not know the answer at all. The

participants were asked to correct those sentences which

they judged to be incorrect. The sentences used in the test of grammatical

judgment can be divided into the following four groups: (i) Grammatical sentences with a preposed phrase

(22) Auf der Autobahn wird sehr schnell gefahren.

on the highway is very fast gone “One can go

fast on the highway.” (ii) Ungrammatical sentences with a preposed phrase

(23) *Auf der Autobahn wird es sehr schnell gefahren. on the highway is EX very fast gone

(iii) Grammatical sentences with a preposed finite or

non-finite clause

(24) Um den Nachbarn nicht aufzuwecken, wird to the neighbour not wakeup is

geschlichen. stolen “You should steal, so as not to wake up

the neighbour.” (iv) Ungrammatical sentences with a preposed finite or

non-finite clause

Table 8. Test of referential subjects Number of subjects Number of subjects with correct with incorrect

Group answers (%) answers (%)

1 23 (47%) 26 (53%) 2 34 (92%) 3 (8%)

3 29 (97%) 1 (3%)

4 35 (100%) 0

C(ontrol) 25 (100%) 0

(25)*Um den Nachbarn nicht aufzuwecken, wird es to the neighbour not wake up is EX geschlichen.

stolen Students were encouraged to ask questions about any formal or lexical problems.

The goal of the study is to investigate the acquisition of

constructions with absent expletives by Polish learners of

German. To get a clear picture of the acquisition process of

this phenomenon, the groups were tested to ascertain,

whether they manage the use of referential subjects in

German, too. The sentences used to test this phenomenon

were pairs of four grammatical and four ungrammatical

items. There were items with subjects preposed by a phrase

(example (26)) and by a clause (example (27)). (26) Nach der Schule kommst du nach Hause.

after the school come you home “After the school you come home.”

(27) Katja glaubt, dass sie klug ist.

Katja thinks that she wise is

“Katja thinks that she is wise.”

Optionality in non-native grammars 9 In ungrammatical counterparts of the sentences the

subject was absent. Those students who did not use the

referential subjects correctly were filtered out. As a

result of this procedure, the possibility that the false use

of absent expletive subjects will be due to the fact that

the null subject parameter was not set yet can be

excluded. The problems of the use of referential and

expletive subjects can therefore be treated separately.

6. Results The first step in the experiment was conducted to filter

out those students who it seemed had not yet mastered

the use of referential subjects in L2 German. The results

of relevant grammaticality judgments are presented in

Table 8. As already mentioned, only the answers of

those participants who use referential subjects correctly

were considered relevant to the further investigation.

They were regarded as such if they correctly judged all

grammatical sentences as correct, correctly judged all

ungrammatical items as incorrect and in addition

corrected them in an appropriate manner. The acquisition of constructions with absent

expletives was investigated by two methods. The results

of the first method, the elicited written production task,

are given in Tables 9 and 10. The use of expletives by

the participants differs in respect to the kind of

sentences. Therefore, the results are divided into two

tables, depending on the kind of sentences involved. The exact number of participants who correctly used

constructions with absent expletive subjects in the created

contexts is given in the tables 9 and 10. However, the

tasks offer only a high possibility for using the

investigated structures, they cannot really exhort their use.

Some answers are therefore irrelevant. Thus, four cases

can be

Table 9. The use of expletives in the elicited production task in sentences with a preposed phrase Correct use Correct use Correct use Correct use Correct use

Correct use in in 75% in 66% in 50% in 33% in 25% Correct use in Not 100% contexts contexts contexts contexts contexts contexts 0% contexts revealing

Group 4/4 3/3 2/2 1/1 3/4 2/3 2/4 1/2 1/3 1/4 0/4 0/3 0/2 0/1 0/0

1 4 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 1 1 1 0 0 0 9 2 13 4 0 0 5 1 1 1 1 0

17 5 0 6 1 1 3 1 3 16 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

20 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 4 10 7 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

18 9 4 2 2 0 0 0 C 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Aldona Sopata Table 10. The use of expletives in the elicited production tasks in sentences with a preposed finite or non-finite clause Correct use Correct use Correct use Correct use Correct use

Correct use in in 75% in 66% in 50% in 33% in 25% Correct use in Not 100% contexts contexts contexts contexts contexts contexts 0% contexts revealing

Group 4/4 3/3 2/2 1/1 3/4 2/3 2/4 1/2 1/3 1/4 0/4 0/3 0/2 0/1 0/0

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 2 2 3

0 0 2 1 1 2 15 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 10 5 6 2

1 1 0 1 2 6 23 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 3 1 1

0 4 0 1 0 6 18 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 24 5 0 0

0 0 0 2 0 4 29 0 C 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 11. The use of expletives in the elicited production

task in sentences with a preposed phrase

100% 75% 66% 50% 33% 25% 0% Group correct correct correct correct correct correct correct

1 78% 7% 7% 7% – – – 2 51% 15% – 18% 3% 3% 9% 3 69% 10% 3% 7% 7% 3% – 4 51% 26% 11% 6% 6% – – C 100% – – – – – –

represented by the 100%-correct usage of constructions

with absent expletives: the participant used four relevant

structures and in all cases the expletive was absent; the

participant used three, two or one relevant structures and

in all of them used the null subjects correctly. The situation

of the 100%-correct usage of construction with absent

expletices also occurred (a) if a participant wrote three

sentences using the construction with absynt expletives

targeted by the task and (b) if all three of his sentences were

correct with respekt to absent expletives and (c) if he did

not write the fourth relevant sentence at all or solved the

fourth task in another way not using the construction with

absent expletive. His result would then have been – correct

use in 100% contexts – 3/3, i.e., he used three relevant

structures, and all three sentences were correct with respekt

to absent expletives. The situation is similar in the case of

the correct usage in 50% and 0%. The exact numbers are

first given in the tables and then they are added in the row

below. Cases where the participants did not use any relevant

construction are regarded as not revealing. Tables 11 and 12

present the results in percentages.

Table 12. The use of expletives in the elicited production

task in sentences with a preposed finite or non–finite

clause

100% 75% 66% 50% 33% 25% 0% Group correct correct correct correct correct correct correct 1 – – 9% 5% 5% 9% 71% 2 3% 3% – 3% 6% 18% 68% 3 – 14% – 3% – 21% 62% 4 – – – 6% – 11% 83% C 100% – – – – – –

The results are also show in Figures 1 and 2.

The ANOVA-test and post-hoc Scheffe´ tests were

conducted. The one-way-ANOVA indicated a significant

difference between the groups in respect to the simple

clauses (F = 5,023455; p < 0,000847).5 The post-hoc

Scheffe´ test revealed a significant difference between the

second and the control group (p < 0,001606). In respect to the compound sentences, the one-way-

ANOVA indicated a significant difference between the

groups (F = 102,8596; p < 0,0000). The differences

between the experimental groups were proved to be

insignificant according to the post-hoc Scheffe´ test.

Crucially, the differences between each experimental

group and the control group are significant:

group 1/control group: p < 9,75E-28; group 2/control group: p < 0; group 3/control group: p < 9,85E-29;

5 The ANOVA-test was calculated for the results: 100% and 75%

correct uses of expletives.

120

100

80

%

60

40

20

0 Group 1 2 3 4 control

100% correct

75% correct 66% correct 50% correct 33% correct 25% correct

0% correct

Optionality in non-native grammars 11 Table 13. Grammaticality judgments about sentences with a preposed phrase Both judged

Group Correct Incorrect as correct Not revealing

1 3 17 5 21 2 12 23 19 14 3 17 22 8 11 4 18 27 10 15 C 50 0 0 0

Table 14. Grammaticality judgments about

sentences with a preposed finite or non–finite clause Figure 1. The use of expletives in the elicited production task in items with a preposed phrase.

Both judged

Group Correct Incorrect as correct Not revealing

120

100

80

%

60

40

20

0

Group 1 2 3 4 control

100% correct

75% correct

66% correct

50% correct

33% correct 25% correct

0% correct

1 1 23 1 21 2 8 28 7 25 3 11 25 4 18 4 19 29 9 13 C 50 0 0 0

Table 15. Grammaticality judgments about sentences with a preposed phrase Both judged Group Correct Incorrect as correct

1 12% 68% 20% 2 22% 43% 35% 3 36% 47% 17%

Figure 2. The use of expletives in the elicited production task in items with a preposed finite or non-finite clause.

group 4/control group: p < 0.

The use of expletives in Spec,AGR by L2 German

learners was also investigated by a second method, a

grammaticality judgment test. For purposes of scoring,

responses were regarded as “correct” (a) if subjects

indicated that they were absolutely or quite sure about their

judgments, (b) if the grammatical item was judged as

“correct” and (c) if the ungrammatical item (of the pair)

was judged as “incorrect”, and (d) if the ungrammatical

item was adequately corrected. Responses were regarded as

“incorrect” (a) if subjects indicated that they were

absolutely or quite sure about their judgments, (b) if the

grammatical item was judged as “incorrect” and (c) if the

ungrammatical item (of the pair) was judged as “correct”,

and (d) if the item judged as “incorrect” was adequately

corrected. Judgments, both those absolutely sure and

those quite sure, where both sentences (of the pair), the

grammatical and the ungrammatical, were

4 33% 49% 18% C 100% 0 0

judged as being correct, are listed separately. All other

answers are regarded as unrevealing. These are (a) the

unsure judgments, (b) judgments in which one sentence

of the pair was not judged at all or (c) judgments in

which the sentence judged as incorrect was not

corrected and therefore it is impossible to decide about

the source of the judgment. Tables 13 and 14 show the exact number of

judgments. The division according to the kind of

sentences involved has been kept. Tables 15 and 16

indicate the results as percentages. The number of all

revealing judgments is regarded as 100%. The results

are also presented in Figures 3 and 4. The one-way-ANOVA shows that the differences

between the groups in judging simple clauses are

significant (F = 23,69487; p < 1,44E-13). The post-hoc

Scheffe´ test reveals that the differences between the

experimental groups are not significant. The differences

12 Aldona Sopata

Table 16. Grammaticality judgments about

sentences with a preposed finite or non-finite clause Both judged Group Correct Incorrect as correct

1 4% 92% 4% 2 19% 65% 16% 3 27.5% 62.5% 10% 4 33% 51% 16% C 100% 0 0

Table 17. Grammaticality judgments task – results

according to the number of subjects with

particular responses

Table 18. Grammaticality judgments task – results

according to the number of subjects with

particular responses Number of Number of Number of subjects with subjects with subjects with correct incorrect optional Group responses responses responses

1 5% 68% 26% 2 15% 24% 61% 3 25% 25% 50% 4 16% 28% 56% C 100% – –

Number of Number of Number of Number of subjects with subjects with subjects with subjects with correct incorrect optional unrevealing Group responses responses responses responses

1 1 13 5 4 2 5 8 20 1 3 7 7 14 1 4 5 9 18 3 C 25 – – –

100 %

90 %

80 %

70 %

60 %

50 % 40 %

30 %

20 %

10 % 0%

gro

up 1

gro

up 2

gro

up 3

gro

up 4

co

ntr

ol g

rou

p

both examples

judged as correct

wrong

correct

between each experimental group and the control group are, however, significant:

group 1/control group: p < 1,69E-07;

group 2/control group: p < 6,6E-11;

group 3/control group: p < 2,76E-07;

group 4/control group: p < 2,37E-07. In the case of the compound clauses the difference between

the groups are again significant (F = 30,18382; p < 8,27E-

16). The post-hoc Scheffe´ test shows that the differences

between the experimental groups are not significant. But

the differences between each experimental group and the

control group are again significant:

group 1/control group: p < 3,7E-11;

group 2/control group: p < 9,7E-10;

group 3/control group: p < 4,54E-09;

group 4/control group: p < 1,93E-09.

To show the status of AGR in individual grammars of

the subjects the results of the second task are presented

below in another manner. Table 17 presents results

according to the number of subjects with particular

responses. The division according to the kind of sentences

has been ignored here. The first column presents the

number of subjects whose revealing judgments were all

correct. The second column shows the number of subjects

Figure 3. Grammaticality judgments about sentences with a preposed phrase. whose revealing judgments were all incorrect. The third

column shows the number of subjects whose revealing

judgments contained some kind of inconsistency; this

means, either both sentences of a pair were judged in

some cases as correct or some sentence pairs were

judged homogenously correct and some homogenously

incorrect. Finally, the fourth column gives the number of

subjects whose judgments were all unrevealing. Table

18 presents the results as a percentage. The number of

all subjects with revealing answers is regarded as 100%.

7. Discussion The data gained in the study show that the hypothesis

stated in (16) above – expletives do not appear in

Spec,AGR (i.e. clause internally) in the interlanguage of

German L2 learners – must be rejected. The data are

consistent with the hypothesis stated in (17) – expletives

appear optionally in Spec,AGR (i.e. clause internally) in

the interlanguage of German L2 learners. Both of the

research methods used reveal that Polish L2 learners of

German do use expletives in Spec,AGR (i.e. clause

internally) in their interlanguage.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% co

ntr

ol g

rou

p

gro

up 1

gro

up 2

gro

up 3

gro

up 4

both examples

judged as correct wrong correct

Optionality in non-native grammars 13 preposed finite or non-finite clause as was the case in the

production task. The grammaticality judgments are more

homogenous.7 The fact that the answers of the highly

proficient group are not much better than the answers of

the less proficient groups is quite striking. In all groups in

the case of both sentence types, there is only a small

minority of correct judgments. The overwhelming majority

of judgments in all experimental groups indicates that the

subjects do accept expletives in Spec,AGR in L2 German.

As regards items with a preposed phrase (see Table 15), the

highest, though still quite small, number of correct

judgments is in the third group (36%). About half of

judgments in all groups is incorrect; this means that the

ungrammatical sentence was judged as correct and the

correct sentence as incorrect and Figure 4. Grammaticality judgments about sentences with a preposed finite or non-finite clause.

The use of constructions with absent expletives in the

elicited written production tasks differs depending on

the items with a preposed phrase and with a preposed

finite or non-finite clause.6 The use of constructions

with absent expletives in sentences with a preposed

phrase is relatively good, but it is still not native-like

even in the most advanced group. About half of the

subjects from groups 2 and 4 do not use expletives

claused internally correctly. In groups 1 and 3 is this

even a majority of the subjects. But there are still many

participants who do permit expletive to appear in

Spec,AGR and in the case of the most advanced group

nearly half of the subjects do it (see Table 11). The situation is quite different in the case of

sentences with a preposed finite or non-finite clause. In

all groups, except for the control group, the majority of

participants (always over 60%) use the expletive

subjects incorrectly in all structures which demand the

use of the constructions with absent expletive subject.

Other subjects use expletives optionally, e.g. in some

created contexts. Only 3% of subjects from group 2 did

not insert expletives in Spec,AGR as the specification of

the relevant feature in German demands (see Table 12). The results of group 1 should be treated, however, with

some caution, because the number of participants was

reduced due to the pre-test concerning the use of referential

subjects. 53% of the participants of the group were

excluded from further consideration because their answers

could not prove whether they had acquired the use of

referential subjects or not. The remaining number, 23

participants, is relatively small. Numerous answers of the

subjects from this group are unrevealing, too. The results gained by the second method indicate a

much smaller discrepancy between the appearance of

expletives in sentences with a preposed phrase and a

6 An explanation for this difference will be discussed in the next section.

it was adequately corrected. In other judgments

(between 17% in the third and 35% in the second group)

both sentences are accepted, which indicates clearly a

non-target-like optionality in the use of expletives

claused internally. The grammaticality judgments about the items with a

preposed finite or non-finite clause confirm the picture

(see Table 16). The number of correct judgments here is

even smaller. In the case of the very advanced group 4

this is only one-third. In all groups judgments which

show that the subjects accept the use of expletives in

Spec,AGR clearly dominate. The results of the task summarised according to the

number of subjects with particular responses (see Table

18) show that over half of the participants from groups

2, 3 and 4 accept the optional appearance of expletives

in Spec,AGR in their interlanguage. The data demonstrate therefore quite clearly that the

highly proficient L2 learners of German accept and use

expletives clause internally in their interlanguage. As

already mentioned, the participants of the study learned

German in the classroom and then in the university

setting. But they have participated in a very intensive

language course for many years. Most of the

participants of group 3 or 4 have stayed in Germany for

a longer period of time. Despite many years of exposure

to L2 and many years of instruction during which the

target constructions are explicitly taught several times,

the students overuse expletive subjects and set them in

structures in which their absence is required.

8. Role of metalinguistic knowledge The architecture of learners’ linguistic knowledge cannot

be seen as homogeneous. Bialystok and Ryan (1985)

7 Different evidential sources have to be compared with some caution, as

different tasks may not tap the same source of linguistic knowledge or may be connected with different ways of access to and retrieval of that knowledge. This will be discussed in the next section.

14 Aldona Sopata

postulate different ways of the linguistic knowledge

structuring: unanalysed knowledge, which is used

routinely and cannot be manipulated intentionally; the

speaker is not aware of its structure, and analysed

linguistic knowledge, which is accessible, explicit and

can be manipulated in the course of solving different

cognitive problems (Birdsong, 1989, pp. 54f.). Access to linguistic knowledge can proceed with

different level of cognitive control. Cognitive control is

defined by Bialystok and Ryan (1985) as the operation of a

mechanism that can focus on and retrieve information.

Meaning appears to be the most relevant aspect of a

linguistic message to a child or to an L2 learner:

If a language problem requires some attention to form, . . .

then the child must deliberately or intentionally focus on form

in order to supplement, derive, or override the meaning. . . .

There is a tendency, therefore, for increased values along the

control dimension to be correlated with an increase in the

proportion of attention that must be directed in order to

succeed on the task. (Bialystok and Ryan, 1985, pp. 213f.)

Various test tasks make differential demands on cognitive

control, linguistic knowledge and coordination of them.

Such differences can be observed in the tasks used in the

present study too. According to Bialystok and Ryan (1985,

pp. 234–238) and Birdsong (1989, pp. 58f.), judgments of

grammaticality demand only moderate analysed

knowledge. Transformational tasks, on the other hand,

demand high cognitive control, as the meaning in these

tasks is largely unaltered while structure is changed. The

Bialystok and Ryan model is quite convincing and

consistent with many findings reported in the literature (for

relevant discussion see Birdsong, 1989, pp. 51–62). The control dimension and the higher levels of

analysed knowledge can be modified by instruction.

This fact has to be crucial for the task-specificity in the

learning environment. The explicit metalinguistic rules

obtained via learning will play a larger role in the

transformational tasks. In the judgments of

grammaticality the internalised linguistic knowledge

will be accessed in a much higher degree. This is, in fact, what we see in the results of the present

study. The results of the elicited written production tasks,

which are transformational tasks, indicate a larger role of

the cognitive control and the explicit metalinguistic rules. It

is not surprising then, that the use of structures with absent

expletives is quite good in the case of the items with a

preposed phrasal material. This is how the canonical

examples of the absence of expletives look like in various

German as L2 courses. Sentences in which absent

expletives are preposed with phrasal material are then more

likely to be the area where the learned metalinguistic rules

play a role, as the use of the cognitive control by the task is

very high. The use of these rules seems to be not so clear

for the learners in the items with

preposed non-finite or finite clauses, as the results on

these items show. Crucially, however, the grammaticality judgments do

not show such discrepancy in the findings. The

judgments on the items with preposed phrasal material

and preposed non-finite or finite clauses are judged in a

similar vain. This confirms that the metalinguistic rules

obtained via general-purpose-learning do not play a

large role in this task. The grammaticality judgments

show a quite homogeneous picture of the internalised

grammars of the learners.

9. Implications for the SLA theories German licenses null expletive subjects because AGR in

German is strong (Speas, 1994, pp. 180f.; Rohrbacher,

1999, p. 246). During the course of acquisition, one

might therefore expect the strong setting for AGR to

come about. Because the AGR features are not specified

richly enough to supply the referential subjects with phi-

features, referential subjects cannot be null. This leads to

the situation in which learners of German are exposed to

input in which referential subjects are always overt and

expletives are absent in Spec,AGR. Due to the

Projection Principle, referential or expletive subjects are

required in Spec,CP in German (Speas, 1994, pp.191f.). The predictions based on the Schwartz and Sprouse

(1994, 1996) proposal (see Table 3) were that learners from

the beginning to the end state of L2 acquisition would have

in our case the strong value of AGR and therefore use no

expletive in Spec,AGR (i.e. clause internally). The findings

reported above plainly disconfirm this acquisition scenario

as the L2 learners of German do permit expletives clause

internally in the vast majority of cases. The value of AGR

cannot be therefore strong in their interlanguage. The acquisition scenario based on the approach of

Vainikka and Young-Scholten (see Table 3) predicted

that the learners would have the unspecified value of

AGR at the early stage of L2 acquisition and would then

permit expletives to appear optionally in Spec,AGR. But

at the advanced stage of the acquisition course the value

of AGR would be specified as strong and L2 learners

would use expletive clause internally. The results

reported in this study are consistent with this view to the

extent that the less advanced learners will permit

expletives optionally in Spec,AGR but the results are

inconsistent with the predictions that the more advanced

learners will not use expletives claused internally. Finally, Beck’s (1997, 1998) proposal (see Table 3)

predicted that L2 learners at any stage of development

would permit optional appearance of expletives in

Spec,AGR because the value of AGR would stay

unspecified to the end state of L2 acquisition. The results

reported in previous sections confirm this approach as the

majority of learners in all groups including the most

advanced one clearly permit expletives in Spec,AGR.

This indicates that the value of AGR-projection cannot

be strong in their interlanguage. The overuse of expletives in L2 German by Polish

learners can, therefore, be explained only when we assume

that the value of the relevant feature was not transferred

from the mother tongue to the target language. Rather, the

relevant value is not specified at all causing the optionality

in the use of expletives clause internally.8

References Beck, M.-L. (1997). Regular verbs, past tense and frequency:

Tracking down a potential source of native speaker/non-

native speaker competence differences. Second Language

Research, 13, 93–115. Beck, M.-L. (1998). L2 acquisition and obligatory head

movement: English speaking learners of German and the

Local Impairment Hypothesis. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 20, 311–348. Bialystok, E. & Ryan, E. B. (1985). A metacognitive framework

for the development of first and second language skills. In D.

L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon & T. G. Waller (eds.),

Metacognition, cognition and human performance, pp. 207–

252. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and inter-

linguistic competence. Berlin: Springer. Carroll, S. (1989). Language acquisition studies and a feasible

theory of grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 34,

399–418. Chaudron, C. (1983). Research on metalinguistic judgments:

A review of theory, methods and results. Language

Learning, 33, 343–377. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding.

Dordrecht: Foris. Eguzkitza, A. & Kaiser G. A. (1999). Postverbal subjects in

Romance and German: Some notes on the Unaccusative

Hypothesis. Lingua, 109, 183–194. Eubank, L., Bischoff, J., Huffstutler, A., Leek, P. & West, W.

(1997). Tom eats slowly cooked eggs: Thematic verb raising

in L2 knowledge. Language Acquisition, 6, 171–200. Grewendorf, G. (1989). Ergativity in German. Dordrecht:

Foris. Haider, H. (1994). Deutsche Syntax generativ. Tubingen:¨ Narr.

Hawkins, R. & Chan, C. Y. (1997). The partial availability of

Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The

8 The overuse of expletives by L2 learners of German points to the

possible involvement of the process of general-purpose-learning in the

L2 development. General-purpose-learning is claimed to require more

frequent exposure to input, possibly over a longer period of time and it

needs salient and unambiguous input data. Intra- and interindividual

variation is to be expected (see Carroll, 1989; Meisel, 1995, 1997).

Because the input data are not very salient and frequent, problems with

the learning of constructions with absent expletive subjects in L2

German can be expected if we assume that the features of functional

projections remain unspecified and the general-purpose-learning is

involved here. The interaction of the various factors in SLA is however

an area which awaits further research.

Optionality in non-native grammars 15

“failed functional features hypothesis”. Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.

Haznedar, B. & Schwartz, B. (1997). Are there optional infinit-

ives in child L2 acquisition? In E. Hughes, M. Hughes & A.

Greenhill (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston

University Conference on Language Development, pp. 257–

268. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Kaiser, G. (2002). Syntaktische Variation und generative

Syntaxtheorie. In E. Stark & U. Wandruszka (eds.), Syntaxtheorien: Modelle, Methoden, Motive, pp. 257–

272. Tubingen:¨ Narr. Klein, E. & Martohardjono, G. (1999). Investigating second

language grammars: Some conceptual and

methodological issues in generative SLA research. In E.

Klein, & G. Martohardjono, (eds.), The development of

second language grammars: a generative approach, pp.

3–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and tense in the “fossilized”

steady-state. Second Language Research, 14, 1–26. Lardiere, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in

a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language

Research, 14, 359–375. Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to forms in second

language acquisition. In J. Archibald (ed.), Second

language acquisition and linguistic theory, pp. 102–129.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Mandell, P. (1999). On the reliability of grammaticality

judgement tests in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 15, 73–99.

Meisel, J. M. (1995). Parameters in acquisition. In P. Fletcher

& B. MacWhinney (eds.), The handbook of child

language, pp. 123–156. Oxford: Blackwell. Meisel, J. M. (1997). The acquisition of the syntax of negation in

French and German: Contrasting first and second language

development. Second Language Research, 13, 374–385. Muller,¨ G. & Rohrbacher, B. (1989). Eine Geschichte ohne

Subjekt. Zur Entwicklung der pro-Theorie, Linguistische

Berichte, 119, 3–52. Prevost, P. & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or

impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence

from tense and agreement. Second Language Research,

16, 103– 133. Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro.

Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 501–557. Rizzi, L. (1994). Early null subjects and root null subjects. In T.

Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (eds.), Language acquisition studies

in generative grammar, pp. 151–176. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Rohrbacher, B. (1992). English AUXˆNEG, Mainland Scandinavian NEGˆAUX and the theory of V to I raising. Proceedings of the 22nd Western Conference on

Linguistics, pp. 307-321. Rohrbacher, B. (1999). Morphology-driven syntax: A theory of

V to I raising and pro-drop. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:

John Benjamins. Safir, K. (1984). Missing subjects in German. In I. Toman (ed.),

Studies in German grammar, pp. 193–230. Dordrecht:

Foris. Schwartz, B. (1998). On two hypotheses of “transfer” in L2A:

Minimal trees and absolute L1 influence. In S. Flynn,

16 Aldona Sopata

G. Martohardjono & W. O’Neil (eds.), The generative study

of second language acquisition, pp. 35–59. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, pp. 317–368. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.

Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In J. Archibald (ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory, pp. 156–187. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Sigurdsson, H. A. (1993). Argument-drop in Old Icelandic. Lingua, 89, 247–280.

Smith, N. & Tsimpli, I.-M. (1995). The mind of a Savant: Language learning and modularity. Oxford: Blackwell. Speas, M. (1994). Null arguments in a theory of economy of projection. In E. Benedicto & J. Runner (eds.), Functional

projections, University of Massachussets Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17

pp. 179–208.

Sorace, A. (1996). The use of acceptability judgments in SLA research. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 375–409. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Appendix A. Elicited written production task. I Setzen Sie die folgenden Sätze in indirekte Rede mit

Konjunktiv! .

Proszę˛ wyrazić następujące zdania w mowie zależnej z trybem przypuszczajacym!

1. Der Vater sah sein Unglück kommen.

Er sagte, dass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Es wird an die Oma gedacht.

Er sagte, dass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Geh nach Hause!

Er sagte, dass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Es wird Deutsch gesprochen werden.

Er sagte, dass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Bernd sollte daran denken.

Er sagte, dass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II Formen Sie folgende aktivischen Sätze in passivische

Sätze um! Proszę przekształcić zdania w stronie czynnej na zdania w stronie biernej.

1. Immer reist man mit viel Gepäck. Immer . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Das Gericht entzieht ihm den Führerschein. Der Führerschein.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Das Auto soll den Fußgänger erfasst haben. Der Fußgänger . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Der Koch hat die Suppe kosten müssen. Die Suppe. ..

Sternefeld, W. (1984). On Case and Binding. In I. Toman (ed.),

Studies in German grammar, pp. 231–285. Dordrecht:

Foris. Tsimpli, I.-M. & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter resetting in L2?

University College London Working Papers in

Linguistics, 3, 149–169. Tsimpli, I.-M. & Smith, N. (1991). Second language learning:

Evidence from a polyglot Savant. University College

London Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 171–184. Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct access to

X_ theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults

learning German. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz, (eds.),

Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, pp.

265–316. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual develop-

ment of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research,

12, 7–39. Vikner, S. (1995). Verb movement and expletive subjects in the

Germanic languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Weissenborn, J. (1992). Implications of parametric variation for

adult second language acquisition: An investigation of the

pro-drop parameter. In J. Weissenborn, H. Goodluck & T.

Roeper, (eds.), Theoretical issues in language acquisi-tion,

pp. 269–299. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Received September 10, 2003 Revision received January 30, 2005 Accepted March 11, 2005 5. In dem Kaufhaus hat man auch am Sonntag verkauft. In

dem Kaufhaus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III Verbinden Sie die Sätze, indem Sie eine von angegebenen Konjunktionen benutzen. Bitte ändern Sie die Reihenfolge der Sätze nicht. Konjunktionen, die Ihnen zur Verfügung stehen: weil, trotzdem, obwohl, als

dass, dass. .

Proszę połączyć zdania używając jednego z podanych spójników. Proszę nie zmieniać kolejności zdań. Spójniki do dyspozycji: weil, trotzdem, obwohl, als, dass, dass. 1. Man hat es nicht gemacht. Man hat es machen sollen. 2. Die Jugend jubelt. Es wird ihm geholfen werden. 3. Das war ziemlich merkwürdig. Es wird lange her

geschrieben worden sein. 4. Er war in einer Schwimmhalle und konnte nichts

sehen. Es wurde eben geschwommen. 5. Die Aufgabe ist zu schwierig. Man könnte sie auf

Anhieb lösen. 6. Ulrike möchte Jörg nicht heiraten. Es ist klar. IV Formen Sie die Sätze um. Proszę przekształcić´ zdania. 1. Jörg hat ausziehen müssen.

Jorg¨ ist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Jetzt geht aber schnell ins Bett.

Jetzt wird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Die Preise sind letztens sehr gestiegen.

Die Preise wurden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Es ist mir gleichgültig, was du darüber denkst.

Was du darüber denkst, ist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Mit dem Boot müssen wir die ganze Insel umfahren. Die

ganze Insel muss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Man singt während der Busfahrt gemeinsam. Während der

Busfahrt wird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Es nervt mich, dass du immer zu spät kommst. Dass du immer zu spät kommst, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix B. Grammaticality judgments test. Beurteilen Sie die Korrektheit der Sätze! Proszę określić poprawność zdań. Beispiel I/Przykład I – Der Satz: Ich spreche gut Deutsch. Der

Satz wird als korrekt beurteilt und die Person ist ihrer

Meinung völlig sicher, also ein Kreuz in der ersten Rubrik.

Zdanie zostało uznane za prawidłowe i dana osoba jest pewna

swego zdania, a wiec krzyżyk w pierwszej rubryce. Beispiel II/Przykład II – Der Satz: Ich verstehen nicht.

Der Satz wird als nicht korrekt beurteilt und die Person

ist ihrer Meinung ziemlich sicher also ein Kreuz in der

fünften Rubrik. Zdanie zostało uznane za nieprawidłowe i dana osoba

. jest dość pewna swego zdania, a więc krzyżyk w piątej rubryce. Wenn Sie einen Satz nicht korrekt empfinden, schreiben Sie bitte, eine korrigierte Entsprechung des Satzes.

. Jeśli uważają Państwo jakieś zdanie za błędne, proszę napisać poprawiony odpowiednik tego zdania. Na przykład: Ich verstehen nicht. – poprawiony

odpowiednik – Ich verstehe nicht. 1. Mein Freund ist ein starke Raucher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Nach der Schule komme nach Hause . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optionality in non-native grammars 17

3. Katja glaubt, dass klug ist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Morgen wird es erklärt, dass er kommt . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Alle meine Entchen sind hier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Verstehen Deutsch gut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Auf der Autobahn wird es sehr schnell gefahren . . . . 8. Manfred fragt, ob er die Prüfung bestanden hat . . . . . 9. Katja glaubt, dass klug ist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. Morgen wird regnen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Dass der Sommer angefangen hat, ist deutlich geworden .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12. Wenn der Weg unbekannt ist, wird es gefragt . . . . . . 13. Er setzte sich zwischen seinen Schülern . . . . . . . . . . . 14. Während des Krieges wird gelitten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. Dass der Sommer angefangen hat, ist es deutlich

geworden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16. Morgen wird erklärt, dass er kommt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17. Morgen wird es regnen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. Wenn der Weg unbekannt ist, wird gefragt . . . . . . . . . 19. Nach der Schule kommst du nach Hause . . . . . . . . . . 20. Er denkt immer an sich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. Während des Krieges wird es gelitten . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. Manfred fragt, ob die Prüfung bestanden hat . . . . . . . 23. Morgen wird er die Arbeit beendet haben . . . . . . . . . . 24. Um den Nachbarn nicht aufzuwecken, wird es

geschlichen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25. Wir verstehen Deutsch gut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26. Der Alkohol begann, seine Gesundheit zu untergraben . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27. Auf der Autobahn wird sehr schnell gefahren . . . . . . 28. Dass Marie gewonnen hat, freut mich sehr . . . . . . . . . 29. Um den Nachbarn nicht aufzuwecken, wird geschlichen. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30. Der Student hat die Arbeit geschafft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. Wir beauftragen ihn, die Post abgeholt zu haben . . . . 32. Dass Marie gewonnen hat, freut es mich sehr . . . . . .