Dissertation/These Online
Autor/ra:Lozano, Cristóbal
Fecha de lectura o defensa:April de 2003
Título de la tesis:Universal Grammar and focus constraints. The acquisition of pronouns and word order in non-native Spanish
Director/a de la tesis:Roger Hawkins
University/College:University of Essex
Department:Department of Language and Linguistics
Country:Reino Unido
URL (acceso abierto):http://hdl.handle.net/10481/22164
Tesis completa en el Archivo de Infoling: http://www.infoling.org/repository/ID/91
Descripción de la tesisA recent controversy in second language acquisition research concerns the extent to which adult non-native intuitions differ from adult native intuitions at advanced and near-native levels of competence (end-states). Two (apparently) contradictory findings pervade the L2 literature: while some studies reveal that learners can indeed achieve native-like intuitions, other findings show that they display near-native and optional intuitions. In short, there is a debate about whether adult non-native interlanguage grammars converge with (or diverge from) adult native grammars. The first type of studies (convergence) focuses on constructions that are claimed to be part of the innate principles of Universal Grammar (UG), which typically represent a poverty-of-the-stimulus (POS) phenomenon. The second type (divergence) normally focuses on parameterisable functional features where the L1 and L2 values differ.
In this study I test whether this is the expected trend in advanced non-native Spanish acquisition, i.e., that learners show convergent knowledge where UG principles are involved, but divergent knowledge where parametric values differ between the native and the target language. In particular, I investigate the distribution of overt and null pronominal subjects in Spanish, which is constrained by a principle of UG, the Overt Pronoun Constraint (OPC), and by a language-specific constraint, the Contrastive Focus Constraint (CFC). Similarly, the distribution of Subject-Verb (SV) and Verb-Subject (VS) word order is constrained by two principles of UG, namely, the Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH) and the Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH), and by a language-specific constraint, presentational focus.
Results from two experiments (pronominal distribution and word order distribution) reveal that English learners of L2 Spanish and Greek learners of L3 Spanish show convergent (native-like) intuitions with respect to the principles of UG (OPC and UH/UTAH), while showing divergent (near-native and optional) intuitions in cases where the strength of the parameterisable focus head differs between their L1 and their L2/L3 Spanish (contrastive and presentational focus environments).
In this study I test whether this is the expected trend in advanced non-native Spanish acquisition, i.e., that learners show convergent knowledge where UG principles are involved, but divergent knowledge where parametric values differ between the native and the target language. In particular, I investigate the distribution of overt and null pronominal subjects in Spanish, which is constrained by a principle of UG, the Overt Pronoun Constraint (OPC), and by a language-specific constraint, the Contrastive Focus Constraint (CFC). Similarly, the distribution of Subject-Verb (SV) and Verb-Subject (VS) word order is constrained by two principles of UG, namely, the Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH) and the Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH), and by a language-specific constraint, presentational focus.
Results from two experiments (pronominal distribution and word order distribution) reveal that English learners of L2 Spanish and Greek learners of L3 Spanish show convergent (native-like) intuitions with respect to the principles of UG (OPC and UH/UTAH), while showing divergent (near-native and optional) intuitions in cases where the strength of the parameterisable focus head differs between their L1 and their L2/L3 Spanish (contrastive and presentational focus environments).
Subject Area(s):Español como lengua extranjera (ELE), Español como segunda lengua (EL2)
Table of ContentsAbstract
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2. UG CONSTRAINTS AND DISCURSIVE CONSTRAINTS
2.1 UG constraints: Principles of UG
2.2 Discursive constraints: parameterisable Focus0
2.2.1 Topic vs. Focus
2.2.2 The representational nature of the [+Focus] feature
2.2.3 Three types of focus: interpretive differences
2.2.3.1 Neutral focus
2.2.3.2 Contrastive focus
2.2.3.3 Presentational focus.
2.2.4 Three types of focus: syntactic differences
2.2.4.1 Neutral focus: no structural position
2.2.4.2 Contrastive focus: the CP domain
2.2.4.3 Presentational focus: the TP domain
2.2.5 Parameterisation of the focus head, Foc0
2.2.5.1 Contrastive focus: feature strength
2.2.5.2 Presentational focus: feature strength
2.2.6 Cross-linguistic evidence for Foc0
2.3 Summary of chapter 2
Chapter 3. POSSIBLE PATTERNS OF L2 ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND L2/L3 INFLUENCE
3.1 Convergent vs. divergent L2 intuitions
3.2 The nature of L1/L2 influence on L3 acquisition
3.2.1 Singleton (1987)
3.2.2 Klein (1995)
3.2.3 Dewaele (1998, 2001)
3.2.4 Hufeisen (1999)
3.2.5 Other studies
3.2.6 Conclusion on L1/L2 influence on L3
3.3 Summary of chapter 3
Chapter 4. THE DISTRIBUTION OF NULL AND OVERT PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The (apparent) free distribution of overt and null pronominal subjects
4.3 Constraints on pronominal subjects
4.3.1 Overt Pronoun Constraint
4.3.2 Contrastive Focus Constraint
4.4 Pronominal subjects and focus
4.5 The syntax of null and overt pronominal subjects
4.6 A review of the L2 literature on pronouns
4.6.1 Pérez-Leroux and Glass (1997, 1999)
4.6.2 Kanno (1997, 1998a)
4.6.3 Marsden (1998)
4.6.4 Conclusion on the literature review
4.7 Summary of chapter 4
Chapter 5. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY #1: OVERT/NULL PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Method
5.2.1 Subjects
5.2.2 Instrument
5.2.3 OPC contexts
5.2.4 CFC contexts
5.3 Data analysis
5.4 Results
5.4.1 OPC results
5.4.2 CFC results
5.5 Discussion
5.5.1 OPC contexts
5.5.2 CFC contexts
5.5.3 The role of input
5.6 Conclusion
5.7 Summary of chapter 5
Chapter 6. THE DISTRIBUTION OF SV AND VS WORD ORDER
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The (apparent) free alternation of SV and VS
6.3 Neutral focus contexts: SV and VS distribution
6.3.1 The Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH)
6.3.2 Cross-linguistic evidence for UH
6.3.3 Classification of unaccusatives
6.3.4 A list of core unaccusatives in Spanish
6.4 Presentational focus contexts: SV and VS distribution
6.5 Conclusion on neutral vs. presentational contexts
6.6 A review of the L2 literature on unaccusatives
6.6.1 De Miguel (1993)
6.6.2 Sorace (1993a)
6.6.3 Balcom (1997)
6.6.4 Hertel and Pérez-Leroux (1999)
6.6.5 Montrul (1999)
6.6.6 Hirakawa (1999)
6.6.7 Hertel (2000)
6.6.8 Sorace & Shomura (2001)
6.6.9 Conclusion on the literature review
6.7 Summary of chapter 6
Chapter 7. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY #2: SV/VS WORD ORDER
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Method
7.2.1 Subjects
7.2.2 Instrument
7.2.3 Neutral focus contexts
7.2.4 Presentational focus contexts
7.3 Data analysis
7.4 Results
7.4.1 Unergatives, neutral focus context
7.4.2 Unaccusatives, neutral focus contexts
7.4.3 Unergatives, presentational focus contexts
7.4.4 Unaccusatives, presentational focus contexts
7.5 Discussion
7.5.1 Neutral focus contexts
7.5.2 Presentational focus contexts
7.5.3 Optionality
7.5.3.1 MSIH (Prévost & White, 2000)
7.5.3.2 VF (Eubank, 1996) and LIH (Beck, 1998)
7.5.4 Optionality vs. near-nativeness
7.5.5 Optionality and optimal language design
7.5.6 The role of input
7.5.7 The privileged language in parametric transfer
7.6 Conclusion
7.7 Summary of chapter 7
Chapter 8. CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
8.1 Linguistic tests
8.1.1 Linguistic background questionnaire
8.1.2 Spanish placement test (University of Wisconsin, 1997)
8.1.3 English placement test (Allan, 1992)
8.1.4 Instructions for acceptability judgement tests (AJTs)
8.1.5 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 1, pilot
8.1.6 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 1, version 1
8.1.7 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 1, version 2
8.1.8 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 2, pilot
8.1.9 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 2, version 1
8.1.10 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 2, version 2
8.2 Data: Experimental study #1
8.2.1 Raw data
8.2.2 Descriptives
8.2.3 One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnoff fit test
8.2.4 t-test (within groups)
8.2.5 One-way ANOVA, independent groups (between groups)
8.2.6 Two-way ANOVA, repeated measures
7.1.1.1 OPC contexts
7.1.1.2 CFC contexts
8.3 Data: Experimental study #2
8.3.1 Raw data
8.3.2 Descriptives
8.3.3 One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnoff fit test
8.3.4 t-test (within groups)
8.3.5 One-way ANOVA, independent groups (between groups)
8.3.6 Two-way ANOVA, repeated measures
7.1.1.3 Unergative, neutral context
7.1.1.4 Unaccusative, neutral context
7.1.1.5 Unergative, presentational contex
7.1.1.6 Unaccusative, presentational context
REFERENCES
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2. UG CONSTRAINTS AND DISCURSIVE CONSTRAINTS
2.1 UG constraints: Principles of UG
2.2 Discursive constraints: parameterisable Focus0
2.2.1 Topic vs. Focus
2.2.2 The representational nature of the [+Focus] feature
2.2.3 Three types of focus: interpretive differences
2.2.3.1 Neutral focus
2.2.3.2 Contrastive focus
2.2.3.3 Presentational focus.
2.2.4 Three types of focus: syntactic differences
2.2.4.1 Neutral focus: no structural position
2.2.4.2 Contrastive focus: the CP domain
2.2.4.3 Presentational focus: the TP domain
2.2.5 Parameterisation of the focus head, Foc0
2.2.5.1 Contrastive focus: feature strength
2.2.5.2 Presentational focus: feature strength
2.2.6 Cross-linguistic evidence for Foc0
2.3 Summary of chapter 2
Chapter 3. POSSIBLE PATTERNS OF L2 ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND L2/L3 INFLUENCE
3.1 Convergent vs. divergent L2 intuitions
3.2 The nature of L1/L2 influence on L3 acquisition
3.2.1 Singleton (1987)
3.2.2 Klein (1995)
3.2.3 Dewaele (1998, 2001)
3.2.4 Hufeisen (1999)
3.2.5 Other studies
3.2.6 Conclusion on L1/L2 influence on L3
3.3 Summary of chapter 3
Chapter 4. THE DISTRIBUTION OF NULL AND OVERT PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The (apparent) free distribution of overt and null pronominal subjects
4.3 Constraints on pronominal subjects
4.3.1 Overt Pronoun Constraint
4.3.2 Contrastive Focus Constraint
4.4 Pronominal subjects and focus
4.5 The syntax of null and overt pronominal subjects
4.6 A review of the L2 literature on pronouns
4.6.1 Pérez-Leroux and Glass (1997, 1999)
4.6.2 Kanno (1997, 1998a)
4.6.3 Marsden (1998)
4.6.4 Conclusion on the literature review
4.7 Summary of chapter 4
Chapter 5. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY #1: OVERT/NULL PRONOMINAL SUBJECTS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Method
5.2.1 Subjects
5.2.2 Instrument
5.2.3 OPC contexts
5.2.4 CFC contexts
5.3 Data analysis
5.4 Results
5.4.1 OPC results
5.4.2 CFC results
5.5 Discussion
5.5.1 OPC contexts
5.5.2 CFC contexts
5.5.3 The role of input
5.6 Conclusion
5.7 Summary of chapter 5
Chapter 6. THE DISTRIBUTION OF SV AND VS WORD ORDER
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The (apparent) free alternation of SV and VS
6.3 Neutral focus contexts: SV and VS distribution
6.3.1 The Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH)
6.3.2 Cross-linguistic evidence for UH
6.3.3 Classification of unaccusatives
6.3.4 A list of core unaccusatives in Spanish
6.4 Presentational focus contexts: SV and VS distribution
6.5 Conclusion on neutral vs. presentational contexts
6.6 A review of the L2 literature on unaccusatives
6.6.1 De Miguel (1993)
6.6.2 Sorace (1993a)
6.6.3 Balcom (1997)
6.6.4 Hertel and Pérez-Leroux (1999)
6.6.5 Montrul (1999)
6.6.6 Hirakawa (1999)
6.6.7 Hertel (2000)
6.6.8 Sorace & Shomura (2001)
6.6.9 Conclusion on the literature review
6.7 Summary of chapter 6
Chapter 7. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY #2: SV/VS WORD ORDER
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Method
7.2.1 Subjects
7.2.2 Instrument
7.2.3 Neutral focus contexts
7.2.4 Presentational focus contexts
7.3 Data analysis
7.4 Results
7.4.1 Unergatives, neutral focus context
7.4.2 Unaccusatives, neutral focus contexts
7.4.3 Unergatives, presentational focus contexts
7.4.4 Unaccusatives, presentational focus contexts
7.5 Discussion
7.5.1 Neutral focus contexts
7.5.2 Presentational focus contexts
7.5.3 Optionality
7.5.3.1 MSIH (Prévost & White, 2000)
7.5.3.2 VF (Eubank, 1996) and LIH (Beck, 1998)
7.5.4 Optionality vs. near-nativeness
7.5.5 Optionality and optimal language design
7.5.6 The role of input
7.5.7 The privileged language in parametric transfer
7.6 Conclusion
7.7 Summary of chapter 7
Chapter 8. CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
8.1 Linguistic tests
8.1.1 Linguistic background questionnaire
8.1.2 Spanish placement test (University of Wisconsin, 1997)
8.1.3 English placement test (Allan, 1992)
8.1.4 Instructions for acceptability judgement tests (AJTs)
8.1.5 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 1, pilot
8.1.6 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 1, version 1
8.1.7 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 1, version 2
8.1.8 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 2, pilot
8.1.9 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 2, version 1
8.1.10 Acceptability judgement test (AJT): test 2, version 2
8.2 Data: Experimental study #1
8.2.1 Raw data
8.2.2 Descriptives
8.2.3 One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnoff fit test
8.2.4 t-test (within groups)
8.2.5 One-way ANOVA, independent groups (between groups)
8.2.6 Two-way ANOVA, repeated measures
7.1.1.1 OPC contexts
7.1.1.2 CFC contexts
8.3 Data: Experimental study #2
8.3.1 Raw data
8.3.2 Descriptives
8.3.3 One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnoff fit test
8.3.4 t-test (within groups)
8.3.5 One-way ANOVA, independent groups (between groups)
8.3.6 Two-way ANOVA, repeated measures
7.1.1.3 Unergative, neutral context
7.1.1.4 Unaccusative, neutral context
7.1.1.5 Unergative, presentational contex
7.1.1.6 Unaccusative, presentational context
REFERENCES
Número de págs.:322
Fecha de publicación en Infoling:28 de November de 2012
Remitente:
Cristóbal Lozano
Universidad de Granada
<cristoballozano
ugr.es>
Universidad de Granada
<cristoballozano
ugr.es>