high applicatives in the interlanguage of l2 learners of french elena shimanskaya the university of...

High Applicatives in the Interlanguage of L2 Learners of FrenchElena ShimanskayaThe University of IowaSLA graduate students symposium 2011

OUTLINE1. The main hypothesis and SLA theory

2. The property: low and high applicative

3. Learning tasks

4. Previous research

5. Research questions

6. Tasks

7. Participants

8. Results

9. Discussion

10.Conclusions

1. The main hypothesis and SLA theory

Assumption:only relevant functional categories

are activated in the grammar of each language (White, 2003)

2 logical possibilities for L2A

L2 learners can acquire a new

functional category

L2 learners will be unable to

acquire a new functional category

Full Access to UG: Schwartz and Sprouse (1996), Epstein et

al. (1996), Flynn and Martohardjono (1994), Flynn

(1996)

UG unavailable in L2A: Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman, 1990), No Parameter Resetting view (Hawkins and Chan, 1997)

1. The main hypothesis and SLA theory

Can new functional categories or rather new configurations involving functional projections be acquired in the process of L2A?



3. Learning tasks



6. Tasks

7. Participants

8. Results

9. Discussion

10.Conclusions


Benefactive and adversative datives

Some terminology (Crystal, 2008)

Benefactive “a case form or construction whose function in a sentence is to express the notion ‘on behalf of’ or ‘for the benefit of’. A benefactive form (‘a benefactive’) expresses the sense of ‘intended recipient’, and is often introduced by a for phrase in English, e.g. I’ve got a book for you. (52)

Adversative “a form or construction which expresses an antithetical circumstance. Adversative meaning can be expressed in several grammatical ways, such as through a conjunction (but), adverbial (however, nevertheless, yet, in spite of that, on the other hand), or preposition (despite, except, apart from, notwithstanding).” (15)


Adversative (1)/benefactive (2) dative pronouns can be found in French but not in English:

(1) Les invités lui ont mangé tout ce qu’il y avait dans le frigo.

The guests dat.3sg aux. eaten all that that-it there had in the fridgeThe guests ate everything in the fridge on him/her.

(Roberge and Troberg, 2009: 256)

(2) Elmer lui a dévalisé deux banques le mois dernier. Elmer dat.3sg aux. robbed two banks the month lastElmer robbed two banks for him last month.

(Rouveret and Vergnaud, 1980: 170)


Bantu languages (Pylkkänen, 2008) Certain non-core arguments are introduced in the specifier of the so-called ‘applicative heads’ that can take the form of special applicative morphemes. The addition of this special morpheme to a verb allows the verb to take an argument that expresses a beneficiary of the action.

French adversative /benefactive dative clitic pronouns are analyzed as applicative heads.

(Roberge and Troberg, 2009)

(3) N – a – i – lyi – i – a m–ka k–elya FOC - 1SG - PRES - eat - APPL - FV 1-wife 7-foodHe is eating food for his wife.

(Pylkkänen, 2000: 1)


High Applicativesmerged above the verbal

projection and take the entire VP as their complement

He is eating food for his wife.

Low Applicativesmerged below the verb and

only take the theme as their complement

I baked him a cake.

Cross linguistically: Some languages have both high and low applicatives, e.g. Spanish (Cuervo, 2003), some only one e.g. English double object construction is introduced via a low applicative head

(Pylkkänen, 2008)


English double object construction is introduced via a low applicative head (Pylkkänen, 2008)

No high applicative in English (Pylkkänen, 2008).

Two tests:

1. dative argument with an unergative verb:(4) *I ran him.

2. dative pronoun with a static verb(5) *I held him the bag.

1. a dative constituent is “only acceptable in its clitic form, it may not be expressed as an à-phrase”

(8) Les invités lui ont mangé tout ce qu’il y avait dans le frigo.

The guests ate everything in the fridge on him/her. versus(9) *Les invités ont mangé tout ce qu’il y avait dans

le frigo à Marc.‘The guests ate everything in the fridge on Marc.’

2. the dative clitic in French “…must c-command a referential DP”

(10) Paul lui a bu trois pastis. Paul him pst. drank three pastis. Paul drank three pastis on him. versus(11) *Paul lui a bu. Paul drank on him.’

(Roberge and Troberg, 2009: 256)

dative clitic = appl morpheme

PP = applied argumentThe applied argument can

only be merged in the spec of the applicative projection. But, you cannot have a PP in the spec

Need to merge something in spec operator

Operator needs to be bound need a referential DP

2. The property: low and high applicativeFrench adversative/benefactive dative clitics as high

applicatives

2. The property: low and high applicative1. English has only low applicative (e.g. double object construction)

2. French has high applicative in its inventory of functional categories. High applicative heads express a distinct semantic meaning (introduce an individual that is positively or negatively affected by the event) and show certain restrictions related to their syntax (Roberge and Troberg, 2009 ):

2a. dative clitic = applicative morpheme2b. operator is merged in the specifier of the applicative

projection



3. Learning tasks



6. Tasks

7. Participants

8. Results

9. Discussion

10.Conclusions

3. Learning tasks

1. restructure the grammar to allow for the applicative head to be merged above the VP in L2;

2. determine that unlike L1 (double object construction), the applied argument introduced in the specifier position (null pro in French) does not establish the relation of possession with the direct object, but introduces an argument that is affected by the entire event expressed by the VP;

3. find out that the applicative head is not null in L2, but is realized as a dative clitic;

4. determine that in L2 in order for the VP to be able to add an affected applied argument it has to contain a referential DP that can bind the operator in the spec of the ApplP.

L1 English

L2 Frenchprepositional phrases

(not cliticized to the verb in English)or periphrastic constructions

dative clitics

3. Learning tasks

Some additional notes:1. The structure under investigation

(adversative/benefactive dative) is not taught in L2 classrooms

2. Neither the learners nor the native speakers are aware of the syntactic restrictions discussed by Roberge and Troberg (2009).

3. The property that is being tested in this study is associated with colloquial language and requires an appropriate pragmatic context in order for the sentences to be treated as grammatical by native speakers.



3. Learning tasks



6. Tasks

7. Participants

8. Results

9. Discussion

10.Conclusions


Study L1 L2 Property Task Findings

Cuervo (2007)

EngSpanis

h

dative alternati

onGJT

+morphosyntax- semantic

distinctionsSikorsk

a (2009)

Polish

Spanish

low applicativ

esGJT

did not analyze the clitic as a productive morphological element



3. Learning tasks



6. Tasks

7. Participants

8. Results

9. Discussion

10.Conclusions

5. Research questionsCan L2 learners acquire a new structural

configuration that is not found in their L1?

Can L2 learners correctly interpret the structure that is not found in their L1?

RQ1: Do L2 learners consider sentences with adversative dative as grammatical?

RQ2: Are L2 learners of French sensitive to the restriction on the adversative/benefactive datives and reject sentences without a referential VP-internal DP?

RQ3: Have the learners acquired the adversative meaning associated with the construction when provided with an appropriate discourse?



3. Learning tasks



6. Tasks

7. Participants

8. Results

9. Discussion

10.Conclusions

6. Tasks

Grammaticality judgment taskCondition 1 (n=5)Adversative/benefactive dative + VP-

internal DP:Paul lui a bu trois pastis. Paul him pst. drank three pastisPaul drank three pastis on him.

Condition 2 (n=5)Adversative/benefactive dative + no VP-internal DP:*Paul lui a bu. Paul drank on him.

Fillers (n=10): total of 20

Instructions:“perfect” = 4“okay” = 3“awkward” = 2“horrible” = 1“no intuition”

Truth-value judgment task

A story followed by 2 sentences: true or false?

5 pairs of stories: 10 stories

+ 10 distractor stories = 20 stories total

2×2 design

Paper and pencil format

An adversely affected individual is

supported by the story

not supported by the story

Dative clitic

true false

No dative clitic

true true



3. Learning tasks



6. Tasks

7. Participants

8. Results

9. Discussion

10.Conclusions

7. Participants

In order to eliminate the influence of L1 as a factor in the performance of the L2 learner, I gave English translation of the truth value judgment task to one native speaker of English

Native speaker L2 subject

Age 32 22

Occupation French TA French TA

Years studying French

N/A 10 years

Abroad experience

N/AQuebec city – 3

months, France – 10 months

Other foreign languages

English advanced

Italian beginner



3. Learning tasks



6. Tasks

7. Participants

8. Results

9. Discussion

10.Conclusions

8. Results

Both subjects performed well on the fillers

Dative clitic Fillers

Condition 1

Grammatical

with a DP

Condition 2

Ungramm.without a

DP

Grammatical

Ungramm.

Native Speaker

3.2 1 4 1

L2 learner 3 2.25 4 1.8

Grammaticality judgment task (mean scores)

8. Results

The native speaker did not find the sentences with the adversative/benefactive dative clitic “perfect”.


Condition 1

Grammatical

with a DP

Condition 2

Ungramm.without a

DP

Grammatical

Ungramm.

Native Speaker

3.2 1 4 1

L2 learner 3 2.25 4 1.8


8. Results

The L2 learner on average rated the ungrammatical sentences with an adversative/benefactive dative clitic higher, than the native speaker.


Condition 1

Grammatical

with a DP

Condition 2

Ungramm.without a

DP

Grammatical

Ungramm.

Native Speaker

3.2 1 4 1

L2 learner 3 2.25 4 1.8


8. Results

However, the L2 learner rated these ungrammatical sentences lower than the grammatical counterparts.


Condition 1

Grammatical

with a DP

Condition 2

Ungramm.without a

DP

Grammatical

Ungramm.

Native Speaker

3.2 1 4 1

L2 learner 3 2.25 4 1.8


8. Results

Both the native speaker and the L2 learner correctly answered “True” to all the sentences without the clitic on both experimental conditions (stories with and without an adversely affected individual). Thus, I do not include these results here.

The truth-value judgment task

An adversely affected individual is

supported by the story

not supported by the story

Dative clitic

trueCondition 1

falseCondition 2

No dative clitic

true true

8. Results

All the three subjects performed well on the distractor-stories.

Accuracy of the truth-value judgment task

Sentences with a clitic

DistractorsCondition 1affected individual

+ clitic

Condition 2no affected individual

+ clitic

Native speaker

100% 100% 100%

L2 learner 80% 20% 96%

English control

40% 80% 94%

8. Results

The L2 learner basically accepted as true the sentences with the dative clitic in spite of the context. She accepted 80% of sentences with a clitic that followed a story that contained an adversely affected individual. However, she also failed to reject in 80% of cases the sentence with a clitic after the stories that did not contain an affected individual.




+ clitic


+ clitic

Native speaker

100% 100% 100%

L2 learner 80% 20% 96%

English control

40% 80% 94%

8. Results

Control English : he was more willing to reject sentences with a dative pronoun which produced target-like results in condition 2. However, he also rejected as false 40% of sentences with the clitic that followed the stories that actually contained an affected individual.




+ clitic


+ clitic

Native speaker

100% 100% 100%

L2 learner 80% 20% 96%

English control

40% 80% 94%



3. Learning tasks



6. Tasks

7. Participants

8. Results

9. Discussion

10.Conclusions

9. DiscussionRQ1: Does the L2 learner consider the sentences

with adversative dative as grammatical?

Yes. The degree of acceptability is close to that of a native speaker: 3 for the L2 learner versus 3.2 for a native speaker

RQ2: Is the L2 learner of French sensitive to the restriction on the adversative/benefactive datives and rejects sentences without a referential VP-internal DP?

RQ3: Has the learner acquired the adversative meaning associated with the construction when provided with an appropriate discourse?

9. DiscussionRQ1: Does the L2 learner consider the sentences with

adversative dative as grammatical?

RQ2: Is the L2 learner of French sensitive to the restriction on the adversative/benefactive datives and rejects sentences without a referential VP-internal DP?

The L2 learner showed the contrast (3 for grammatical and 2.25 for ungrammatical). However the contrast is sharper in the grammar of the native speaker (3.2 for grammatical and 1 for ungrammatical sentences).


9. DiscussionRQ1: Does the L2 learner consider sentences with

adversative dative as grammatical?

RQ2: Is the L2 learner sensitive to the restriction on the adversative/benefactive datives and rejects sentences without a referential VP-internal DP?


No. The L2 learner was not sensitive to the context in which the construction can be used. Instead, she accepted sentences with the clitic as true in spite of the context.

9. DiscussionCan L2 learners acquire a new structural

configuration that is not found in their L1?

Looks like the answer is positive (the results of the GJT).

Can L2 learners correctly interpret the structure that is not found in their L1?

Interprets it differently than in L1 (English control treated most of the sentences with dative pronouns as false), but not target-like. The L2 learner considered most of the sentences with dative pronouns as true in spite of the context.

9. Discussion

The restructuring of grammar is possible in

principle

Bottleneck Hypothesis (Slabakova, 2008): the acquisition of morphology is a necessary prerequisite for acquiring the semantics

The restructuring of the syntactic representation does not automatically

guarantee the acquisition of semantics

The L2 learner has already noticed the presence of the dative clitic in this construction

However, the L2 learner is still in the process of constructing an appropriate semantic interpretation



3. Learning tasks



6. Tasks

7. Participants

8. Results

9. Discussion

10.Conclusions

10. ConclusionsCan new functional categories or rather new

configurations involving functional projections be acquired in the process of L2A?

Property: the acquisition of the high applicative head found in the adversative/benefactive construction in French by L2 learners whose L1 (English) does not have this syntactic configuration in its inventory.

Findings: the L2 subject has acquired the syntactic restrictions imposed on the L2 construction, but is not aware of an appropriate semantic context

do not disprove the possibility of successful acquisition of new functional categories or new structural configurations

But, the findings suggest that the acquisition of semantics follows the acquisition of syntax and, possibly, constitutes an additional developmental stage

10. Conclusions

Limitations

1. The property is very subtle, since even the native speaker participant only rated the sentences that were designed to be grammatical as acceptable, but did not give them the maximum points for grammaticality.

2. The minimal number of participants

ReferencesAuthier, J.-M. and L. Reed. 1992. Case theory, theta theory, and the distribution of French affected datives. The Linguistic

Review 9:4. 295–311.

Bley-Vroman, R. 1990. The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20. 3-49.

Cheng, L. and R. Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry, 30. 509-542

Cuervo, C. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Cuervo, C. 2007. Double objects in Spanish as a second language: Acquisition of morphosyntax and semantics. SSLA 29. 583-615.

Epstein, S., S. Flynn and G. Martohardjono. 1996. Second language acquisition: theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 19, 677–758.

Flynn, S. 1996. A parameter-setting approach to second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of language acquisition (pp.429-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flynn, S. and G. Martohardjono. 1994. Mapping from the intial state to the final state: the separation of universal principles and language-specific principles. In B. Lust, M. Suñer and J. Whitman (eds.), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: cross-linguistic perspective. Vol. 1: Heads, projections and learnability (pp. 319-335). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hawkins, R. and C. Y.-H. Chan. 1997. The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: the 'failed functional features hypothesis. Second Language Research 13. 187-226.

Leclère, C. 1976. Datifs syntaxiques et datif éthique. In J.-C. Chevalier & M. Gross (eds.), Méthodes en grammaire française, 73–96. Paris: Klincksieck.

Pylkkänen, L. 2000. What applicative heads apply to. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 6.4. 1-13.

Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Press.

Roberge, Y. and Troberg, M. 2009. The high applicative syntax of the datives commodi/incommodi in Romance. Probus 21, 249–289.

Rooryck, J. 1988. Critères formels pour le datif non lexical en français. Studia Neophilologica. 60. 97–107.

Rouveret, A. and J.-R. Vernaud. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 97–202.

Schwartz, B. D. and R. A. Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research 12. 40-72.

Schwartz, B.D. and R. Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12. 40-72.

Sikorska, M. 2009. Low applicative datives in Spanish as a second language: acquisition of semantics and morphosyntax. RESLA, 22. 327-350.

Slabakova R. 2008. Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Slabakova, R. 2003. Semantic evidence for functional categories in interlanguage grammars. Second Language Research, 24:1. 42-75.

Tremblay, A. 2005. Theoretical and methodological perspectives on the use of grammaticality judgment tasks in linguistic theory. Second Language Studies, 24:1. 129-167.

White, L. 2003. Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.

THANK YOU!

high applicatives in the interlanguage of l2 learners of french elena shimanskaya the university of...

Documents

high applicative benefactive

high applicative adversative

high applicative high

high applicatives

main hypothesis

socalled applicative

new functional categories

sla theory assumption