raquel fernández fuertes juana m. liceras aurora bel

1

Syntactic variability in child 2L1 and L2 grammars: the view from code-switching

Raquel Fernández FuertesJuana M. Liceras

Aurora Bel

opogrammadrid

oct 2011

VARIABILITY & OPTIONALITY

INTRA-SPEAKER - representational account?VARIATION - processing account?

- competing grammars account?

- formal proposals? Chomsky, Pesetsky & Torrego, van Gelderen & MacSwan …

- learnability proposals? Liceras et al. …

INTER-SPEAKER - within 2L1 and cL2 groups?VARIATION - between 2L1 and cL2 groups?

EN/SP CSFernández Fuertes, Liceras & BelINTRODUCTION

2

FUNCTIONAL-LEXICAL CS: CHILD & ADULT DATA

PRODUCTION - pervasiveness ≠ abundance

INTERPRETATION - more variability- clear-cut trends

METHODOLOGY - acceptability judgments- eye-tracking


3

YANG´S MODEL & CS DATA

VARIATION & CORE

VARIATION & PERIPHERY

variable CS preferences?


4

CS preferences as in different formal proposals?

- if no CS input, reliance on UG?

- if variation in input, difficult access to competing options?

OUR STUDY

WHAT English/Spanish code-switched structures

WHY - CS restrictions & syntax/learnability proposals- characterization of 2L1 & cL2 child bilinguals - variability patterns

HOW - 2L1 & cL2 bilingual children

- oral acceptability judgments


5

3 types of EN/SP CS structures

CONCORD determiner – noun(1a) La house(1b) The casa

AGREEMENT 1 DP subject – copula+Adj [copula agr.]

(2a) The house es bonita(2b) La casa is nice

AGREEMENT 2 DP / pronominal subject – verb [S-V agr.]

(3a) La profesora / Ella talks about syntax(3b) The teacher / She habla de sintaxis


6

GFSH (Liceras et al. 2005 & 2008)

Grammatical Features Spell-out Hypothesis

highly grammaticalized features guide the bilingual child CS preferences

an internal view of language dominance

GENDER and GENDER AGREEMENT features

EN/SP bilingual children and adults’ preference for SP Det

(1a) La house(1b) The casa

EN/SP CSFernández Fuertes, Liceras & BelBACKGROUND

7

la

GFSH (Liceras et al. 2005 & 2008)


8

TABLES 1&2. Adult bilingual D-N mixings [SP/EN] SP Det / EN Det

CHILDREN Manuela [Deuchar CHILDES] 16 / 2Mario [Fantini 1985] 4 / —Leo[FerFuLice CHILDES] 22 / —Simon [FerFuLice CHILDES] 5 / —5 children [Lindholm & Padilla 1978] 18 / 3

ADULTS Myers-Scotton & Jake (2001) 63 / 4747 / 10

Jake et al. (2002) 161 / 0Moro (2001) 213 / 2

TABLE 3. Child bilingual D-N mixings [GR/EN] GR Det / EN Det

CHILDREN Jorschick et al. (2010) 242 / 15321 / 8178 / 98

Minimalist account of CS (Moro 2002 & MacSwan 2005)

Deletion as a ‘one fell swoop’ operation, dealing with the phi-set as a unit (Chomsky 2000, 124)

EN-Det + SP-N sequences are blocked


9

(4a) DP

D N The sillachair [number] [number + gender]

(4b) DP D N Lathe-fem chair [number + gender] [number]

Double gender feature valuation mechanism (Liceras et al. 2008)

Pesetsky & Torrego’s (2001) double feature valuation proposal Double gender feature valuation in concord structures

Gender feature (Gen)Gender Agreement feature ()

SPONTANEOUS DATA: 2L1 CHILDREN´S PREFERENCE FOR SP Det EXPERIMENTAL DATA

L1 English and L1 Spanish adults’ acceptance of EN Det


10

(5a) DP

D N The sillachair-fem [_] [Gen-fem. + u()] The lápizpencil-masc [_] [Gen-masc. + u()]

Double gender feature valuation mechanism (Liceras et al. 2008)

Pesetsky & Torrego’s (2001) double feature valuation proposal

Double gender feature valuation in concord structuresGender feature (Gen)Gender Agreement feature ()

EXPERIMENTAL DATA L1 Spanish adults’ preference for the ‘analogical criterion’


11

(5b) DP

D N Lathe-fem chair (as Spanish silla) [uGen: fem.+ ()] [Gen-fem. + u()]

… also in copula agr.? (5c) the cityFem es ruidosaFem

Minimalist account of S-V CS (van Gelderen & MacSwan 2008)

DP subjects can enter in an S-V code-switched relationship, subject pronouns cannot

PF disjunction theorem rules out CS below X0 (p. 774)

(6a) (6b)


12

TPT’

VP

Mis amigosi [mis amigosi] fight all the time

Spec

SPEC MOVEMENT

vP

TPT’

VP

Ellosi [ellosi] fight all the time

T

HEAD MOVEMENT

vP

DPD’

TD

1. 2L1 and cL2 children’s acceptance of SP det concord structures? = GFSH(1a) La house(1b) The casa

2. the double-feature valuation mechanism triggers the analogical criterion in concord & copula agr. CS? = GFSH

(2a) The house es bonita [+ac] (2b) The house es bonito [-ac]

HOWEVER … DIFFERENT MECHANISMS DIFFERENT DEGREES OF PREFERENCE

EN/SP CSFernández Fuertes, Liceras & BelRESEARCH QUESTIONS & HYPOTHESES

13

H#1. Gender features have a similar representation for 2L1 & cL2 children

H#2. Gender features have a similar representation for 2L1 & cL2 children in concord & copula agr. CS

3. categorical nature of SU reflected in acceptance of DP versus pronominal subject IN S-V agreement sequences?


HOWEVER SP pronouns are DP-like? No preference EN verb requires no checking? No PF violation SP 3rdp V requires no checking? No PF violation

EN/SP CSFernández Fuertes, Liceras & BelRESEARCH QUESTIONS & HYPOTHESES

14

H#3. DP+V sequences will be preferred over pronoun+V ones because there is no PF violation

Participants

2L1 group EN heritage in Spain

cL2 group L1 SP in and EN immersion program in Spain

EN/SP CSFernández Fuertes, Liceras & BelTHE STUDY

15

TABLE 4. Participants: English/Spanish 2L1 and English L2 children GROUP AVERAGE AGE AGE RANGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN 2L1 (heritage) 9,4 6-12 11 L2 10,9 10-13 18

Data elicitation

2 oral acceptability judgment tasks

read a short dialogue + evaluate the ANSWER by means of emoticons


16

TABLE 5. Oral acceptability judgment tasksTASK # PRACTICE

ITEMS# EXPERIMENTAL

ITEMS# FILLERS &

DISTRACTORSTOTAL #ITEMS

Concord 8 24 6 38Agreement 8 24 24 10 66

Data elicitation

CONCORD

practice items: CS at different grammatical points(7a) La jirafa está near the trees COPULA VERB + PP

(7b) Esto es un fishito WORD-INTERNAL MIXING (7c) Los niños están jumping VAUX + VLEX(7d) The rabbit has a big zanahoria OD = DET-ADJ + N

distractors & fillers: CS at other grammatical points + non-CS(9a) El mono has a banana(9b) This is a pirate bike


17

Data elicitation

CONCORD

experimental items: SP Det + EN NEN Det + SP N

(8a) La leche está en el glass SP DET MM MATCH

(8b) El pájaro está en el hand SP DET MF NON-MATCH

(8c) El niño está abriendo la door SP DET FF MATCH

(8d) El niño está jugando con la clock SP DET FM NON-MATCH

(8e) The man is falling to the suelo EN DET–SP MASC N(8f) They are playing with the nieve EN DET–SP FEM N


18

MM

FFMF

FM

Data elicitation

AGREEMENT

practice items: CS at different grammatical points (as in concord)

(7a) La jirafa está near the trees COPULA VERB + PP

(7b) Esto es un fishito WORD-INTERNAL MIXING (7c) Los niños están jumping VAUX + VLEX(7d) The rabbit has a big zanahoria OD = DET-ADJ + N

fillers: deverbal compounds (EN & SP; possible and non-possible)(12a) Es un salvavidas *Es un platoslava(12b) It is a hair dryer *He is a fighter fire


19

Data elicitation

AGREEMENT 1. COPULA AGREEMENT

experimental items: EN SU + SP copula Adj predicateSP SU + EN copula Adj predicate

(10a) The tree es alto SP ADJ MM MATCH(10b) The toy es bonita SP ADJ MF NON-MATCH(10c) The house es pequeña SP ADJ FF MATCH(10d) The door es blanco SP ADJ FM NON-MATCH

(10e) El puente is long SP MASC SU(10f) La mesa is round SP FEM SU


20

MM

FF MF

FM

Data elicitation

AGREEMENT 2. S-V AGREEMENT

experimental items: EN DP/pronominal SU + SP verb agr.SP DP/pronominal SU + EN verb agr.

(11a) I quiero este vestido EN PRONOUNSShe leeØ un libro

(11b) Tú cook every day SP PRONOUNSÉl runs many kilometers

(11c) The boy bebeØ agua EN DPSThe lady tocaØ el violín

(11d) El niño paints landscapes SP DPSLa señora hugs her sister


21

The results

CONCORD. FIGURE 1

EN Det favoured SP Det: matching favoured (MM; FF)

cL2: higher preference for matching 2L1: preference for matching

ANALOGICAL CRITERION: sensitive to double gender valuation mechanism

(1a) la house el train

cL2 > 2L1 (8d) la clock


22

MM MF FF FM M noun F nounSP det + EN N EN Det + SP N

0

1

2

3

4

2L1L2

[+ AC]

The results

AGREEMENT 1. FIGURE 2. COPULA AGR.

SP SU favoured EN SU -SP Adj: matching favoured

cL2: higher preference for matching

ANALOGICAL CRITERION: sensitive to double gender valuation mechanism

(10a) the tree es alto (10c) the house es pequeña

cL2 > 2L1 (10d) the door es blanco


23

MM MF FF FM Msu FsuEN SU + SP Adj SP SU

0

1

2

3

4

2L1L2

[+ AC]

The results

AGREEMENT 2. FIGURE 3. S-V AGR.

EN: DPs preferred over pronouns SP: DPs preferred over pronouns cL2: SP pronouns favoured over EN

ones

EN: no preference for 3rd p pronouns SP: 3rd p pronouns preferred

DPS AND PRONOUNS HAVE A DIFFERENT STATUS … but … SP pronouns = EN pronouns?

PF VIOLATION: EN 3rd p pronoun (SP -agrV):SP 3rd p pronoun (EN +agrV):

cL2 ≈ 2L1


24

1 2 3 M 3 F 1 2 3 M 3 FEN pronoun SP pronoun EN

DPSP DP

0

1

2

3

4

2L1L2

no PF VIOLATION but not favouredPF VIOLATION but favoured

Syntactic variability INTRA-

SUBJECT cL2

copula ≈concord< S-V

2L1copula ≈ S-V < concord

INTER-SUBJECT

2L1, less homogeneous


25

TABLE 9.1. Variability. Concord SP_DET EN_DET

MM MF FF FM NM NFcL2 Mean 2,74 2,30 2,52 1,74 2,94 2,79

Standard deviation 0,69 0,68 0,77 0,60 0,57 0,642L1 Mean 2,79 2,36 2,61 2,27 2,74 2,80

Standard deviation 0,89 0,82 1,04 0,83 0,78 0,81

TABLE 9.2. Variability. Copula agreement EN subject + SP adjective SP subject

MM MF FF FM M FcL2 Mean 2,61 1,50 2,81 1,81 2,81 2,81

Standard deviation 0,61 0,51 0,71 0,53 0,73 0,722L1 Mean 2,73 2,21 2,61 2,42 2,85 2,97

Standard deviation 0,84 0,92 0,73 0,82 0,81 0,82

TABLE 9.3. Variability. S-V agreement EN pronoun SP pronoun EN_DP SP_DP

1st 2nd 3rd M 3rd F 1st 2nd 3rd M 3rd FcL2 Mean 2,03 2,03 2,33 2,00 2,08 2,08 2,58 2,94 2,69 2,82

Standard deviation 0,79 0,88 0,66 0,64 0,96 0,73 0,71 0,64 0,68 0,622L1 Mean 2,27 2,32 2,50 1,91 2,23 2,00 2,50 2,73 2,77 2,91

Standard deviation 0,93 0,84 1,07 0,89 0,79 0,71 0,87 0,82 0,78 0,66

Syntactic variability INTRA-

SUBJECT cL2

copula ≈concord< S-V

2L1copula ≈ S-V < concord

INTER-SUBJECT

2L1, less homogeneous


26

TABLE 9.1. Variability. ConcordSP_DET EN_DETMM MF FF FM NM NF

cL2 Mean 2,74 2,3 2,52 1,74 2,94 2,79SD 0,69 0,68 0,77 0,6 0,57 0,64CV 25,18 29,57 30,56 34,48 19,39 22,94

2L1 Mean 2,79 2,36 2,61 2,27 2,74 2,8SD 0,89 0,82 1,04 0,83 0,78 0,81CV 31,90 34,75 39,85 36,56 28,47 28,93

TABLE 9.2. Variability. Copula agreementEN subject+SP adjective SP subjectMM MF FF FM M F

cL2 Mean 2,61 1,5 2,81 1,81 2,81 2,81SD 0,61 0,51 0,71 0,53 0,73 0,72CV 23,37 34,00 25,27 29,28 25,98 25,62

2L1 Mean 2,73 2,21 2,61 2,42 2,85 2,97SD 0,84 0,92 0,73 0,82 0,81 0,82CV 30,77 41,63 27,97 33,88 28,42 27,61

TABLE 9.3. Variability. S-V agreementEN pronoun SP pronoun EN_

DPSP_DP1st 2nd 3rd M 3rd F 1st 2nd 3rd M 3rd F

cL2 Mean 2,03 2,03 2,33 2 2,08 2,08 2,58 2,94 2,69 2,82SD 0,79 0,88 0,66 0,64 0,96 0,73 0,71 0,64 0,68 0,62CV 38,92 43,35 28,33 32,00 46,15 35,10 27,52 21,77 25,28 21,99

2L1 Mean 2,27 2,32 2,5 1,91 2,23 2 2,5 2,73 2,77 2,91SD 0,93 0,84 1,07 0,89 0,79 0,71 0,87 0,82 0,78 0,66CV 40,97 36,21 42,80 46,60 35,43 35,50 34,80 30,04 28,16 22,68

RESEARCH QUESTIONS & INITIAL HYPOTHESES

1. 2L1 and cL2 children’s acceptance of SP det concord structures? = GFSH(1a) La house(1b) The casa

2. the double-feature valuation mechanism triggers the analogical criterion in concord & copula agr. CS? = GFSH

(2a) The house es bonita [+ac] (2b) The house es bonito [-ac]

HOWEVER … CL2 IN COPULA > IN CONCORD2L1 IN COPULA ≈ IN CONCORD

EN/SP CSFernández Fuertes, Liceras & BelCONCLUSIONS

27

H#1. Gender features have a similar representation for 2L1 & cL2 children

H#2. Gender features have a similar representation for 2L1 & cL2 children in concord & copula agr. CS

NOT CONFIRMED

CONFIRMED

RESEARCH QUESTIONS & INITIAL HYPOTHESES

3. categorical nature of SU reflected in acceptance of DP versus pronominal subject IN S-V agreement sequences?


BECAUSE SP 3rd p. verb requires no checking Seem not to affect PF violation EN 3rd p. verb requires checking Seem not to affect PF

violation SP pronouns > EN ones Different status of 3rd p?

Different status of EN & SP pronouns?


28

H#3. DP+V sequences will be preferred over pronoun+V ones because there is no PF violation

PARTIALLY CONFIRMED

GFSH & GENDER FEATURES

cL2 [2L1] children: CONCORD analogical criterion

cL2 [2L1] children: COPULA AGR. analogical criterion


29

(13a) DP

D N Lathe-fem chair (as Spanish silla) [uGen: fem.+ ()] [Gen-fem. + u()]

TPT’

VP

The house es pequeña

Spec

vP

V AdjP

[Gen: fem. + ()] [uGen-fem. + u()]

(13b)

THE DOUBLE GENDER FEATURE VALUATION MECHANISM

EN & SP PRONOUNS

cL2 & 2L1 children: EN DPs ≠ EN pronouns spec mov. versus head mov. PF theorem versus PF violation

cL2 & 2L1 children: SP pronouns ≠ EN pronouns DPs > SP pronouns > EN pronouns


30

DIFFERENT STATUS OF EN PRONOUNS & SP PRONOUNS

TPT’

VP

My friendsi [my friendsi] se pelean siempre

Spec

vPTTD

Theyi [theyi] se pelean siempre

DIFFERENT STATUS OF 1ST-2ND & 3RD P. PRONOUNS

31

THANK YOU

TEST DESIGN & DATA COLLECTIONLanguage Acquisition Research Laboratory of the University of Ottawa

University of Valladolid Language Acquisition Laboratory

PARTICIPANTSthe children & their parents

the International School in Valladolid, Spain

FUNDINGCanada-Europe Award Program

Spanish Ministry of Science and InnovationCatalan Government

Syntactic variability in child 2L1 and L2 grammars:The view from code-switching

Raquel Fernández FuertesJuana M. Liceras

Aurora Bel

OPOGRAMMADRID 2011

raquel fernández fuertes juana m. liceras aurora bel

Documents

liceras belbackground8tables

child 2l1

ensp bilingual children

bilingual child cs preferences

cs input

minimalist account of

variation processing

cl2 groups