structure of the phenomenon in slacristoballozano/presentations/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 aim of...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
“It can exist a better world”: L2 syntax acquisition at the interfaces –
new corpus evidence
ERSC Centre for Research on BilingualismBangor (UK)
24th Nov 2008
Cristóbal LozanoUniversidad de Granada
Work in collaboration with:
Amaya Mendikoetxea, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
http://www.ugr.es/~cristoballozano 2
Abstract“It can exist a better world”: L2 syntax acquisition at the interfaces – new corpus evidence
� In this presentation I will discuss a frequent phenomenon in second language acquisition: postverbalsubjects (VS order) are produced by learners of L2 English with different L1 backgrounds (e.g., Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Arabic): *It can exist a better world; *It has appeared some cases of women that have killed their husbands; *It will not exist a machine or something able to imitate the human imagination.
� The data in this talk were drawn from learner and native corpora: a corpus of English native speakers and two comparable corpora of Spanish and Italian learners of English.
� Based on our review of the theoretical literature and previous research findings, it was hypothesized (Hypothesis 1, H1) that for VS order to occur in L2 English, the verb must be a type of intransitive known as unaccusative (e.g., exist, occur, appear, arrive), as the Unaccusative Hypothesis predicts.Additionally, (H2) predicts that the postverbal subject must be focus (new information), according to the End-focus Principle. Finally, (H3) states that there is a tendency for the postverbal subject to be phonologically heavy (long) as part of a general processing mechanism by which long and complex constituents tend to be placed towards the end of the clause (the End-weight Principle).
� Importantly, while H1 has found confirmation in the L2 literature, H2 and H3 have, to our knowledge, been untested and the facts they describe have gone unnoticed in previous L2 research. Corpus data show that our learners produce VS structures under the same conditions as English natives, though learners ‘overuse’ the construction and show persistent errors in their syntactic encoding.
� Thus, a full account of the production of inverted subjects in L2 English must look at properties which operate at three interfaces:
� the lexicon-syntax interface (Unaccusative Hypothesis). � the syntax-discourse interface (End-focus Principle).� the syntax-phonology interface (End-weight Principle)
3
STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION
� The phenomenon in SLA� Aims of the presentation� General research question� Corpus study #1� Corpus study #2� Conclusions & overall picture� Contributions to the field� New projects
4
The phenomenon in SLA
Production of postverbal subjects (VS order) in L2 English (Zobl 1989, Rutherford 1989, Oshita 2004)
� L1 Spanish/Italian/Arabic/Japanese – L2 English:��������� �� � ����������������� �� � �� ��� � � �� � �
�� ���� � ��� � � � ��� � ��� � � � � ����� �������� �� ��� � � �� � �
�� ����� �� � � � �� � � � �� �� � �� � � � � ��� �� ��� � � �� � �
� ���� !�� � �!� " �� �� � �� � � �� � ����� � �� � " ��� �� �� �! � ��� ��� � �� �� ��� # �� �
�$ ���� � � � ��� � � �� � � � � ��� ���� �� ��� �� �� �� �� ��% � � � � � �
�& �������� � � � � � ��� �� � ��� �� �� �� ���� �� � �
![Page 2: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
5
AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1)SPECIFIC AIMS:
� To characterize the interlanguage of advanced learners of L2 English(L1 Spanish/Italian) by examining their production of VS structures.
� Source of data: large learner corpora.� To confirm previous research:
� Postverbal subjects appear only with a type of intransitives(unaccusatives).
� But previous research has ignored that unaccusativity is a necessarybut not sufficient condition for postverbal subjects to be produced.
� We argue that the production of postverbal subjects is constrained at 3 interfaces:� �Lexicon-syntax interface: unaccusative hypothesis� �Syntax-phonology interface: end-weight principle� �Syntax-discourse interface: end-focus principle
� So, a full account of L2 word order acquisition needs to take into account properties at these three interfaces.
6
AIMS OF PRESENTATION (2)
GENERAL AIMS:
� Current SLA literature: role of interfaces in acquisition� Syntax-semantics� Syntax-discourse
� General findings:� Formal (syntactic) features are acquired easily
and from early stages in SLA.� Interface features are acquired late and pose
persistent problems even at very advanced stages.
7
THEORETICALBACKGROUND:
Word order
8
Postverbal subjects in SLAProduction of postverbal subjects (VS order) in L2 English (Zobl 1989, Rutherford 1989, Oshita 2004)
� L1 Spanish/Italian/Arabic – L2 English:��������� �� � ����������������� �� ��
�� ���� � ��� � � � ��� � ��� � � � � ����� ��������
�� ����� �� � � � �� � � � �� �� � �� � � � � ���
� ���� !�� � �!� " �� �� � �� � � �� � ����� � �� � " ��� �� �� �! � ��� ��� � �
� Only with unaccusative verbs (never with unergatives).� Unaccusatives: arrive, happen, exist, come, appear, live…� Unergatives: cry, speak, sing, walk ...
� Explanation: lexicon-syntax interface (Unaccusative Hypothesis)
![Page 3: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
9
b. unaccusative ‘There arrived three girls
Unaccusative HypothesisLexicon-syntax interfaceBurzio (1986), Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995), etc…
b. unaccusative ‘Three girls arrived’
a. unergative ‘John spoke’
10
The psychological reality of the Unaccusative Hypothesis� Well known in previous studies:
� L2 learners discriminate argument structure of unaccusative vsunergative verbs:� With different manifestations of unaccusativity: word order,
interpretation of quantifiers, clitic climbing, auxiliary selection, etc.� With different L1 – L2 backgrounds (Japanese, Chinese, English,
Spanish, Italian, etc)� Learners use this knowledge as a guiding principle to construct
L2 mental grammars.
� However:� Unaccusativity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
the production of postverbal subjects in L2 English.
11
Word Order in native EnglishFixed SV(O) orderVS: Restricted use of postverbal subjects:
XP V S(Inversion structures with an opening adverbial)
(6) a. [On one long wall] hung a row of Van Goghs.b. [Then] came the turning point of the match.c. [Within the general waste type shown in these figures] exists a wide variation.
[Biber et al. 1999: 912-3]
There-constructions(7) a. Somewhere deep inside [there] arose a desperate hope that he would embrace
herb. In all such relations [there] exists a set of mutual obligations in the instrumental and economic fieldsc. [There] came a roar of pure delight ….
[Biber et al. 1999: 945]
12
Word Order in native English (VS)� Lexicon-syntax interface (Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995, etc):
Unaccusative Hypothesis (Burzio 1986, etc) [existence and appearance]�' � �( � � � ���� � !� � �) ��� � ���� � �� � � ��*�� � � ��� � � � # +
�, ��( � � � �� � �� !� � �) ��� � ���� � �� � ��� � ��*�� �� � ����� ��� � # +
� Syntax-discourse interface (Biber et al 1999, Birner 1994, etc):Postverbal material tends to be focus (new information), while preverbal material links info to previous discourse (topic): Principle of End-Focus.��- ��. � �� � � �� � � � ��� � � � � �� � !�� �� / � � � �� � !!� � ��� �� � �� � � � ��� � � � � ��� � ����� ��� ����� � ��
� Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interface (Arnold et al 2000, etc)Heavy material is sentence-final (Principle of End-Weight, Quirk et al. 1972): general processing mechanism (reducing processing burden).�����0 � � �� � � � �� � � �� ) ��� � �" � �� � � �� � � �� � � � ��1 � � � 21 � � ��� !��� � �� ) ) �� � � ����� ���� ��
� � ����� � ��� ��� ���� �
3 principles operating at 3 interfaces:Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally in those
structures which allow them (unaccusative verbs).
GenerativeGrammar
FunctionalGrammar
&CorpusLinguistics
![Page 4: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
13
Word Order Spanish/ItalianPostverbal subjects are produced ‘freely’ with all verb classes:
(9) a. Ha telefoneado María al presidente. (transitive).has phoned Mary the president
b. Ha hablado Juan. (unergative)has spoken Juan .
c. Ha llegado Juan (unaccusative)has arrived Juan
Inversion as ‘focalisation’: • preverbal subjects are topic (given information) • and postverbal subjects are focus (new information) (Belletti 2001, 2004,
Zubizarreta 1998)
(10) ¿Quién ha llegado/hablado? (Spa) (11) Chi è arrivato/parlato? (Ital)Who has arrived/spoken?
i. Ha llegado/hablado Juan i. É arrivato/ Ha parlato Gianniii. #Juan ha llegado/hablado ii. # Gianni é arrivato/ha parlato 14
Word Order in Spa / Ital(VS order)
����Lexicon-syntax interface3 � �� � ��� ��� � � 4�� � � �� � # � � � # 5� � �� �� � � � �" ��� � ���� � # �� � � � � �
����Syntax-discourse interface6 � � �� � # � � � # 5� � �� ��� �� � � �� � � � ��� �� � � � ��� ��
����Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interfaceHeavy subjects show a tendency to be postposed – a universal language processing mechanism: placing complex elements at the end of a sentence reduces the processing burden (J. Hawkins 1994).
Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally, with no restrictions at the lexicon-syntax interface.
15
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Main questions:
1) What are the conditions governing the production of VS structures in English?
We have just seen them.
2) Do learners of English produce inverted subjects (VS) under the same conditions as English natives do, regardless of problems to do with syntactic encoding (grammaticality)?
We are about to see.
3) Can these findings inform us about the interfaces in L2 acquisition?We will see at the end.
� COMPARATIVE FRAMEWORK: to answer these questions, we compared:� Study #1: Learner corpora vs. native corpora� Study #2: Learner corpora vs. learner corpora
16
Corpora used in the 2 studies
� ICLE: International Corpus of Learner EnglishGranger S., E. Dagneaux and F. Meunier (2002) The International Corpus ofLearner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: PressesUniversitaires deLouvain
L1 Spa – L2 EngL1 Ital – L2 Eng
� WriCLE: Written Corpus of Learner English; Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Rollinson, O’Donnell, Mendikoetxea, in progress)
http://www.uam.es/woslac
L1 Spa – L2 Eng
� LOCNESS: Louvain Corpus of native English Essays, UCL/CECL, Louvain-la Neuve
http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fltr/germ/etan/cecl/Cecl-Projects/Icle/locness1.htm
English native speakers
![Page 5: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
17
CORPUS STUDY #1
V-S structures in:� English natives� L1 Spa – L2 Eng
Lozano & Mendikoetxea (in prep.) 18
HypothesesGENERAL HYPOTHESIS:
Conditions licensing VS in L2 Eng are the same as those in native Eng, DESPITE differences in syntactic encoding (ungrammatical sentences).
� ���������� �������������������������: � Postverbal subjects with unaccusatives (never with
unergatives)
� ����� ������ �������� !����������: � Postverbal subjects: heavy (but preverbal light)
� �"��!#�� ��������$����%�������������: � Postverbal subjects: focus (but preverbal topic)
Known from previous research
Overlooked in previous research
19
� � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � ! � � �� � � � � �
� � " � � � �� �� # � � � � � � $ ��
� � " � � � �� �� # � � � �� � " � � � �� �� � $ � # � � � � � � $ �
� % �� � � � � � � � � �� �� � � " �� � �& � � # � � �
� !�� " � � �
� �7 8 ( �9 : �� � �0 3 �
# � � �
� ) � " � � � � !� � � �
� � � � � � � � !� � � �
� ��� � � � � # � ) �
� � � �� � � �
� 0 ; 3 < �9 : �� � �0 3 �
# � ��
� �� � � � � � # � � ��
� � � ���� � � � � # � � � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
�� � � � �� � � � � � � � / �
� ''� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� �� � � � � � � � �
� " / � � � � � / � � � / �
� # � ) �� � � � � �� ) �
� # � / � � � � � ���
� � � � �� � � � � � � �� ) �
� � � � ) � � � � � : 9 � � �9 : �� �� � � � ���
� !�� " � � � � � � �
� !� ��� " � � ��
� ; = � ( � 3 > 9 �9 : �� � �0 3 � � " � ��
� � � � � � � � � & " " � � �� � � �� � � �����
� � � � � � � �
: � 3 3 9 ? �0 @ �� 6 9 � A �3 7 � � � � � ��
�� �� � � � � � � �� ) �����
( �� � ''� � � � � � � �� � � � ( � � A �B 9 ? = � � � � � / �
�� �� � � � � � �� �� � �/ �
�� � � � # � �� � �
� � � � � �
= ? 9 � ( 8 9 �B 9 ? = � �
� � � ) � �
�� ) � � � � # * �( � � � � � ( �" & � �& � �
� � � �
$ & ( �# * �' & � � � � � � �
� � � �����
� � � �� � � � � � " � �������
METHOD (1)� Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995):
� Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk, dance…� [TOTAL: 41]
� Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge, happen, arrive…� [TOTAL: 32]
METHOD (1)� Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995):
� Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk, dance…� [TOTAL: 41]
� Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge, happen, arrive…� [TOTAL: 32]
METHOD� Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995):
� Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk, dance…� [TOTAL: 41]
� Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge, happen, arrive…� [TOTAL: 32]
20
Corpora� Corpora:
� L1 Spa – L2 Eng � Eng natives
� Query software: WordSmith v. 4.0 (Scott 2004)
Table 1: Corpora details Learner corpora Native corpus Words ICLE-Spanish
WriCLE
200,376 63,836
LOCNESS USarg LOCNESS USmixed LOCNESS Alevels LOCNESS BRsur
149,574 18,826 60,209 59,568
Total no. of words 264,212 288,177
Corpus Verb type Usable concordances Unerg 181 Learner Unac 820 Unerg 185 Native Unac 719
TOTAL 1905
![Page 6: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
21
100.0%
0.0%
92.9%
7.1%
100.0%
0.0%
97.8%
2.3%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SV VS SV VS
Unerg Unac
Freq
uenc
y of
pro
duct
ion
(in %
)
Learners
Natives
H1 results: syntax-lexicon
Table 1: Frequency of postverbal subjects produced Corpus Verb type Postverbal subjects Usable concordances % frequency
Unerg 0 181 0% Learner Unac 58 820 7.1% Unerg 0 185 0% Native Unac 16 719 2.2%
22
H1: Unaccusative: grammatical vs ungrammatical VS
� There-insertion:Natives: There exists a demand for this work to be done…Learners: There exist positive means of earning money.
� AdvP-insertion:Natives: Thus began the campaign to educate the public…Learners: …and here emerges the problem.
� Locative inversion:Natives: [no production]Learners: In the main plot appear the main characters: Volpone and Mosca.
� * it-insertion:Learners: *In the name of religion it had occurred some important events.
� * Ø-insertion:Learners: …*because exist the science technology and the industrialisation.
� * XP-insertion:Learners: *In 1760 occurs the restoration of Charles II in England.
GRAMM.
UNGRAM.
Natives
100.0%
0.0%
Unac VS GramUnac VS Ungram
Learners
36.2%
63.8%
23
H1: Unaccusative: grammatical vs ungrammatical VS
� According to structure type
�C D
�$ C$ D�� C' D
�- C D �- C� D' C& D
- C- D - C- D
� C' D
� E C$ D
�' C' D
- C- D
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
*It-insertion Locativeinversion
XP-insertion There-insertion
AdvP-insertion
*Ø-insertion
Type of preverbal material
Freq
uen
cy o
f pro
duct
ion
(in
%)
LearnersNatives
Ungrammatical Ungrammatical
24
H1: Syntax-lexiconNs vs NNs: Verbs in VS structures
LOCNESS: inv/total concs
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,1
1,3
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,7
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,1
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0% 0,5% 1% 1,5% 2% 2,5% 3%
APPEAR
ARISE
ARRIVE
AWAKE
BEGIN
COM E
DEVELOP
DIE
DISAPPEAR
DROP
EM ERGE
ENTER
ESCAPE
EXIST
FALL
FLOW
FOLLOW
GO
GROW
HAPPEN
HIDE
LEAVE
LIVE
OCCUR
PASS
REM AIN
RETURN
RISE
SETTLE
SPREAD
SURVIVE
Frequency of inversion (%)
Spanish ICLE & WriCLE: inv/total concs
1,7
0,2
0,0
0,0
0,6
0,5
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,0
0,2
0,0
0,0
2,9
0,1
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,2
0,0
0,1
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0% 0,5% 1% 1,5% 2% 2,5% 3%
APPEAR
ARISE
ARRIVE
AWAKE
BEGIN
COM E
DEVELOP
DIE
DISAPPEAR
DROP
EM ERGE
ENTER
ESCAPE
EXIST
FALL
FLOW
FOLLOW
GO
GROW
HAPPEN
HIDE
LEAVE
LIVE
OCCUR
PASS
REM AIN
RETURN
RISE
SETTLE
SPREAD
SURVIVE
Frequency of inversion (%)
![Page 7: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
250 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728
Weight (# of w ords)
���
��
� ��
�
�
�
�
�
�SV natives
SV learners
VS natives
VS learners
H2 results: syntax-phonology
26
H2: measuring weightTable 1: A syntactic scale for measuring syntactic weight
SYNTACTIC WEIGHT SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE
NOMINAL SCALE ORDINAL SCALE
0 (D) N PRN
LIGHT
1 (D) ADJ N
(D) N
(D) ADJ* N 2
(D) (ADJ) N*
PP
(D) (D)
(ADJ)
N N
PP* AdjP*
(D) ADJ N PP
(D) N IP/CP
(D) (ADJ) N* PP*
HEAVY
3
(D) ADJ N* (PP*)
Notes: (i) The asterisk (*) represents a complex (i.e., recursive) categorical or phrasal structure. (ii) Parentheses indicate the optional realization of the bracketed category or phrase.
We used this
27
67.7%
32.3%
19.0%
81.0%
68.1%
31.9%
18.8%
81.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Light Heavy Light Heavy
SV VS
Freq
uenc
y of
pro
duct
ion
(in %
)
Learners
Natives
H2 results: syntax-phonology
Table 1: Weight of pre-verbal and post-verbal subjects with unaccusatives (nominal scale) Corpus Weight SV order VS order
Light 65/96 (67.7%) 11/58 (19.0%) Learner Heavy 31/96 (32.3%) 47/58 (81.0%) Light 62/91 (68.1%) 3/16 (18.8%) Native Heavy 29/91 (31.9%) 13/16 (81.3%)
28
Examples H2: syntax-phonologySV: typically LIGHT (Pronoun, D + N)
� � � � � 4� �# � ������ � � � � � � �� � � � " � � � �
�� �� � � �������� � � � � �� ��� �� � � �
3 ��� � � 4� � �������+ ���� # � ) � �� � � ��" � � � � � � � ) � �
���� ����� �� � �� � �� � � �� �� �� � � ��� � ��� � �� �
VS: typically HEAVY (postmodification)
� � � � � 4 � ) �� � ���� �� �� � � �� �� � � �� � � ) � ��� ��������� ��������+ ��& �� � �, ����
�� ��$ � � � ��� ��� �
- � � �� �� �� � ���� �� � �� ��� �������������� ���� ��������������+ ��
� ������ �������� ��
3 ��� � � 4 . ��� ��� �� ��� � � � � �� � �� � � ������� �����. ��� ��� �� �� ��� � ��
( � � � �# � ) � ������ �� ��� � �������� ����������+ �� ��� ���� ��� ��� �� � �� ������.
![Page 8: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
29
89.6%
10.4%
1.7%
98.3%
83.5%
16.5%
0.0%
100.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Top Foc Top Foc
SV VS
Freq
uenc
y of
pro
duct
ion
(in %
)
Learners
Natives
H3: syntax-discourse
Corpus Weight SV order VS order Light 65/96 (67.7%) 11/58 (19.0%) Learner Heavy 31/96 (32.3%) 47/58 (81.0%) Light 62/91 (68.1%) 3/16 (18.8%) Native Heavy 29/91 (31.9%) 13/16 (81.3%)
30
80.0%
20.0%
100.0%
0.0%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Topic Focus
Preverbal Material
Fre
qu
ency
of
pro
du
ctio
n (
in %
)
Learners
Natives
H3: syntax-discourse
XP Vunacc S
31
Examples H3: syntax-discourse
VS: FOCUS
# �� � � �4 ( � � �� � �� �� � � � �� !�� � � C� � ��� �F� � � C�� �� � �� � � � � � � ) � � � � � � *� +� � ) � � � � � � �� ��� �
/ � � � �" �� � �� ) �( B ���� �� � �� �" � �� * +� � !� � � �!!� � � ��� � � � � �� C� � �� � � � �� � � �� � � � �
� � � ��� � ��� " � �� � � � � �� ��@ � �� � � � � ��� � � � �� � �� � �� �� ���� ���� � ����������� ���
� ��� � ����� �� ����� �����+ ������
� ��� ��4 8 � � � ��� �" ��� � � � � �� � � �� !�� �� �� �� � ��� � � � �� �� �� � ��� � � ���� � � �# �� �� �� � � ��" � / �
" � � � �� �# � ��9 �� � ��� � � � � �� � �� ��� � �� � � � � ��� ��� � � ) � �� �� ��� � � � ��� �� � � �� �� �" �!� G� ��" � �
# � �� ��� �� � �� � ��!�� ��� �� �� � C����� � � � �� � �# � � � � � � ��� ��� � ��� � � �� !�� � � � �
� � �� �� � � � ��( � � ��� � � � ��G� �� � � / �� ) �� !��� �� � ��� ��� ��. ��� ��� �� ��� � � � � �� � �� � � ����� ���
��. ��� ��� �� �� ��� � ��
SV: typically TOPIC
# �� � � �4 ��� � � ��� � ��� �� � � � � ��!�� �" �� � " � � �!��� � � �� � � � �� � � � � �� !��� � � � �" �� � " � � ������
� � ��� � � � � � �� � � � �# � � � � � � �� � �� �� � � � �� � �� �� � ��� �
� ��� ��4� 8 � " � � � C�8 � ) � �� �� � ��� � � � �� � � � �� ��� � / �� � � � �� � � � � ��� � ��� �8 � ) � � ) �� � � � � �
!� � � �# � � ) � � �� �� �! � ��� �
32
Conclusion
V S
S V
Unacc FocusHeavy
UnaccTopicLight
Interfaces:
�Lexicon-syntax
�Syntax-discourse
�Syntax-phonology
Information status
Vunac S
Topic
Focus
Light
Preverbal ---
Wei
ght
Heavy
--- Postverbal
ContingencyTable
![Page 9: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
33
Conclusion (2)� These results confirm that Spanish L2 learners of English produce
postverbal subjects under exactly the same 3 interface conditions as in L1 English (unaccusativity being a necessary but not a sufficient condition).� Unaccusativity Hypothesis: postverbal subjects appear with unaccs.� End-weight principle: postverbal subjects tend to be long and complex.� End-focus principle: postverbal subjects tend to be focus.
� So, learners do not show a pragmatic deficit at the syntax-discourse interface.
� Learners show rather a persistent problems in the syntactic encodingof the construction ���� syntactic deficit� High production of ungrammatical examples (it-insertion, Ø-insertion).� Spanish learners overuse the construction and show a lexical bias for the V exist.
Example� * … it will not exist a machine or something able to imitate the human
imagination.
34
Next question� Our results: Language specific or universal pattern or just
random behaviour?
� Are other learners guided by the same 3 principles?
� Second corpus study�� L1 Italian L1 Italian –– L2 Eng L2 Eng vsvs L1 Spa L1 Spa –– L2 EngL2 Eng (Lozano &
Mendikoetxea 2008): same results� Unaccusativity Hypothesis: postverbal subjects appear only with
unaccusatives.� End-weight principle: postverbal subjects tend to be long and
complex.� End-focus principle: postverbal subjects tend to be focus.
� Also: evidence from L1 French L1 French –– L2 Eng L2 Eng (unpublished results yet).
35
CORPUS STUDY #2
V-S structures in:� L1 Spa – L2 Eng� L1 Ital – L2 Eng
� Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish and Italian learners of L2 English: a corpus analysis. In: Gilquin, G., Papp, S., Díez-Bedmar, M.B. (eds). Linking up contrastive and corpus learner research. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 85-125.
� Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Verb-Subject order in L2 English: newevidence from the ICLE corpus. In: Monroy, R. & Sánchez, A. (eds). 25 años de Lingüística Aplicada en España: Hitos y retos / 25 Years of Applied Linguistics in Spain: Milestones and Challenges. Murcia: Editum, pp. 97-113.
� Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2007). Learner corpora and the acquisition of wordorder: A study of the production of Verb-Subject structures in L2 English. In: Matthew Davies, Paul Rayson, Susan Hunston, Pernilla Danielsson (eds) Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 2007, University of Birmingham. [available online]
36
Corpus Study #2 Italian/Spanish L1 - English L2
� Main question:Do learners (with different L1s) produce postverbal subjects under the same conditions as Eng nativesdo, irrespective of problems with their syntacticenconding (grammaticality)?
ENGLISH and SPANISH/ITALIAN differ in devices employed forconstituent ordering: English ‘fixed’ order is determined by lexico-syntactic properties and Spanish/Italian ‘free’ order is determined by information structure, syntax-discourseproperties.
![Page 10: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
37
Method (2)� Learner corpus: L1 Spa – L2 Eng; L1 Ital – L2 Eng
� ICLE (Granger et al. 2002)
(Problem: proficiency level?)
� WordSmith v. 4.0 (Scott 2004)� � Concordance queries can be performed automatically with WordSmith,
by targetting specific verbs BUT there is a lot of manual work (filtering out unusable data, coding data in Excel, analysing data in SPSS, etc).
Corpus Number of essays Number of words ICLE Spanish 251 200,376 ICLE Italian 392 227,085
TOTAL 643 427,461
Subcorpus V type # usable concordances Unergative 153 Spanish Unaccusative 640 Unergative 143 Italian Unaccusative 574
TOTAL 1510
38
H1 results: syntax-lexicon�- - D
- D
, � D
' ��- D
�- - D
- D
, E D
� �& - D
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SV VS SV VS
Unerg Unac
% o
f pro
duct
ion
SpanishItalian
Subcorpus V type # postverbal S # usable concordances Rate (%) Spanish Unergative 0 153 0/153 (0%) Unaccusative 52 640 52/640 (8.1%) Italian Unergative 0 143 0/143 (0%) Unaccusative 15 574 15/574 (2.6%)
39
H1: Unaccusative VS: grammatical vs ungrammatical
� Locative inversion:In some places still exist popularly supported death penalty. (L1 Spa)…on the earth lived people which were born-criminal. (L1 Ital)
� There-insertion:…there also exists a wide variety of optional channels which have to be paid. (L1 Spa)…there still remains a predominance of men over women. (L1 Ital)
� AdvP-insertion:Then come the necessity to earn more… (L1 Spa)Later came a world of disorder… (L1 Ital)
� * it-insertion:*In the name of religion it had occurred many important events … (L1 Spa)*…it still live some farmers who have field and farmhouses. (L1 Ital)
� * Ø-insertion:…exist volunteers with such a feeling against it. (L1 Spa)…exist factors which, on long term, can predispose human mind to that crime… (L1 Ital)
� * XP-insertion:…and from this moment begins the avarice. (L1 Spa)[no instances found in Italian corpus]
GRAM.
UNGRAM.
Spanish Italian
34.6%
65.4%
46.7%53.3%
Unac VS GramUnac VS Ungram
40
there-insertion
AdvP-insertion
Ø-insertion
XP-insertion
Loc inversion
it-insertion
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Prod
uctio
n ra
te (%
)
13
20
7
0
33
27
121010
1515
38
VS Italian ICLEVS Spanish ICLE
Group
Result: Unaccusative:Type of VS structures
![Page 11: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
41
Result H1: VS and specific unaccusative verbsL1 Spa vs L1 Ital
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.3 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.0
0.5 0.0 0.0
0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.3 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.0
1.7 0.3
0.0 0.0
0.6 0.6
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.3
0.0 0.0
3.4
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.3 0.0
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
APPEAR ARISE
ARRIVE AWAKE
BEGIN COME
DEVELOP DIE
DISAPPEAR DROP
EMERGE ENTER
ESCAPE EXIST FALL
FLOW FOLLOW
GO GROW
HAPPEN HIDE
LEAVE LIVE
OCCUR PASS
REMAIN RETURN
RISE SETTLE
SPREAD SURVIVE
Frequency of inversion (%)
Spa Ital
42
H2 results: syntax-phonology
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213141516171819202122 232425
Weight (# of words)
VS Spanish ICLE
VS Italian ICLE
SV Spanish ICLE
SV Italian ICLE
Gro
up
� �
�
��
���
�
�� �
�
�
�
�
43
Examples H2: syntax-phonology
SV: typically LIGHT
������������� � � � � � �� � �� �C�� �� ��� � �
� ���� � � � � � �� � �� ��� �� ���� ��
VS: typically HEAVY����" ����� � ��� � �� ����� �� �� ��� ���� ���� � ��+ ������� ������������ �� �� �� � ���� �� ��� � �
�� � � ) � � �����������/��� � � �� � ��� ���� � � �� �0��� �� �� ���� ��
44
H3: syntax-discourse
��, D
, ' ��D
, - �& D
, � D
- �- D
�- - �- D
����D
' ' �, D
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Top Foc Top Foc
SV VS
SpanishItalian
Discourse status (topic/focus) has to be measured manuallyby establishing theoretical criteria and then by checking thecontext (or even the essay) manually
![Page 12: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
45
Examples H3: syntax-discourse
VS: FOCUS
�� ��� � �" � � C� � � �� �� �# � �� � �� � � � C��� � � � � �� ) � � � ��� � � �� ��� ��� � C��� � � ��� �� � � �� � � � �!� � � � �� ) � � �
�� ) �� ��� � ��( � � / � ��� �� � �� � � � � � ���� �� � � � � � � � � � � � C��� � � � � �� ) � � � ��� � � � �� ��� ��� � C� � � � � �����+ � �
�� �� ����� ������� ������� ������� ���� ��� � �
���� � � � � ��� � � � � �# �� C�# � �� ��� � � ) � �" � �� � � �� � " �� � � � ��� � � ) � ��� � � � � �� ) � � �� �) � �� � � �� !���!� C�" � � � �� � � �
� � � � �� �� �� ������ � � � � � � �� � ) � � � �� � �� �� �� � �� � ��� ) �� ��� � � � ��� � � !� � ��� � ��� � � �!� �� � ����� �� ) � ����� � �) �� � �
!� " �� � � � �� � ��� ��� � � � � �! � �4��� �� � �� �� � ��� �# � � � � �� ) �� �� �� ��� � / ���� �� !�� � � � � � ��� � �# � �" � � � �� � � �� � � �
� � �� � � H������ � �� � � �� �� � � � �� ) ������������ �� � �� � ������� ����� �� ��C�� �� � � ��� � � ��� ��� � ��� �� � � � � � ���� ��
�� ��
SV: typically TOPIC
( � � � � � � � ��� !� � ��� ) �� !�" � � � � " � � �� � � � �� �� ) �� � � � � �� ���. � � � � � � �� ��� �� � !� � �!� � �� �� � � �� � � �
�� �� �� � � ��# � �� ��� �) �� � � �� � � � �� � �� ��� ��� � �� � � � � � � ��*�+�1 �� ����� �� �� �� � � � � �" ��� � �� �� � ) � �
� � � � � ���� ��� � � �� ��� ��� � � ��� � � � �� � � ���� ��� � ��
( � � �� � �� !�9 � � � � � � � � � I���) � � � ��� � � � � �!!� � � � � � C�# � ���� ) �� # � � �� � � C� � � � � ���� � � � � �� � � � ��� � � �� � � � �� � ��
��� �� � � ���� ��*�+��!����� �� / �� !��� � �� � � � � � ��� !�9 � � � � ���� � � � ���� �� / �� !� � � �� �� ) � �� � ��� ��� !� �" � � �� �� !� �!!� � � �
� � � � ��� � C�# � ���� �� ����� ) � �� � �� � � � � ��� � �9 � � � � � �� � � ���� ��� ����� �� � �� � � � � �" � � �� � �� �� ��� ��� � �
9 � � � � � � �!� � ) � � ���� �� � � � �� � �!� � ) � ��� � � � ) �� � ���� � �� �� � ���� ���� ��
46
Conclusion
V S
S V
Unacc FocusHeavy
UnaccTopicLight
Interfaces:
����Lexicon-syntax
����Syntax-discourse
����Syntax-phonology
47
Overall pictureOVERALL PICTURECORPUS DATA
V-S structures in:� L1 Spa – L2 Eng� L1 Ital – L2 Eng� L1 Fre – L2 Eng
48
NNS vs. NS: comparisons across different NNS
97,4
91,9 92,997,7 97,8
2,6
8,1 7,1
2,3 2,2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Italian ICLE Spanish ICLE Spanish ICLE &WriCLE
French ICLE LOCNESS
Fre
qu
ency
(%
) o
f VS
pro
duc
tion
SV
VS
![Page 13: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
49
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FIELD� Linguistic Theory: better understanding of interfaces
� lexicon-syntax� syntax-discourse� syntax-phonology
� L2 acquisition: better understandingdevelopmental/universal phenomena and L1 transfer.
� Corpus studies: use of corpora for the study of formal features. Creation of Spanish learner corpus (CEDEL2).
� Converging evidence: use of naturalistic (corpus) data andexperimental (AGT) data.
50
CURRENT RESEARCH PROJECTS� Universidad de Granada
� Psycholinguistics: ongoing study� Processing of information structure in Spa-Eng bilinguals
� Cleft sentences: “It was John who broke the glass (not Mary)”
� ERP technique
� Universidad Autónoma de Madrid� New research project on optionality in L2 acquisition
� CEDEL2 corpus: L1 Eng – L2 Spa� WriCLE corpus: L1 Spa – L2 Eng
� Interfaces: syntax-discourse � Corpus data and quasi-experimental data� Our own tagging and concordance software: UAM CorpusTool
51
DiolchThank youGracias
52
� � 1 � � � � � � �23 4
� � � ���5�6 �� �5�� ��, ���� 5�� ��# ���� � � �5��� �� ��! � �� �� 27 8 8 8 45�9) ��� � ����� ���� �� � ���:�� ������ ������� �� �� ���� �� ���; ����� ����� �� ������������ �� �� ������ ��� �� � � /5���������5�< = :�7 > ?@ @ �
� $ ������5�� ��27 8 8 3 45�9 A�� � � ��� B ����� ��C ���� /5�� :�� �� ��) ��D �E �6 ?* �'����� D �2���45�= 8 ?F 8 �
� $ ������5�� ��27 8 8 G �45�2���4����������� ������ ������������������������������������� �� H ��� �� �* � D :�& ; � ��� � � � ����' ����
� $ ������5�� ��27 8 8 G + 45�� ���� ������������ ��'�� ��5��� :�# �� C C 2���4�������������������� ����������������������������������������� �� 7 ���� �� �* � D :�& ; � ��� � � � ����' ����
� $ + � 5�( �5�� ��6 ���� ���� 5�! ��# ��� �5�� ��� �� ����� ��� ��1 � �� �� 23 F F F 45������������������������������� ������������������# �� ��� :�# �� � � �� �
� $ � � 5�$ ��23 F F G 45��� � � ���� ���������� ��� � � ����� � � ��� 5���������� < 8 :�7 H H ?7 @ F �
� $ � � 5�$ ��23 F F @ 45�' �� � ��� �� �� �� �� ����� ������ � + �� �� � � ����� � � ��� 5�������� F < :�7 7 H ?7 @ = ��
� ( ��" � ���5�� ��23 F F H 4:�� �� �� �� � �� ���� � ��� �� ��� � � �I� ��� ������� � ��������� �� ��� � �������J����2����3 < > ?3 F @ 4���� �6 ��" ��# � � �� 2���4�������� !������������"������ ����������������������#���& ���� �:�( �� ��������
� � �� �� ��5�6 ��23 F F F 4��1 �� �� & � ����� � & :������ �� � � ���� �� ��� � ��� ��� � ��� �� ������ ����������$�����5�3 @ �27 4:�3 3 @ ?3 H 7
� ( �� K� � ��C 5�# ��27 8 8 G 45�%�������&���'����������(��� ����� �����&����������������$ ����� �� � � � ���:�� � ��+ ������'�( ����� ����� �
� ( �� K� � ��C 5�# �5��� ��� � ��5�" ��6 ��7 8 8 < ���( �� �� ������� ���� � ��� �# 7 �� ��� ��:������ ����� � � ��� �� �� � ���� ��'���� �� ���� �������! � # � �7 8 8 < �2! �� � ��� ��� �� ��� �������# �� � ��� ��� � . ����� 45�$ � � ���� �5�= ?> �� ����� + � .
� ) �� D � �5� ��7 8 8 3 ����� ��������� �����(���& ; � � :�$ ��� D � ���
� ) �� D � �5�6 ��23 F F G 45�)�������������������* ���� ���������������� �� + �� �:�� �� + �� ��� � � � ����' ����
� ) � ���5�� ��6 ��27 8 8 8 4:��������� �����������+��������������������,� �� �'���(������ � ��������������'�� � ���� �� ��� ������ � � � ���:�'�( ����� ����� �
� ) � ���5�� �6 ��27 8 8 H 4��# �; � ����� ����� �� ����� �� ��� �������� �� ����� � ��� ���� . ����� ���� ��� ���� � ��� �� ������ ����������$�����3 F :�7 < H ?H 8 G �
� ) � ���5�� ��6 ���� ��'L �C ?# � ��; 5�� ��� ��23 F F F 4:�� ������ �� ����� � ��� ���� . ����� ���� ��� ���� � ��� �� �� ��� �� � ����� � � � + ��2����7 7 > ?7 H F 4���� �! ��� ���5�� �5�# �������5�) ���� ��� �� �5�� ��2���4������ ������������-. ������l Boston University Conference on Language /�#���������0�1��/2��� �� � � ���5�" � �:�� ��� ����� ' ����
� ) ��D 5�� ��� �5��� ��6 ?* ��'����� D �2���4�27 8 8 3 45��34�����#���������$�������� ��������������1��#������������& ; � ��� ������� �� �� �� ��� ��� �� ��; ��& ; � �:�& ; � ��� � � � ����' ����
� 6 ��� � �5�& ���� ��M ��� � 2���4�23 F > F 45�����5������34�������������( � � �� ��:�M ��� � �
� M ��C �+ �D 5�'��27 8 8 3 45�9� �� � � ���� ��� �� � ���� � � ���� � ��� �:������ ������$ � /5�� :�'�� ����� 5�� ��, ���� 5�� ��" � � � � �5�� ��) � �� �� ��� ��2���45����� �����������������������������-667�����������# �� � ���� :�� � � � ����� �� � ��� �� �� ���� �� � ���� ���� � ���� �# �� � ��� �5�H 3 7 ?H 7 7 �
� # �� � 5�$ ��23 F F H 45���������8�3����������� �)����������'�)�������������#������������� �� �� �:�� � � � ������� �� �� ��' ����
� # �� � 5�$ ���� ��" �� ������ �?) �� �� �23 F F @ 45�1�������#�������������(������������9�����(��������5�� �� + �� �5�" � �:�" �� �' ����
� # � � ��5�6 �5�$ ��� ����� � �� � � ��� � + �����23 F F G 4��9# ���� �� � ������������ ���� �� �:�� �+ ��� ����� �N� �� ���������K��� �����������. ��� I� ���������J��/5�:�����������������@ :�G H ?> > ��
� # �C �� �5�� ��27 8 8 = �4��91 �� ����� �������� � �� ��� ��:�� ����� . ����� ���� � ��� �� ����� � ���� ��� �� �� ?� ��� ��� ��� ��/5����� ����������$�����7 7 :�3 ?G H ��
� # �C �� �5�� �27 8 8 = + 4��� ������ ����� �� ����������� ��; ?��� �� ���� �� �� �:�! ��D ���� � � ����� ��� ������ �����)+�����������������(����$������������������ ��� � �� ���� ��# ��� �� �+ � 5����������H < 3 ?H F F ��� � ��� ��� 5�6 ��� �$ �� 0�� � ��
![Page 14: STRUCTURE OF The phenomenon in SLAcristoballozano/PRESENTATIONS/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION (1) SPECIFIC AIMS: To characterize the interlanguage of advanced](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050105/5f43c0e2af4034641002b952/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
53
� � 1 � � � � � � �27 4
� # �C �� �5�� ��� � � ��" �� �D ���; ���27 8 8 < 45�;# �� � � �� � �� ���� �������� . ����� ���� � ��� �� :�� �������������� ���� ��� ���� � + ?� �+ 0�� ���� �� �� ���� �# 7 �� � � ���/���� ���������������������������������������-66<5��" ������ �( �� ��5�'���� ����� 5�� ���� �) �� ���� 5�'� � ��� ( �� ������2����45�� � � � ��������$ � � � ��� 5�$ � � � ��� �2! $ 4�'����:OO� � ����+ ��� ��� ��D O� � ��� � � �� ���� � �8 < O���� O3 3 H P '��� ���
� # �C �� �5�� � �� ��� ��" �� �D ���; ���27 8 8 > 45�9'���� � + �����+ 0�� ����������� �� �� ���� �� ��� ����� �������� ���� � � ����# 7 �� � � ���:���� � ���������/5�� �
! �. �� 5�! �5�� ��'��� E �$ ��( K�C 2���4���������������������#���� �������������$������� ����5�����> @ ?3 7 @
� # �C �� �5�� ���� ��� ��" �� �D ���; ���2� �� ��� ���� 45�9�� �� �� ��� �� ���� ���� ������ � + �����+ 0�� ��:���� � ������������9� � � ��� / � �� �� ?� ��� ��� �� � � �/5�2� ��45�� � � � ��������! �� ���O� � � � ������ ��I� �� � ���" �� ���
� " �� � ��5�� ��23 F F F 4:�� ������ ��� � ��� ����� �� � ����� � � � + ��� �# 7 �� ��� �������� ����������$�����5�3 @ 27 4:�3 F 3 ?7 3 F �
� '� �� ���� 5�( ��23 F < > 45�9�� �� ��� �������� ����� �������� �� � ����� �����������/5���������������)������%���������������������������������������5�G :�3 @ < ?3 > F �
� & � �� ��5�1 ��23 F F 8 4��� ����� . ����� �������� �� � ��� ����� � ��� �� �� � ���� �� ����D �� �� ��� ���+ ��� ��� ������D � ����� � � ������� �$ � � ���� 5�) ���� �� ��� ��5�'�# ��2����4�8���3������������� ����������)+���������2����@ 7 H ?@ H F 4��� �� �� �5�& :�� � � � ������& �� �� �
� & ����5�) ��27 8 8 G 45�9������ ���� ���� � ���� ��� ��� ����� ��� ������ �Q �� �����; ����� ���� ���� �� ����� � ��� ������/5����� ����������$�����7 8 :�F @ ?3 H 8 �
� '� ��5�" ��23 F F < 45������������ �������������������#��� ���34��������������5�� � �� ��:�# � ��
� C C 5�# ��23 F F < 45�9� ���� ���� �� �� �������������� ��� �/5�� :�# ��) ��� �� �� �2���45��������������������:�� 3��������������#�������(� �� 3 ��( � � �� ��:�M ��� � � � ���� � �'�+ ���� ��
� ���� � �5�, ��23 F > F 4��9�� �� ��� � ��� ���� ��� �� � ��� �� � ��� �� /5�� :�� ��! ��� �� ��6 ��� � ��� ���
� 2���45������������������#���������� ����������)+��������5�� �� + �� �:�� �� + �� ��� � � � ����' ���5�3 = H ?3 > 7 �
� � � ���5�" ��27 8 8 7 45�*(�� ��� �����������0#������=�62>& ; � �:�& ; � ��� � � � ����' ����
� � � �� �5�� ��23 F F H 45�9�� � �� ������� ����� � � �� �� �� ���� ����� ������ �� � ����� ���� �� �� � ��� ��� �� � � ���������� /5����� ����������$�����F :�7 7 ?G < �
� � � �� �5�� ��23 F F @ 45�9� � . � � � ��� D � � � ������� ��� � �� �� ���� �� �� ���� ������ �� ����� � ��� �/5�� :�# ��� �+ �� D 5�# ��� ��� D � 5�" ��� �� � ���?� � ���2���4�������������������������������'���� �������:��� ��������������$������ ���� � ��� ��� :�6 ��� �$ �� 0�� � �5�3 @ H ?3 < @ ��.
� � � �� �5�� ��27 8 8 8 �4��! ���� ���� ���; �� ������� ��� �� ���� � �� ��� � � � + �����������5�< = 2G 4:�> @ F ?> F 8
� � � �� �5�� �5�7 8 8 G ��� ��� ����� � ��� ����� ��� ��� ����� ����� �� ����� ���+ �������������� ��; ?��� �� ���� �� �� �:�( ���5�� �� � ������ ���� � � ��������
$ �� � ����� '��������� �� ��������� < 5�3 G H ?3 G @ �
� � �� ��5���?" ��27 8 8 3 4��# 1 ?� �� � ���+ ������ ����� � ��� ����� ����� �� �:������������ � + ����� � � �� � ������� ���� �! ��D �� � � �������� ����� � ��� ��� # ��� ��� �� ��������� ��������� < < :�G H 7 ?G G >
� � ������ K5�� ��23 F F H 4��� ����� � � ���� ���� �� ��� �� ���� � � � ������'�� � ���� �� �:�� � � �� �� �� � ��� ��� ���� � ���
� � ������ K5�� �5�E �� � � ����5�� ��23 F F = 4��� ����� � ���� � ���C ���� ���� � � ���� ���� D �� � � ��# � � ���� �5�H G 2H 45�G @ F ?@ 3 F �
� � ������ K5�� ��23 F F @ 4��� � �� �� ���� ��� ������� � � ���� ���� D �� � � �� �� ������ ���� �( �� �� ���� �� � � ���� �� # �� � ��� ���2����3 7 7 ?3 @ 7 4��� �� + �� �:�� �� + �� ��� � � � ����' ����
� R �+ �5�) ��23 F > F 4��9� �� �� � ���������� � ����� �� �� ����� ��� � ��� ���� �� � � ����# 7 ��� . ����� /5�� :�� ��! ��� �� ��6 ��� � ��� ��� 2���45������������������#���������� ����������)+��������5�� �� + �� �:�� �� + �� ��� � � � ����' ���5�7 8 H ?7 7 3 �
� R �+ C � ���5�" ��# ��23 F F > 45����� �>�&������ ��� �* �5�� �� + �� �5�" � :�" �� �' ����