structure of the phenomenon in slacristoballozano/presentations/2008... · 2010-06-24 · 5 aim of...

14
1 “It can exist a better world”: L2 syntax acquisition at the interfaces – new corpus evidence ERSC Centre for Research on Bilingualism Bangor (UK) 24th Nov 2008 Cristóbal Lozano Universidad 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: postverbal subjects (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: ! ! " " ! # $ % &

Upload: others

Post on 13-Jul-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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�" � :�" �� �' ����