Topic Hypothesis in ProcessabilityTh Th f S i hTheory: The case of Spanish

B R U N O D I B I A S EU N I V E R S I T Y O F W E S T E R N S Y D N E Y A U S T R A L I AU N I V E R S I T Y O F W E S T E R N S Y D N E Y , A U S T R A L I A

B A R B A R A H I N G E RU N I V E R S I T Y O F I N N S B R U C K , A U S T R I A

Pl it Please cite as:

i i i ( ) i h i i biliDi Biase, B., Hinger, B. (2011). Topic Hypothesis in ProcessabilityTheory: The case of Spanish. Presentation delivered at 11th PALA Symposium-Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition. Innsbruck, Austria, September 12-13, 2011.

Copyright © Di Biase, Bruno and Hinger, Barbara 2011

Aim

This study aims to test the Topic Hypothesis (Pienemann Di This study aims to test the Topic Hypothesis (Pienemann, Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2005) for Spanish*, a pro-drop Romance language, focusing on the Syntax-Discourse interface in PT within the framework of Processability Theory. within the framework of Processability Theory.

In particular, it investigates:th d l t f i l d i l d d i 1 the development of canonical and non-canonical word order in Spanish L2 (declarative syntax).

2 the relationship between the acquisition of WO and the acquisition of morphosyntax.

*PT work on Spanish is scant (e.g., Johnston 1995 – hypothesis but no data)

Research QuestionsQ

1 D S i h L2 h l d h t d l i 1. Does Spanish L2 morphology and morphosyntax develop in learners according to the PT-based hierarchy (Pienemann 1998)?1998)?

2. Does Spanish syntactic/discourse-pragmatic interface develop following the Topic Hypothesis? develop following the Topic Hypothesis?

3. Is there a relationship between these developmental paths?

PT: Hierarchy of processing procedures – Morphological development(after Pienemann 2005: 14)

STAGE t1 t2 t3 t4 t5

S-BAR – – – –interclausalinformation

PROCEDUREinformation exchange

SENTENCEinterphrasalinformation +

PROCEDURE– – – information

exchange+

PHRASALphrasal

i f iPHRASALPROCEDURE

– – informationexchange

+ +

CATEGORY lexicalCATEGORYPROCEDURE

– lexicalform variation + + +

i i t fLEMMA ACCESS

invariant forms & formulas + + + +

Developmental stages for Spanish L2 morphology(based on Italian cf. Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2002)

PROCEDURE MORPHOLOGICAL OUTCOME/STAGE L2 STRUCTURE EXAMPLE

S-BAR PROCEDURE

INTERCLAUSAL MORPHOLOGY

subjunctive marking in b di ti

a mí me parece ridículo que cada familia tenga dos coches

(i ) idi l h h f il h 3PSUBJPROCEDURE MORPHOLOGY subordination to me (it) seems ridiculous that each family has3PSUBJ two cars

SENTENCE PROCEDURE

INTERPHRASAL MORPHOLOGY

agreement

TOP & clitic-OBJ

a ella también le gustan las plantas to her also 3PSINGDAT like3PPL thePL plantsPLl lPROCEDURE MORPHOLOGY agreement NPsubj &

Predicative Adjectivelas ramas son largas theFemPL branches are longFemPL

VERB PHRASAL MORPHOLOGY

Number AgreementCopula & PredAdjective

(...) son muy finas… (they) are3PPL very thinPL

PHRASAL PROCEDURE

Adjective ( y) y

NOUN PHRASAL MORPHOLOGY

Number agreement within NP

sí y cuantos . cuantas personas hay?yes and how manyMascPl . how manyFemPLpeopleFemPL are there?

h h i d ltno hay .. hay seis adultosno there .. there are six adults

CATEGORY PROCEDURE

LEXICAL FORM VARIATION

Tense/aspect marking marking on Verb

He leído un artículo(I) have read an article PROCEDURE VARIATION g

-s plural marking on Noun

( )hay niños(there) are children

LEMMA ACCESS SINGLE WORDS; FORMULAS single words; formulas

Hola! me llamo Zoe.Hi! m name is ZoeFORMULAS Hi! my name is Zoe

The staged development of syntax (after Pienemann Di Biase and Kawaguchi 2005; Di Biase & Kawaguchi

STAGE t1 t2 t3 t4

(after Pienemann, Di Biase and Kawaguchi, 2005; Di Biase & Kawaguchi,submitted).

STAGE t1 t2 t3 t4

XPDF MARKEDALIGNMENT

– – –topicalisation of core argument

ALIGNMENTg

other than SUBJ

XPDF

UNMARKEDXPTOP

canonicalXPTOP

canonical wordUNMARKEDALIGNMENT

– – canonical word order

canonical word order

UNMARKED – canonicald d

canonicald d

canonicald dALIGNMENT word order word order word order

LEMMAACCESS

single words;formulas

single words;formulas

single words;formulas

single words;formulasACCESS

Syntactic development:The Unmarked Alignment HypothesisThe Unmarked Alignment Hypothesis

I d l i iti l ill i iti llIn second language acquisition learners will initiallyorganise syntax by mapping the most prominent semanticrole available (agent experiencer) onto the most prominentrole available (agent, experiencer) onto the most prominentgrammatical role (the subject). The structural expression ofthe subject, in turn, will occupy the most prominent linearj , , py pposition (the initial one) in c-structure. (Pienemann, Di Biaseand Kawaguchi 2005: 229)

Language-specific canonical word order and processing frames.

S S

NAGENT V NPATIENT NAGENT NPATIENT VSpanish / English Japanese

In prod-drop languages, e.g. Spanish, a sentential subject can be optionally realised on the surface under certain discourse conditions (new topic/change of realised on the surface under certain discourse conditions (new topic/change of topic, referential contrast or disambiguation). The important fact is that a null-subject sentence in such a language is always grammatically, but not necessarily pragmatically, correct.pragmatically, correct.

Learners are not necessarily aware of the discourse constraints (e.g.,informativeness, cf. Serratrice 2007) imposed by the language, but they will, 7) p y g g , ysound ‘correct’ even though the L2 Subject function may be underspecified.

Topic/Focus from a psycholinguistic point of view:

10Speaker’s choices (Levelt, 1989)

In encoding a message speakers can choose between ffi i d i f b i daffirmative and question forms, between active and

passive. They may also choose to place constituents in prominent positions by topicalizing them or they may p p y p g y ychoose not to do so. (e.g. demoting or pro-drop)

Levelt (1989, 260ff) demonstrates that in discourse, k h li i ti d i t id th li t ’ speakers use such linguistic devices to guide the listener’s

attention: they contribute to the (efficient) representation of meaning in the hearer.

This makes for effective communication (between mature native speakers).

Levelt places the location of this information within the discourse model (hence, in the conceptualiser).

SLA: Topic and lexical mapping

Prominence11

Prominence

So, Levelt (1989) shows in his discourse model that , ( 9 9)speakers attribute prominence in discourse in at least three ways:

by mapping an argument in the most prominent syntactic position (i.e., making it the SUBJ)y p , g

by early appearance in the sentence

by prosodic means (e.g. pitch accent)

Languages use and combine these three strategies in their own specific ways.

SLA: Topic and lexical mapping

From a grammatical point of view LFGg p(Bresnan 2001) formalizes Topic and Focus at the sentence level as grammaticised discourse functions differentiating them from argument functions. Topic and Focus must be linked to non-discourse function (extended coherence).

Subject participates in both functional categories .

Discoursefunctions

DF

nondiscourse fns discourse functions

DFDFs DFsargument functions

GFsnonargument fns

core functions noncore functionscore functions noncore functions

SUBJ OBJ OBJθ OBLθ COMP ADJ FOC TOP

LFG: Grammatical functions and their subdivisions (after Falk 2001: §3.1)LFG: Grammatical functions and their subdivisions (after Falk 2001: §3.1)

Competition between argument and discourse functionsCompetition between argument and discourse functions

I l h t l l id tifi d b In languages where arguments are regularly identified by position, i.e., rely on a given Canonical order to identify argument role (rather than by morphology alone such as argument role (rather than by morphology alone, such as Warlpiri, cf. Bresnan 2001) functional uncertainty is triggered when prominence is assigned to functions other gg p gthan the Subject.

This may be resolved by extra morphological and/or syntactic and/or prosodic marking.

a-structure, f-structure and c-structure

A-structure, f-structure and c-structure of the sentence las manzanas las compro’ Jordi (‘the apples, [them] Jordi bought’)

comprar <agent, theme>

O ‘ l ’

CP NP C’ (↑TOP)=↓ ↑=↓

TOP PRED ‘apples’ DEF + NUM PL GEND FEM PRED ‘buy <SUBJ, OBJ>’

Det N IP ↑=↓ ↑=↓ ↑=↓ las manzanas I’ NP

↑=↓ (↑SUBJ)=↓y , TENSE PAST SUBJ PRED ‘Jordi’ NUM SG PERS 3

↑=↓ (↑SUBJ)=↓ VP N ↑=↓ ↑=↓

V’ JordiS 3 OBJ PRED ‘pro’ NUM PL GEND FEM PERS 3

V Jordi ↑=↓ Cl V (↑OBJ)=↓ ↑=↓

CASE ACC las compro’

The Topic Hypothesisp yp

The Topic Hypothesis: In second language acquisition learners will initially not differentiate between SUBJ and learners will initially not differentiate between SUBJ and TOP. The addition of an XP to a canonical string will trigger a differentiation of TOP and SUBJ which first extends to a differentiation of TOP and SUBJ which first extends to non-arguments and successively to arguments thus causing further structural consequences (Pienemann, Di Biase and Kawaguchi 2005: 239).

Developmental stages for Spanish syntax based on the Topic Hypothesis –Declaratives (compare with Italian in Di Biase & Bettoni 2007)

STAGE STRUCTURE EXAMPLETOPi CliticGF-i-V SUBJ a ella también le gustan las plantas

Declaratives (compare with Italian in Di Biase & Bettoni 2007)

MARKED ALIGNMENT(topicalisation of GF) and post-V subjectV SUBJ(focalisation of SUBJ)

a ella también le gustan las plantasto her also 3PSINGDAT like3PPL thePL plantsPL(she also likes plants)SUBJ) (she also likes plants)

XP + UNMARKED ALIGNMENT

TOP + canonical order(topicalisation of ADJ)

frecuentemente vamos al cinefrequently go1P-PL to the cinema( ft t th i )( p ) (we often go to the cinema)Los argentinos comen muchas carnethePL Argentinians eat many meat

D t b jUNMARKED ALIGNMENT

canonical word order= SVO(including prodrop)

Dos personas trabajantwo people worktenemos muchos turistaswe have many touristsyCantasing

LEMMA ACCESS single words; formulas Hola! [hello]LEMMA ACCESS single words; formulas [ ]

Me llamo Zoe (My name is Zoe)

Study Designy g

C ti l d t t2 Cross-sectional data sets6 Australian informants (university students) 5 L1 English 1 Bilingual Swedish EnglishBilingual Swedish-Englishage range: 19 to 27 (mean: 21,8)

Instruction: 1 academic year of Spanisho d y o Sp

6 Austrian informants (Higher Secondary students) L1 Germanage range: 18 to 20 years (mean: 19)

Instruction: 3 Years of Secondary School Spanish

Data Elicitation

A t li i f tAustralian informantsInterview with researcher

A i i fAustrian informantsTwo paired elicitation tasks followed by a brief conversationwith the researcherwith the researcher

Elicitation task 1

Elicitation task 2Elicitation task 2

Text and picture prompt-based

Descriptive statistics of the data setsp

informants types tokens type/token Turns Clauses informants types tokens type/token ratio

Turns(n=2207)

Clauses (n=995)

CA 428 1794 0,23 293 77

ZO 6 6 6 6ZO 356 1626 0,22 264 94

LI 444 2030 0,22 358 93

VI 373 1492 0 25 263 42VI 373 1492 0,25 263 42

KE 314 1256 0,25 214 42

EM 334 1652 0,20 252 121

GA 164 370 0,44 85 35

VE 224 611 0,37 74 55

RO 323 1025 0,32 102 116

TH 174 376 0,46 58 49

BI 241 738 0 33 94 80BI 241 738 0,33 94 80

JE 403 1444 0,28 150 151

Descriptive statistics of the data setsp

Australian data Austrian dataAustralian data Austrian data

Type: Mean 374,83 254,83

Type: Range 130 239

Type: Minimum-Maximum 314-444 164-403

6 6 6 6Token: Mean 1641,67 760,67

Token: Range 774 1074

Token: Min Max 1256-2030 370-1444Token: Min.-Max. 1256 2030 370 1444

type/token: Mean 0,23 0,37yp /

type/token: Range 0,05 0,18

type/token: Min.-Max. 0,20-0,25 0,28-0,46

Descriptive statistics of the data setsp

Australian data Austrian dataAustralian data Austrian data

Turns: Mean 274 93,38

Turns: Range 144 92

Turns: Minimum-Maximum 214-358 58-150

8Clauses: Mean 78,2 93,9

Clauses: Range 79 116

Clauses: Min Max 42-121 35-151Clauses: Min.-Max. 42 121 35 151

Results: Morphosyntax, Australiap y ,

Stage Structure KE VI CA ZO LI EMStage Structure KE VI CA ZO LI EM

5 subjunctive 0 0 0 0 0 0

pred.adj.‐subj.ref. singular fem; plural 1/1 1 0 ‐4 1 14

p j j

default (masc sg) 0 1 ‐1 0 0 0

NP‐V agreement plural 2/5 ‐1 1 2/11 1/2 3/6

singular 6 9 14/15 15 21 22/23

3pred.adj.‐null subj. singular fem; plural 0 0 0 2/3 2 3

default (masc sg) 3 5 10 7 10 33 default (masc sg) 3 5 10 7 10 3

NP agreement singular fem  ‐1 1/2 4/6 7/10 3/4 4/5

plural 2/4 7/14 4/5 8/11 8/11 3/4p / / / / / /

Results: Morphosyntax, Austriap y ,

Stage Structure VE GA TH BI RO JEStage Structure VE GA TH BI RO JE

5 subjunctive 0 ‐3 ‐3 2/5 3/5 5/6

pred.adj.‐subj.ref. singular fem; plural 1/4 1/4 1 1 2/4 44 default (masc sg) 1 1 0 2 4 3

NP‐V agreement plural 8 2 4 3/4 6 12

singular 9 11/12 8 19 14 31

3pred.adj.‐nullsubj. singular fem; plural 2 2 1 2 0 3/4

default (masc sg) 4 2 1 2 5 163 default (masc sg) 4 2 1 2 5 16

NP agreement singular fem  2 0 3 9/10 5 11

plural 11 5 6 10 9/11 29

Results: syntax, Australiay ,

Syntax Structure CA VI KE ZO EM LISyntax Structure CA VI KE ZO EM LI

XPDF Marked Alignment

TOP CliticOBJ V S(ref) 0 0 0 ‐1 0 0

TOP CliticOBJ V 1 0 0 ‐1 ‐1 ‐5

XPDF Unmarked Alignment

TOPADJ

canonical orderTOPADJ S(ref/pron) V (X) 0 1 0 2 0 1

TOPADJ V (X) 1 1 2 8 9 6

Unmarked Alignment

canonical word order

S(ref) V (X) 19 11 9 28 32 25

S(pron) V (X) 15 1 1 5 10 19

V (X) 41 28 30 49 69 37V (X) 41 28 30 49 69 37

Results: Syntax, Austriay ,

Syntax Structure GA VE RO TH BI JESyntax Structure GA VE RO TH BI JE

XPDF Marked Alignment

TOP CliticOBJ V S(ref) 0 0 0 0 0 2

TOP CliticOBJ V 0 1 1 2 2 3

XPDF Unmarked Alignment

TOPADJ

canonical orderTOPADJ S(ref/pron) V (X) 1 0 1 0 2 0

TOPADJ V (X) 1 6 4 4 8 20

Unmarked Alignment

canonical word order

S(ref) V (X) 14 16 19 11 14 37

S(pron) V (X) 2 1 15 1 3 16

V (X) 17 31 76 31 51 73V (X) 17 31 76 31 51 73

Results syntax: XPDF UNMARKED ALIGNMENT (examples)XPDF UNMARKED ALIGNMENT (examples)

( ) l d i (l h) i l l [LI](1) y el domingo (laugh) iremos a la playa [LI]

(2) frecuentemente vamos al cine [EM]

(3) siempre vienen en coche [TH]

(4) especialmente en julio o agosto tienen(4) p j ggrandes problemas [JE]

Results syntax: XPDF UNMARKED ALIGNMENT (examples)XPDF UNMARKED ALIGNMENT (examples)

( ) i t d i h í (5) pues primero tengo que decir ahora que a mí me parece ridículo que cada familia tenga dos coches [JE] [JE]

(6) a ella también le gustan las plantas [JE]

(7) * yo no me gusta .. demasiada [LI]

(8) * nosotros . nos gusta [LI]

(9) Schwaz ah sí … lo conozco … lo he visitado una vez … [TH][ ]

Morphosyntax - Syntax interface (individual)o p osy ta Sy ta te ace ( )

Stage Structure VE VE Structure Syntaxg

5 subjunctive 0

pred.adj.‐subj.ref. singular fem; plural 1/4

Syntax

0 TOP CliticOBJ V S(ref) XPDFMarked Alignment1 TOP CliticOBJ V

4default (masc sg) 1

NP‐V agreement plural 8

i l 9

0 TOPADJ S(ref/pron) V (X) TOPADJcanonical order

XPDFUnmarked Alignment6 TOPADJ V (X)

16 S( f) V (X)singular 9

3pred.adj.‐null subj. singular fem; plural 2

default (masc sg) 4

16 S(ref) V (X) canonical word order

Unmarked Alignment

1 S(pron) V (X)

31 V (X)( g)

NP agreement singular fem  2

plural 11

( )

Morphosyntax - Syntax interface (individual)o p osy ta Sy ta te ace ( )

Stage Structure JE JE Structure Syntaxg

5 subjunctive 5/6

pred.adj.‐subj.ref. singular fem; plural 4

Syntax

2 TOP CliticOBJ V S(ref) XPDFMarked Alignment3 TOP CliticOBJ V

4default (masc sg) 3

NP‐V agreement plural 12

i l 31

0 TOPADJ S(ref/pron) V ... TOPADJ canonical order

XPDFUnmarked Alignment20 TOPADJ V (X)

37 S( f) V (X)singular 31

3pred.adj.‐null subj. singular fem; plural 3/4

default (masc sg) 16

37 S(ref) V (X) canonical word order

Unmarked Alignment

16 S(pron) V (X)

73 V (X)( g)

NP agreement singular fem  11

plural 29

( )

Conclusion

S i h lik It li fi b th th PT h t tiSpanish, like Italian, confirms both the PT morphosyntacticand syntactic developmental hierarchies.

There is a relationship between the two developmental There is a relationship between the two developmental hierarchies but not at all points. This would need further confirmation with other studies, including regression , g ganalysis.

A more fine-grained analysis of the conditions for pro-drop in early learners. How much is due to discourse requirements, performance limitations, underspecification of the

t d? arguments used?

References

Bettoni, B. and Di Biase, B. (2011). Beyond Canonical Order: The acquisition of marked orders in Italian as a , , ( ) y qsecond language. EUROSLA Yearbook 11, 244-272.

Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Exploring the Typological Plausability of Processability Theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research, 18(3), 274-302.

Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S. (in press), “Development across languages: English, Italian and Japanese.” In: Bettoni, , , g , ( p ), p g g g , p ,C., Di Biase, B. (eds.), Processability Theory: Current issues in theory and application, PALART Series, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Farley, A., & McCollam, K. (2004). Learner readiness and L2 production in Spanish: processability theory on trial. Estudios de Linguistica Aplicada, 40, 47-69.

Johnston, M. (1995). Stages of acquisition of Spanish as a second language. Australian Studies in Language Johnston, M. (1995). Stages of acquisition of Spanish as a second language. Australian Studies in Language Acquisition, 4, 6-35.

Juan-Garau, M. and Perez-Vidal, Carmen( 2000). Subject realization in the syntactic development of a bilingual child. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3 (3), 173-191.

Kim, Young-Joo (2000). Subject/Object drop in the acquisition of Korean: A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9 325-251of East Asian Linguistics 9, 325 251.

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B. and Kawaguchi, S. (2005). “Extending Processability Theory.” In: Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 199-251.

Serratrice L (2007) Null and overt subjects at the Syntax Discourse interface: Evidence from monolingual and Serratrice, L. (2007). Null and overt subjects at the Syntax-Discourse interface: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual acquisition. In S. Baauw, J. Van Kampen & M. Pinto (Eds.), The Acquisition of Romance Languages: Selected papers from The Romance Turn II. Utrecht: LOT.

Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B. and Garrett, M. (1996). Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 6, 261-298.