two types of intransitive vs: framework the unaccusative

13
1 Learner corpora and the acquisition of word order: A study of the production of Verb-Subject structures in L2 English CORPUS LINGUISTICS 2007 Birmingham Cristobal Lozano Universidad de Granada Amaya Mendikoetxea, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid/Lancaster University http://www.uam.es/woslac 2 AIM OF THE PRESENTATION To inform on the results of a study on the production of postverbal subjects (VS order) in non-native English. Purpose of the study : to characterize the interlanguage of advanced non–native speakers of English L2 (Spanish/Italian L1) by examining their production of both grammatical and ungrammatical VS structures, as represented in the relevant ICLE subcorpora (Granger et al. 2002), : 3 FRAMEWORK Main question: What are the conditions under which learners produce inverted subjects (VS structures), regardless of problems to do with syntactic encoding (grammaticality)? Comparative Framework: to determine the role of L1 in L2 acquisition (transfer ) in the areas under study Learner corpora vs. native corpora (LOCNESS) ENGLISH and SPANISH/ITALIAN differ in devices employed for constituent ordering: English ‘fixed’ order is determined by lexico-syntactic properties and Spanish/Italian ‘free’ order is determined by information structure, syntax-discourse properties. 4 Two types of Intransitive Vs: The Unaccusative Hypothesis Unaccusative V : S is a notional object (patient or theme) - an entity that comes into existence (3), appears on the scene (4) or undergoes a change of state/location (5) (3) Problems exist (4) Three girls arrived (5) The window broke Unergative V: S is a notional subject; it is an agent or has protagonist control over the action: (6) John spoke/cried/laughed/workedJohn is a subject both notionally and syntactically

Upload: others

Post on 03-Feb-2022

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

1

Learner corpora and the acquisition ofword order:

A study of the production of Verb-Subject structures in L2 English

CORPUS LINGUISTICS 2007Birmingham

Cristobal LozanoUniversidad de Granada

Amaya Mendikoetxea, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid/Lancaster University

http://www.uam.es/woslac2

AIM OF THE PRESENTATION

� To inform on the results of a study on the production ofpostverbal subjects (VS order) in non-native English.

� Purpose of the study: to characterize the interlanguageof advanced non–native speakers of English L2 (Spanish/Italian L1) by examining their production ofboth grammatical and ungrammatical VS structures, as represented in the relevant ICLE subcorpora(Granger et al. 2002), :

� ������� � � � � � ���� � � � � ��

� �� ��� �� �� � �� � � � �� �� � �� �� � � � � �� � � � � � � � �� � � �� �� ��

3

FRAMEWORK

� Main question:What are the conditions under which learners produce inverted subjects (VS structures), regardless of problems to do with syntactic encoding (grammaticality)?

� Comparative Framework: to determine the role of L1 in L2 acquisition (transfer) in the areas under study

Learner corpora vs. native corpora (LOCNESS)

ENGLISH and SPANISH/ITALIAN differ in devices employed for constituent ordering: English ‘fixed’ order is determined by lexico-syntactic properties and Spanish/Italian‘free’ order is determined by information structure, syntax-discourse properties. 4

Two types of Intransitive Vs: The Unaccusative Hypothesis� Unaccusative V : S is a notional object (patient or

theme) - an entity that comes into existence (3), appears on the scene (4) or undergoes a change of state/location (5)

(3) Problems exist (4) Three girls arrived (5) The window broke

� Unergative V: S is a notional subject; it is an agent or has protagonist control over the action:

(6) John spoke/cried/laughed/worked…John is a subject both notionally and syntactically

Page 2: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

5

Word Order in L1 English (1)Fixed SV(O) order- Restricted use of postverbal subjects:

a) XP V S (Inversion structures with an opening adverbial)

(7) Michael puts loose papers like class outlines in the large file-size pocket. He keeps hischeckbook handy in one of the three compact pockets. The six pen and pencil pockets arealways full and <in the outside pocket> go <his schedule book, chap stick, gum, contact lenssolution and hair brush>. [Land’s End March 1989 catalog. p. 95] (Birner 1994: 254)

(i) XP is an adverbial element, typically expressing time or place and linking the sentence to the prior discourse

(ii) V is an intransitive verb, typically expressing existence or appearance on the scene (= unaccusative)

(iii) S is often syntactically/phonologically ‘heavy’ consisting of a noun and a variety of pre and/or postmodifiers, which introduce new information in the discourse.

6

Word Order in L1 English (2)

b) There-constructions

(8) a. Somewhere deep inside [there] arose a desperate hope that he would embrace her [FICT ]

b. In all such relations [there] exists a set of mutual obligations in the instrumental and economic fields [ACAD]

c. [There] came a roar of pure delight as…. [FICT][Biber et al. 1999: 945]

� Roughly the same (sub)class of Vs and same conditions as in XPVS structures.

7

Word order in L1 English (VS order)

� Lexicon-syntax interface (Levin & Rappaport-Hovav, etc):� Unaccusative Hypothesis (Burzio 1986, etc)

�� � � � � �� � � � �� � �� ���� ����� �� � ������ � �� � � ��� � � ��

��! �� � �� � � �� �� �� � �� ���� ����� �� ����� � ���� � � � � � � � ��� ��� ��

� Syntax-discourse interface (Biber et al, Birner 1994, etc):� Postverbal material tends to be focus/relatively unfamiliar information

�����" � �� �� � � � ��� � ���# �� � ���� ��� $ � ��� � �� � �� ��% �� � �� � � � ��� � ���# ��� ���� �� � � �� ������ �� �

� 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 � � ��

Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally in those structures which allow them (unaccusative Vs).

8

Word Order L1 Spanish/Italian (1)Postverbal subjects are produced ‘freely’ with all verb classes:

(13) a. Ha telefoneado María al presidente. (transitive).Has phoned Mary the president

b. Ha hablado Juan. (unergative) c. Ha llegado Juan (unaccusative)has spoken Juan . has arrived Juan

• Inversion as ‘focalisation’: � preverbal subjects are topics (given information) � and postverbal subjects are focus (new information) (Belletti 2001, 2004,

Zubizarreta 1998)

(14) ¿Quién ha llegado/hablado? (15) Chi è arrivato/parlato?Who has arrived/spoken?

i. Ha llegado/hablado Juan i. É arrivato/ A parlato Gianniii. #Juan ha llegado/hablado ii. # Gianni é arrivato/a parlato

Page 3: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

9

Word Order L1 Spanish/Italian(VS order)

� Lexicon-syntax interface1 � �� � ���� ��� � � /�� � � �� ���� � � �2 � �� �� � � � ��( �� ������ ���� ��� � �

� Syntax-discourse interface0 � � �� ���� � � �2 � �� ��� �' � �� �� ��� � �������� ��� ��� � � �

� Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interfaceHeavy subjects show a tendency to be postposed – a universal

language processing mechanism: placing complex elements at the end 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.

10

The phenomenon in SLAProduction of postverbal subjects in L2 English (Zobl1989 Rutherford 1989, Oshita 2004)

Only with unaccusative verbs (never with unergatives).� Unaccusatives: arrive, happen, exist, come, appear, live…� Unergatives: cry, speak, sing, walk ...

� L1 Spanish/Italian/Arabic – L2 English:��3 ����������� � ������ � �� ����� �� �� � � �� ���

��4 ��% � � �� � ������� ��� � � � ������ ��� ��� � �

��5 ���� � � �# �� � � � ��# � 6 �� ��� � � �� � ��

��� ������ ����� ( �� �� � � � ������ ������ �� ��� ��� � ( �� � �� ���� ��# ��� � �

� Explanation: syntax-lexicon interface (Unaccusative Hypothesis)

11

The psychological reality of the Unaccusative Hypothesis� A number of studies have found that L2 learners are

aware of the argument structure distinction between unaccusative and unergative Vs and that they use this as a guiding principle to construct L2 mental grammars.

� However, learners have difficulty in determining the range of appropriate syntactic realizations of the distinction, and this can persist into near-native levels of proficiency (see R. Hawkins 2001: 5.4).

CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE: these previous studies focused on ERRORS, thus emphasising the differences between native and non-native structures. By contrast, our study emphasises the similarities between native and

non-native structures. 12

HypothesesGENERAL HYPOTHESIS:

� Conditions licensing VS in L2 Eng are the same as those in Native Eng, DESPITE differences in syntactic encoding.

SPECIFIC HYPOTHESES:

� ���������� �������������������������: � Postverbal subjects with unaccusatives (never with unergatives)

� ����� ������ �������� !����������: � Postverbal subjects: heavy (but preverbal light)

� �"��!#�� ��������$����%�������������: � Postverbal subjects: focus (but preverbal topic)

Page 4: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

13

Method� 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).

� SPSS v. 12.0

Corpus Number of essays Number of words ICLE Spanish 251 200,376 ICLE Italian 392 227,085

TOTAL 643 427,461

14

� � � � � � �� � �� �� � � � � ! " � � �� �� � �

� # � � � �� �� $ � ��� � ! % ��

� # � � � �� �� $ � ���� # � � � �� ��� % � $ � ��� � ! % �

& ��� � � � 6 �� �� � # ����' � � � �� �

� ��� ( � � �

. �7 8 � �+ 9 �' ' �& 1 �

�� �� �

� �� ( � � � � ���� �

� �� � � � � ���� �

� ��� � � � ��� �

� � � ��� � � �

' & : 1 ; �+ 9 �' ' �& 1 �

� ���

� ��� � � � � ���� ��

� � ��� � � � � �� � � �

� � � � �� � � � � � ��� �

�� � � �� �� � � � � � ��� $ �

� ( ( � ! � � � � �� � ��� � � � � ��� �

� ���� � � � � � �# �

� �( �$ � � � � $ � � � $ �

� � �� � � � � ��� �

� �� �$ � � � � �� ���

� � � �� � � � � � � �� �

� � � � � � ' 9 + . . �+ 9 �' �� � � ���

� ��� ( � � � � � � ��

� �� ��� ( � � ��

' : < ' � % 1 , + �+ 9 �' ' �& 1 � � ( ���

� �� � � � � � ' # # � � �� � � � � �# ��� ��

� � � � � �� � �

9 % 1 1 + = �& > �' 0 + % ? �1 7 � � � � ��

�� ��� � � � � � �� ��� ��

) ��� ( ( � ! � � � � � � � � � � % . ? �@ + = < ' � � � �$ �

�� � �� �� � ��� � �� �� ���$ �

����� � � �� �� �

� � � � �

< = + % � 8 + �@ + = < ' �

� � � �

�� * ! � � $ + �) �! � � ) �# ' � �' � �

� �� � � �

% ' ) �$ + �( ! ' � �� ��

� � �# ��� ��

� � � �� � � � � ( ����� � ��

DATA ANALYSIS� 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]

15

WordSmith: query searches:� For every lemma (e.g., APPEAR, ARISE), we

searched for:� All possible native forms:

� appear, appears, appearing, appeared� arise, arises, arising, arose, arisen

� All posible overregularised and overgeneralised learner forms:� arised, arosed,arisened, arosened (“So arised the Sain

Inquisition”)� All possible forms with probable L1 transfer of spelling:

� apear, apears, apearing, apeared� All other possible misspelled forms:

� appeard, apeard

16

Data analysis (cont’d)� CONCORDANCES: RAW OUTPUT

� Thousands of concordances, BUT approx. ¾ were unusable.� Filtering criteria had to be applied manually.

Page 5: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

17

Data coding/analysis: EXCEL

18

H1: syntax-lexicon�! ! A

! A

� � A

5 ��! A

�! ! A

! A

� 4 A

� �3 ! A

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%)

19

Examples: syntax-lexicon(unaccusatives only)

� � � � � � ,�# � � �� ��-�,�.� � � � �� �/ 0 1 ��� � � �� �2�/ 3 1 ���� ��� � 4

50 6 � ��� ������ ��� � � � �� �� � ��� ( � �� # � �� ��� ��� � $ ��� ��� ������� ��2� ��

�������� ��� �� � �� � � � �� � 6 �� ��

� � � � � � ,�% � �� � � ��-�,�.� � � � �� �7 1 ��� � � �� �2�8 1 ���� ��� � 4

�� �� ���� � � 6 �� � � � � ���� �� �� � � �� ���� � � �� � � � � �

���� � �� �� � � � �� � � � � � ��

� ���� �� �� ��� �� �� ���� � �� ���� � �� �� �� � � � ��� � ,��� �� � � � � � � �# � � � �

� ��' � ����� � ������ �� ���� 9 � �� ���� �

�� � � �� :���� �� ��� � �� � � � ��� � � �� �� ��� � �� ���� ���� � ��; ����� ������ ��� � � � � � �

��:��� � ���� � �� �� �� � � � ��� �� � ����� � � � �� ��

� � :��� � ��� � �� � � ��� �� � ������� ���� �

20

Results: Unaccusative: grammatical vs. ungrammatical VS

Figure 1. Proportion (in %) of grammatical vs. ungrammatical unaccusative VS

65.4%

34.6%

Ungrammatical Grammatical Grammaticality

Group: VS Spanish ICLE

53 . 3% 46 . 7%

Ungrammatical Grammatical

Group: VS Italian ICLE

Page 6: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

21

H2 : 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

� �

��

���

�� �

22

Examples: syntax-phonology

SV: typically LIGHT

�� B ������� ����� � �# ��� � ��� � �# ( � �

����� �� � ������ � � � �� ���# �� �� �

� ������� ��� �� � �� � � � �� � 6 �� �-��

VS: typically HEAVY

�� C �����% ��� � ��� �� �� � � � �# �� ��� �� � � � �� � �� � � � � ���� � ���� � �� �� �' � � � � �< ��� ��� � � �

% �� � � � � ���� �

�� = 6 �� �� �# ���� �' � ��� � �� � � � � �� ��� �� � ���� �� �� ���� � � � � � �� ��� �� ��

� � � ��� � �� � � ��� � �� ��� �

� ������� ���� � � ��� �� �� � ���� ������� � ��� ��� � ���� � �� �� �������� � ��� ��� ��� � � �

23

Result 3: syntax-discourse

��� A

� 5 ��A

� ! �3 A

� �C A

! �! A

�! ! �! A

����A

5 5 �� A

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

24

EXAMPLES: syntax-discourse

VS: FOCUS

�� D ������� � ���� � � 6 �� �� �� �� �� ��� � � ��� �� ��� � ��� � � ��� �� � � ��� �� ��� ���� � ���� �� ��� � ��

�����' � ����� � ������ �� ���� 9 � �� ���� � �

� ���� ��5 5 ! ����� � � ������> � �� � �� �� �� �� � ����� � ���� � � ������ � � �� � � � � ��� ����������� �� �� � �� � �����������

�� � � ��� ���

SV: typically TOPIC

�� 3 �������� � �� ��� � �� � � ����� � �( �� � � ( � � ���� # �� � � � �� � ��� # �� ��� � �( �� � � ( � � ���� ��� �� � � � �

� �� � � ���� � ���� � �� � ���� ��� �� � � �� � � � �� �� ��# �

����� �( � ��� �� ��� �� � /�� ����� � � �� �� � � �( �� �� ����� ��� �� � �� � �� �� � � �� � � � � �$ �� �

� � � # �� � � �� �� � � �( # ����� ��� �� � �� � � � �� � 6 �� ��

Page 7: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

25

15. Summary/Conclusion

&%���� � �%'(Syntax-discourse………………………………… FOCUSSyntax-phonology……………………………………. HEAVY

� �%'( &%����Syntax-discourse…….. TOPICSyntax-phonology……… LIGHT

&��

��&

26

Our results and CIA (1)� Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (Granger 1996, Gilquin 2001)

(a) NNS vs. NNS: different non-native data.By comparing learner data from different L1 backgrounds, we can gain a better understanding of interlanguageprocesses and features, such as those which are the result of transfer or those which are developmental, common to learners with different L1.

No significant differences between Italian and Spanish learners, as expected, except for frequency of inversion [8.1 (Sp) vs. 2.6 (It))] �Possible explanation: lexical bias.

27

Result: VS and specific unaccusative verbs

28

Our results and CIA (2)

(b) NNS vs. NS: non-native vs. native data. It involves a detailed analysis of linguistic features in native and non-native corpora to uncover and study non-native features in the speech and writing of (advanced) non-native speakers. This includes errors, but it is conceptually wider as it seeks to identify overuse and underuse of certain linguistic features and patterns (Granger 2002: 12-13).

Corpus Number of essays Number of words ICLE Spanish 251 200,376 UAM 85 63,836 TOTAL 336 264,212 vs. LOCNESS: 436 324, 304

Page 8: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

29

Syntax-LexiconNS vs. NNS

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

Spanish ICLE+WriCLE

LOCNESS

Percentage of subjects produced (group x verb type)

30

Examples of VS in LOCNESS

� AdvP insertion (3 tokens)

(27) Thus began the campaign to educate the public on how one contracts Aids.

� PP insertion (7 tokens)

(28) …along with this development has come opposition from both the medical field and a proportion of the general public, who…

� There-insertion (6 tokens)

(29) Certainly there exists a demand for this work to be done.

31

Syntax-Phonology: NS vs. NNSHeavy-Light subjects with Unacc Vs

� Subjects in SV structures with unacc Vs tend to be ‘light’ in NS (67.7% in ICLE+WrICLE and 68.1% in LOCNESS )

� Subjects in VS structures with unacc Vs are overwhelmingly ‘heavy’in NS (81.0% in ICLE+WriCLE and 81.3% in LOCNESS).

LightHeavy

Weight_nom

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

Porc

entaj

e

18.8%

81.2%

19.0%

81.0%

VS Locness

VS Spanish WriCLE+ICLE

Group

32

Syntax-Discourse: NS vs. NNS Focus and Topic subjects with Unacc Vs

� Most subjects in SV structures with unacc Vs in NS are topic (89.9% in ICLE+WriCLE and 83.5% in LOCNESS); just a few are focus(10.5% in ICLE+WriCLE and 16.5% in LOCNESS; p=0.223).

� Subjects in VS structures with unacc Vs are overwhelmingly focus in NS (98.3% in ICLE+WriCLE 100% in LOCNESS; p=0.784).

FocusTopic

Discourse_postverbal

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

Porc

entaj

e

100.0%

0.0%

98.3%

1.7%

VS Locness

VS Spanish WriCLE+ICLE

Group

Page 9: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

33

NNS vs. NS: comparisonsacross 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

34

Ns: Verbs in VS structures

LOCNESS: Inv/Totalinvs

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

% 6,3

%

56,3

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

31,3

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

% 6,3

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0

%

0,0 %

10,0 %

20,0 %

30,0 %

40,0 %

50,0 %

60,0 %

%0

0+

%=

%=

=�@

+

<+

7�1

;+

@+

.&0

;�'

%0

0+

%=

+9

+=

7+

+'

,%

0+

>%

..

>&

..&

"

7=

&"

8�;

+

.�@

+

0%

''

=+

�:

=1

'+

��

.+

':

=@

�@+

35

Some preliminary conclusions� These results confirm that Spanish (and, presumably, Italian)

learners of English produce postverbal subjects under exactly the same interface conditions as in L1 English (unaccusativity being a necessary but not a sufficient condition).

� Spanish and Italian learners show persistent problems in the syntactic encoding of the construction, producing mostly ungrammatical examples (it-insertion, 0-insertion, wrong XP).

� Spanish learners overuse the construction and show a lexical bias for the V exist.

36

Thank you!

Page 10: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

37

� ! ? ! � � ��5@ A� � � � � �� 2�B 2�� �< � � � � 2�� �$ � � � � � � � 2�� � � �! �" �� � �� � 50 6 6 6 A2�C* �� � �� �� � �� � �� �� � �� � ,�� �������� �� �� ��� �� � � �� � � ��� � � ��> �� �� � � �� �� � � � � � ��� �� �� � �� � �� � � � ���� �� ��� � � �� �� � D2���������2�3 E ,�0 7 -F F

� % �������2�� �50 6 6 @ A2�C G�� � �� � �� � H � � ��� � � ��I � ��� � D2��� ,�� � �* � �; �J �B -+ �( � ��� � ; �5�� � A2�E 6 -/ 6

� % �������2�� �50 6 6 K � A2�5�� A����������� ������ ������������������������������������� � 8 �� �� �+ � � ; ,�' > �� � � �� � �� �� � �� �( ��� �

� % �������2�� �50 6 6 K � A2�� � � �� �� �� �������� � ��( �� ��� 2���� ,�$ �! �I I � 5�� A�������������������� ����������������������������������������� � 0 ��� �� �+ � � ; ,�' > �� � � �� � �� �� � �� �( ��� �

� % �� �� 2�) 2���B � �� � � � � � 2�" �$ ��� �2���� � � � � � �� � � � �? �� �� � � 5@ / / / A2������������������������������� �����������������$ � � � � � ,�$ � � � � �

� % �� � �� 2�% �5@ / / K A2��� �� � � ��� � �� �� �� � �� � � � � � ��� ���� � �� � �� � 2���������� 3 6 ,�0 8 8 -0 F /

� % �� � �� 2�% �5@ / / F A2�( � � � � ��� �� � � � �� � �� �� �� � ������ �� � ��� � � � ��� ���� � �� � �� � 2�������� / 3 ,�0 0 8 -0 F E

� % � ��� � �� 2�) �5@ / 3 3 A2� ����� �!������" $ � � � � � ,�$ � � � � �

� % ��� � � � 2�B �5@ / / K A2�$ � � � ��� ���� � �� � �� � �� � � ������ � � ����� �� ���� ��� � �� �� � � ��" � � � � 2���������� 3 6 ,�3 0 -@ 8 @

� % � � I �� 2�$ �5@ / 7 E A2��������������#" ) � � � ��� ��,�L �� � ��

� � �� � � � � 2�" 2�� �$ � I � � � 2�! �B � M� �I 2�� �# �� � �; � ��> �� �� � � ���# � � � �� �5�� �� ��� � � � ��� � A2�C! ��� ��� � � ���� 2���� �� � �� � � ������ � � �� -? � � � � �� �� ��� � ��� � ,�� �� �� � �� ��� � � N�� �� D2�5 � A2�� � �� �� � �� � � �� � �O� � �� ��# � � � ��

� � �� � ; 2�� �5@ / 7 @ A2�������������$��������� ���� ���"�) � � � ��� ��,�? � � ��

� � �� � ; 2�� �5@ / / F A2�����!���������������2�� � � � �� � �2�# � ,�# �� �( ��� �

� � � ��� � � �� 2�( �< �� � � �! �) �$ �� �� ��50 6 6 @ A2��� ��� ��� ��� � �� � �� � ��� � � � ��� �, � ���� � � � �� �� � ��� � 2��%����������������� �����������������@ / 2�0 ,�0 7 8 -8 @ 6

� ) � P� � � �I 2�$ �50 6 6 K A2�!������� ���&����������#��� ����� ����� ���������������% � � �� � �� � �� �� � �� ,�� � � � � ��� ��� �( �) �� �� � �� �� ��� �

� � � ��� 2�$ �� � � �' �? �� � Q� � �I �� � �� � � 50 6 6 K A����� ��'�������������#�������������# � � � �� ,�" ��� � �

� ? �� � Q� � �I -�� � �� � � 2�' �5@ / 7 / A2�C��� � � � �� � � � � � � � ��� �� � ��-� � � N�� ���� � � � � � �� �� � � ������ � � �� �( � � � � � � �( � �� � �� ��D2�!�����������������������������" @ @ ,�0 0 7 -0 8 / ��

� ? �� � Q� � �I -�� � �� � � 2�' �5@ / / 8 A2�C�� � ������� � � �� �� ��� � �� � � � � ��� ��� � � R� �D2���� ����� �� ������(��)���*����@ @ ,�@ @ 8 -@ F @

� ? �� � � � 2�B �5@ / / 0 A2� ������������������������$�������������� ��������������������"�� � � � �� � �,�� � (

� ? � � I ��� 2�$ �50 6 6 K A2�C5) ��� � ��A�? � � � � �� �� � � �� ����� �� �� ��� � ��� � � � �� � �� � D2������������� ��������+�������,����������������������������������������� �����������-��������,2�� � �� �� � �� �� ��( � �� � � 2�' � �� � �� �0 6 6 K

� " ��� ; �� � 2�! �5@ / / @ A2�C�� �� � � ��� � ���� � ��� � � � ��� ��� � � � �� � � ��� � ,�� �� �� �� � � � � � � ���� ������ �� �� -� �� �� �� ��� � ��� � 2��� ,� ���� �� �� 5�� A2� ����������� �������������������&�.���������� �/���"% �� ��� ,�# � � �� � �� ��" � � ��� 2�@ K @ -@ E 3

� " ��9 � �� 2�" �50 6 6 @ A2�C� ����� ��� � � ��� �� � � �� � � ��� ��# � � ����� �� �� � �� � � � � � �� � �� D2���������������������8 5@ A,�/ F -@ 0 8

� " � � � � �� 2���5@ / / E A2�C? � � �� � ��� �� �� �� � � �� � � ; ,�� � ��� ��� � � ��� �� � � � � � � ��� �� � � � ��� �I �� �� ���� � � � ��� � � ���� � � �� D2��� ,�L �� �N �� 2�% �� ���� � �� � % �� � � �# B � �� � � � � � # �5�� � A2�������������������������#�01��� ����0������������� �������� ���� ���������������22��$ � � � ,�$ � � � �� � �� �� � �� �( ��� � 2�8 3 -F @

� " � � � � �� 2���50 6 6 0 A2�C� �� �� � S� -� ��� ��� �� ��� � � � ��� ���� � � �� �� � � � � � ���� �� � � �D2��� ,���" � � � � �� 2�B �* � � � �� � � ���( ��� �-� � � � �5�� � A2��������������������"����� ����������.-����������� � �����������������������$ � � � � � � ��$ �� � � �� � �� � � �$ � � � � � � ��� �� � ��� � �E �� � ��� � � �J �( ���� � ��� ��� ,�% �� N� �� � 2�8 -8 8

� " � � � � �� ��2� �) � � � �� � > � � � �? �# �� � ��� 50 6 6 0 A2������������������������������������������)�� 1����� ��3045!�$ � � � � �� -�� -� �� � �,�( ��� � �� �� � �� �� � ��� ���� �� ��$ � � � � �� �

� * � � ; �� � 2�B �5@ / / K A2�.�������������������5 ���� ��������������� � � � �� � �,�� � � � �� � ��� � �� �� � �� �( ��� �

� * �� ���2�� B �50 6 6 8 A2�C$ �> �� � ��� � � �� �� � � � � � ���� � �� � � ��� ������ �� � � � ��� � � � � � ��� � 9 � �� ���� � � ���� � � �� ��� � � � �� � � �� D2����� ����������4�����2�@ / ,�0 3 8 -8 6 K

� * � � � � 2�� -� B �5@ / 7 K A2�C' � ������ �� �� �� � ��� � �� � � �������� � ��� ��� � � �� � � � � � � � D2�������������-���2�@ F ,�F 8 @ -F 3 K

� * � �; 2�� �� 2�� � � �B -+ �( � ��� � ; �5�� � A�50 6 6 @ A2��16�����$���������4�������� ��������������/��$�����������' > �� � � ���� � ��� ��� �� � � � � � ��� ��� � �� > �' > �� � � ,�' > �� � � �� � �� �� � �� �( ��� �

� B � �� � ��2�' �� � � �L ��� ��� 5�� � A�5@ / 7 / A2�����%������16������������) � � � ��� ��,�L �� � ��

� L � ���� � T� ; 2�" �50 6 6 K A2���0�#������������� ����0�#���������������������&�.���� ����������#������������� �+��������#����< ��� ,�% � � � U����

� L � ���� � T� ; 2�" �50 6 6 F A2�C��-�> �� � � � � ���� � ��� � � � ��� �,�� ��� � � ��� � � ��� ��� D2��������������7�������������������������2�@ 6 50 A,�@ @ / -@ F / �

� L � � I � � � ; �2�( �50 6 6 @ A2�C� � � � �� � ��� �� � ��� �� �� ���� � � �� ��� � � � � � �,������ � � ��� ��% D2��� ,�( �! � � � � 2�� �< ��� � � 2�� �# � � �� 2�� �* � � � �� � � � ���5�� � A2����� �����������������������������899:����������$ � � � � � ��� ,�� � �� �� � �� �� �� ������ � �� � � � ��� �� � � � � � �! �� �� � � ��� � �$ � � � � � � �2�8 @ 0 -8 0 0

� L �� � �� 2�" �5@ / / 7 A2�.������ ���������������������������$ � � � � � �J �� �� �+ � � ; ,�$ � � � � �

� L � � � � � 2�* �J �) ��� � � ��� �� 5@ / / @ A2�C� ���� � � ���� � �� ��� � � N�� �� D2������� 7 F ,�0 @ @ -0 F 7

� $ �� �� 2�% �5@ / / 8 A2���������;�1����������� �.����������&�.�������������$������������ ��� � � � ,�� � �� �� � �� �� ��� ��� � � � �( ��� �

� $ �� �� 2�% �� � � �# �! � � � � � � � �-* � � � � �5@ / / F A2�/�������$�������������#������������0�����#��������2�� � � � �� � �2�# � ,�# �� �( ��� �

� $ �� �� � � 2�B 2�% ��� �� � � � � � � � �� � � � � ��� �5@ / / K A�C$ � � �� � � � �� �� � �� ���� � � ��� � ,�� � � � �� � � �� �� �Q� ��� � � � ��� ���P� ��� � � �� ���� �� � 9 � �� �� �O� �� ����� � � R� �D2�)����������������F ,�K 8 -7 7 38

� ! ? ! � � ��50 A� $ � I � � � 2�� �50 6 6 8 A�/��$������������� ���������������&������-���������������������� �+� �� ��������0����$������������ � �� �� � �� �� �� � � �> ,�� � � � � ��� ��� �( �) �� �� � �� �� ��� �

� $ � I � � � 2�� �50 6 6 E A�C? � � � � �� � � �� � ������ �� � � � ���� �� ,�� ���� � 9 � �� ���� � �� ��� � � � �� � � �� �� ���� � � ��� � � ��� �� � � -� � ��� ���� � � �� �D2����� ����������4�����0 0 ,�@ -K 8

� $ � I � � � 2�� �� � � �� �# �� � �; � ��> �� �5�� � ��� � �� � �0 6 6 3 A2�C( � � �� �� � � ��� � � N�� �� �� �������� ��� �� � �� ��� ��� � � �� ��� � � ���� ��� � ���� � � �� � �� ��$ 0 � � � ��� �,�� �� � � � � � �� �� � D2��� �" ��9 � �� 2�" 2�% �) P�I � � � ���( � � � 5�� � A��������������������$���� �������������4�������! � � � � �

� $ � I � � � 2�� �� � � �� �# �� � �; � ��> �� �5�� �� ��� � � � ��� � A2�C�� ��� �� � ��� � � � ���� � � �� � �� � � �� �� � � ��� � � N�� �� ,�� �� � � � � � �� �� � �� ��C�� � �� � �� � D �� �� � � -� � ��� ��� � � � � � D2�5 � A2�� � �� �� � �� � � �� ��" � � � � � � V� � �� �� � �� � � �� � �O� � � � ��# � � � ��

� $ � NQ� 2�# �5@ / / / A�C > � ��� �O� � �� �� �O� �� ���� � � � � � ���� �� � � � � �D��� ,���% � � 9 � ��� � � ��) � � � �� 5�� � A2����*���� ������$�� ����������������<���2�# � � � �� ,� � � � � � -� � �� �2�@ 0 3 F -@ 8 @ F

� ( �� � � ���� 2�) �5@ / 3 7 A2�C� � �� � � � � ��� � � � �� �� �� � � ������ � � � � � � � ��� ��� � � ���� �� D2���������������.������!���������������������������������������2�K ,�@ F 3 -@ 7 /

� ' � ���� 2�* �50 6 6 6 A2�C< �� ���� ��� � � �� �� � � �� � ��� ��� �� ��� � � �� � � ��� �� ���� � � �� �� � ,�� �� � � � � � �� �� � �� ��C� � � � �� �D � � � � � � � � ��� �� ��� �$ 0 � � � ��� �D2����� ����������4�����@ E ,�0 / 8 -8 0 K

� ' � ���� 2�* �50 6 6 0 A2�C� � �� � �� �� � �� ���������� � ��� �,�� � ������ � � N�� �-� �� � �� � � �� ��� �$ 0 � � � ��� �D2����� ��������� @ ,�K F -E @ ��� ���B � � � � ���� � � � �$ � � � � � � ��� � � � � �� ��� �

� ' � ���� 2�* �50 6 6 K A2�C�� �������� � ���� � �������� ��� ����� �� �� � �������W �� � ����> � ����� �� ��� �� �� � � � ��� � � � � � ��� � �� D2����� ����������4�����0 6 ,�/ F -@ 8 6

� ( � �� � �� � �# � � �P� �I J �# � � �P� �I -�� � � � 50 6 6 E A

� ( �� � ��� 2�� �5@ / / 7 A2�C' � ����� > ��� � �� �( � � N�� ��� � �( � �� � �� ���� � � �� � ����> � ����� ��� � � N�� �� D2���1��" @ 6 ,�0 @ / -0 K @

� ( �� �� 2�# �5@ / / 3 A2������������ �������������������$��� ���16��������������2�� ���� ��,�$ �

� ( � �� � �2� �? �5@ / 7 @ A2�C� � � � � � �� �� � > � � � �� ��" �� �� -� �� ��� �� � � ��� � D �� ,�( �� � ���5�� A2�4� ������������2�$ � � � � � ,�� � � � � �� �( ��� � 2�0 0 8 -0 F F

� ( � �� � �2� �? �5@ / / 0 A2�C� ���X ( " ������� ,��� � N�� �� 2�� ���� ���� �� � �� � � ��� �� � � ��� � �� �� �� � D2��� ,���� �� � � � � 2�� � � �< �# � � � 2�5�� � A2�3�������3��������&�3�$����.������������� �� �4���������#�2�� � ��� � � ,�B � �� �% �� N� �� � 2�0 / F -8 0 F

� Y � �� ; 2�! 2���" ���� � � � 2�" �$ ��� ��J �N��� � � �� �; 5@ / 3 0 A2.�����������$�������������������������������" $ � � � � � ,�$ � � � � �

� ! �I I � $ �5@ / 7 0 A2�������������������������#�) � � � ��� ��,�? � � ��

� ! �I I �2�$ �5@ / / 3 A2�C� ������ ��� �� � � �� ���� ������������ �� �� ��� D2��� ,�$ �* � �� � � � �5�� A2��������������������)�� 1��������������$�������#�� � @ �) � � � ��� ��,�L �� � �� � � � � � �� �( � � ��� ��� �

� ! �I I �2�$ �50 6 6 K A2�C$ � � � ��� �� � � ������� �� �� ��� D2���� ,�� �% ������� 5�� A2�0 0 8 -0 F @

� ! � � �� � � �2�# ���5@ / 7 E A2� ��������������$�������2�� � ��� � � ,�B � �� �% �� N� �� �

� ! � ���� �� � � 2�< �5@ / 7 E A�C" � � � ��� � ��� ��� � �� � � �$ 0 �� � 9 � �� ���� � ,�� �� � ����� � �� � ��� D2������ �������� 4�����" 0 ,�@ -@ F

� ! � ���� �� � � 2�< �5@ / 7 / A�C�� ��� �� � � � � � ��� � � �� � � � � ��� �� � � � �� � � �� D2��� ,���" � � � � � � �B ��� �� � ����

� 5�� � A2������������������$���������� ����������.-��������2�� � � � �� � �,�� � � � �� � ��� � �� �� � �� �( ��� � 2�@ E 8 -@ 7 0

� �� ��� 2�L �5@ / 7 F A2���������������2�� � � � �� � �,�� � (

� �� � ��2�# �50 6 6 0 A2�5#�� ��� �����������=$������>�9?" ' > �� � � ,�' > �� � � �� � �� �� � �� �( ��� �

� �� � � � �2�� �5@ / / 8 A2�C�� � � � ������ � �� �� �� � �� ����� ��� �� �� ��� � � �� ��� � � � � � � � ��� �� ��� �� � � � � ��� ��� � � � � � �� ����� ��� � D2����� ����������4�����/ ,�0 0 -K 3

� �� � � � �2�� �5@ / / F A2�C� � 9 � �� �� � ���� ; �� � �� � ��� �� � � �� � � � �� ��� �� � � �� ��� ��� �� �� �� � � � ��� � � � � � �D2��� ,�$ � � � � � ; 2�$ ������ ; �� 2�# ���� � � � � � -� ����5�� � A2�������������������������������&���� �������)��� ��������������4������ ��� � ��� � � ,�B � �� �% �� N� �� � 2�@ F 8 -@ 3 F

� �� ��� � � P2� �5@ / / 6 A2���������������������������2�( �) �� �� � �� �� ��� � 2�� � �� �� � �� �� ��( �� � � �� � � ��

� < � � � � 2�� �5@ / / 3 A2� � � -� ��� ����� � ������ � �� ; �� D� �� �� � � �� ��� �2�7������������������������4�����"�0 E ,�8 K 3 -8 E @

� < � � � � 2�� �5@ / / 3 A�C � � -< ��� ����� � ������� �� ; �� D� �( �� � � �� ��� �D�7������������������������4�����2�0 E 58 A,�8 K 3 -8 E @

� < � � � � 2�� �J �� � � � �� 2�B �50 6 6 8 A�C( � � �� �� � � ��� � � � ���� �� ��� � � �� �� �� � � � ��� �D��� �! � �� �� � � � � 2�" �� � � �% �# � � � � � � 5�� � A�3������������������������;��������� � � � �� � �,�� � � � �� � ��� � �� �� � �� �( ��� �

� + � � � 2�� �50 6 6 0 A2�C� ���� � ��� � ��� � � �� ��� � � � � � � � ��� ���� � � � � ��� �$ 0 �� � 9 � �� ���� � D2��� ,�B �� � � �� �� � � �# �B �? ����� � 5�� � A����� �������������.�.�899:����������������������.-���������$ �� � � � ,�� � � � � �� Z� � ( � � �� � � �� � � ��$ �� � � �� ��� � 2�0 7 / -0 / E

� X � � � � � 2�L �50 6 6 0 A2����������#�����������2�� � � � �� � �,�� � � � �� � ��� � �� �� � �� �( ��� �

� X � � �2�* �5@ / 7 / A�C� � � � � �� � ��� � � �� � �� � ��� �� � � �� ��� �� � � ��� � � ��� �� ��� � � � ��� ��$ 0 �� � 9 � �� ���� � D2��� ,���" � � � � � � �B ��� �� � ���� 5�� � A2������������������$���������� ����������.-��������2�� � � � �� � �,�� � � � �� � ��� � �� �� � �� �( ��� � 2�0 6 8 -0 0 @

� X � � �I � � ���� 2�# �$ �5@ / / 7 A2����� �"� ������ ��� �5 �2�� � � � �� � �2�# � ,�# �� �( ��� �

� X � � �I � � ���� 2�# �$ �5@ / / / A�C$ � � ��� � � �� � �� ��� �� � � ��� � � ,��� � � ��� � � D2��� ���% � � 9 � ��� � � ��) � � � �� 5�� � A2����*���� ������$�� ����������������<����=$����@?2�# � � � �� ,� � � � � �

39

ADDITIONAL SLIDES TO FOLLOW:

40

Unaccusativity Hypothesis(1) a. unergative b. unaccusative ‘John spoke’ ‘Three girls arrived’

Page 11: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

41

ST

� ��� SD T’ pro�����������

T SV llegó ��

V SD llegó un hombre�

VS in native Spanish��)*����������%����+�

,�������-�./�������������0

Inergativos: SV Inacusativos: VSA: ¿Qué pasó anoche en la reunión? B: Un hombre gritó. # Gritó un hombre.

A: ¿Qué pasó anoche en la reunión? B: # Un hombre llegó. Llegó un hombre.

ST

� ��� SD T’

un hombre����

T SV gritó ��

SD V un hombre gritó��

42

ST

� ��� SD T’ pro�����������

T SFoc llegó ����

SD Foc’ un hombre ��

[+Foc] Foc SV [+Foc] ��

V SD llegó un hombre� [+Foc]

ST

� ��� SD T’ pro�����������

T SFoc gritó ����

SD Foc’ un hombre ��

[+Foc] Foc SV [+Foc] ��

SD V un hombre� gritó [+Foc]

VS in native Spanish (2)!����)������������.

,�������-����������1���%���0

Inergativos: VS Inacusativos: VSA: ¿Quién gritó anoche en la reunión? B: # Un hombre gritó. Gritó un hombre.

A: ¿Quién llegó anoche a la reunión? B: # Un hombre llegó. Llegó un hombre.

[-interp]

[+interp] [+interp]

[-interp]

43

Data analysis (cont’d)--------� CONCORDANCES: 6 BASIC FILTERING CRITERIA:

� The verb must be intransitive (unergative or unaccusative).� In the screen of the television one or two “rombos” should appear. [unac]� Leontes cries and the statue talks. [unerg]� This government’s movement has created several opinions. [trans]

� The verb must be finite, with(out) aux. � …also it exists the psychological agresssions… [finite no aux]� … the cases of men mistreated do not appear in the media. [finite aux]� This contradiction could disappear [finite modal]� There’s no reason for it to exist. [for clause + to inf]� Poor people cross borders to escape from poverty. [to-inf clause]� …let time pass… [‘let’ constructions]� …make everyone’s life go ahead [causative + infinitive]� Returning to the title of this paper,… [gerundive clauses]� …they go away in order to escape to France. [‘in order to’ clauses]� …women have to live with the agressor [have to/ought to/able to]� …prudence was beginning to disappear. [verbal/aspectual periphrases]� Before entering the argumentation,… [small clauses]� …instead of following… [complement of P]� …likely to happen… [complement of A]� The tests to enter the army are quite difficult now. [complement of N] 44

Data analysis (cont’d)--------� The verb must be in the active voice.

� This contradiction could disappear. [active unaccusative]� This situation has already been happened. [passivised unaccusative]

The subject must be an NP.� …it arose [diverse social ranks, the rich and the poor that depended on the

property they had]. [inverted NP subject]� …it only remains [to add that nowadays we live in a world…] [extraposition]� It happened [that the countries which make the weapons are…] [extraposition]

�The sentence can be either grammatical or ungrammatical in native English.� This contradiction could disappear. [gram]� …it won’t exist nothing of what people don’t get bored or tired. [ungram]

� The subject can appear either postverbally (VS) or preverbally (SV).� …the real problem appears when they have to look for their first job. [SV]� So arised the Saint Inquisition. [VS]

Page 12: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

45

Data analysis (cont’d) ---------� OTHER FILTERING CRITERIA � Target V + V (verbal coordination)

� Families without father exist and work well.� Coordinator + target V

� …we can manage to obtain it and live in a better world.� Interrogatives (only if V is the target)

� How could they live?� Does exist then a manipulation of television?

� Formulaic & Set expressions in English� As sometimes happens…� …fall victim to…� …the world we live in.

� Set expressions transferred from the L1� …it happens the same.� …they fall into account that they have treated very badly Mr Hardcastle.

� Phrasal verbs:� …a scientist come up with an intention…

� Quotes (literary or other):� “To what purpose, April, do you return again?� “Feminism has to evolved or die”, Friedan said in 1982…

46

WordSmith: query searches:� For every lemma (e.g., APPEAR, ARISE), we

searched for:� All possible native forms:

� appear, appears, appearing, appeared� arise, arises, arising, arose, arisen

� All posible overregularised and overgeneralised learner forms:� arised, arosed,arisened, arosened (“So arised the Sain

Inquisition”)� All possible forms with probable L1 transfer of spelling:

� apear, apears, apearing, apeared� All other possible misspelled forms:

� appeard, apeard

47

Extraposition was discarded

� NOTE: extraposition discarded:� ���� � �# �� � ��� � ���� �� � � ���� ��� � � � � � � �� ����� ���� �� �� � � �� =4

� ��� �� � � � ����� ������� � � � �� ��� �� ��� �� � ; ������� �� � � � � �� ��=4

48

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 13: Two types of Intransitive Vs: FRAMEWORK The Unaccusative

49

Result: VS and (in)definitenessFigure 1: Production of postverbal subjects according to their definiteness.

Definite 41.4%

Indefinite 58.6%

DEFINITE

�� � �� � ���� ��� � � �� ��� � ���������� ���� �� �� � ��

� � � �������� ��� � ���

��� � �� � � ���# ��� � ��� ������ � � ��� � � � � � � � �

��� �������� �� � � ���� � ��� � �� � � ��� ���� ��� � �� � �

�� �� �� ��� �� �� ���� � ������� � �� �� �� � � � ��� � ,�

�� �� � � � � � � �# � � � �

INDEFINITE

�� � � �� � �� � �� � -������ � �� � �� �� �� �

�� � �� �,���������� �� �� �

� �� ��# �( �� �� �# �( ���� ��� �� � ��� � ���� � �

�� � �� � �� �� ���� �� �� ��� ������ �� � ��

���� �� ��� � �� � �� � ��� � � �� �� ��� � �� �

��� ���� � ��; ����� ������ ��� � � � � � � =

50

Scale (syntactic weight/complexity)

NOMINAL SCALE ORDINAL SCALE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE

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*)

51

Topic vs. Focus:Retrievability scale

� $����%�����.1�,� �0� �����$����%������2 �,!#�0�� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ����������������������������������������������������

����������������� ��������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������� �������� �������� �������� ������ ������ ������ ����� ������������������������ ����� ����� ����� �����

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������ ������������������ ������������������ ������������������ ����������

����������������� ������������ ������������ ������������ ���������������

���������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������� �! �! �! �!����� ��� ��� ��� ���

������ �!����� �!�"��"��"��"��#�� �� �!#�� �� �!#�� �� �!#�� �� �!�

����������������� �������� ������� �������� ������� �������� ������� �������� ��������

����������������$���� ��������� ���$���� ��������� ���$���� ��������� ���$���� ��������� ����

������ �!����� �!�

%��%��%��%��& ����& ����& ����& �����

������������� �!�