Fossilized Second Language Grammars: The Acquisition of Grammatical Gender

Fossilized Second Language Grammars Language Acquisition & Language Disorders Volumes in this series provide a foru...

Author: Florencia Franceschina

65 downloads 1128 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Language Acquisition & Language Disorders Volumes in this series provide a forum for research contributing to theories of language acquisition (first and second, child and adult), language learnability, language attrition and language disorders.

Series Editors Harald Clahsen

Lydia White

University of Essex

McGill University

Editorial Board Melissa F. Bowerman

Luigi Rizzi

Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik, Nijmegen

University of Siena

Katherine Demuth

Bonnie D. Schwartz

Brown University

University of Hawaii at Manao

Wolfgang U. Dressler

Antonella Sorace

Universität Wien

University of Edinburgh

Nina Hyams

Karin Stromswold

University of California at Los Angeles

Rutgers University

Jürgen M. Meisel

Jürgen Weissenborn

Universität Hamburg

Universität Potsdam

William O’Grady

Frank Wijnen

University of Hawaii

Utrecht University

Mabel Rice University of Kansas

Volume 38 Fossilized Second Language Grammars: The acquisition of grammatical gender by Florencia Franceschina

Fossilized Second Language Grammars The acquisition of grammatical gender

Florencia Franceschina Lancaster University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Florencia Franceschina Fossilized Second Language Grammars : The acquisition of grammatical gender / Florencia Franceschina. p. cm. (Language Acquisition & Language Disorders, issn 0925–0123 ; v. 38) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Second language acquisition. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general--Gender. I. Title. II. Series. P118.2.F73 2005 418--dc22 isbn 90 272 5298 X (Hb; alk. paper)

2005050834

© 2005 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Abstract Acknowledgements List of appendices List of tables List of figures Abbreviations Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Theoretical background 1 1.2 Misfit between input and acquired knowledge 2 1.3 A failed features account of divergence in the L2 endstate 4 1.4 The empirical study 6 1.5 Broader significance of the study 7 How the book is organized 8 Chapter 2 Definitions, assumptions and predictions 2.1 Definitions 9 2.1.1 Computational and representational resources 9 2.1.2 Attainment in SLA 11 2.2 Approach to SLA research 17 2.3 General view of the grammar 19 2.4 The syntax/PF interface 22 2.5 Specific assumptions about language acquisition 26 2.5.1 How Strong FFFH came about 26 2.5.2 How the L1 and the L2 may differ 30 2.6 The critical period 35 2.7 The role of the L1 38 Summary 41

ix xi xiii xv xix xxiii

1

9




Chapter 3 Competing theories of NS/NNS ultimate attainment differences 3.1 Extra-linguistic approaches 43 3.1.1 Biological accounts 43 3.1.2 Cognitive accounts 44 3.1.3 Social and affective accounts 46 3.1.4 Accounts based on learner-external factors 47 3.2 Linguistic accounts 50 3.2.1 No access to UG 50 3.2.2 Problems in the periphery 54 3.2.3 Detrimental effects of a previously acquired language 58 3.2.4 Impossibility of resetting parameters 62 Chapter 4 Gender 4.1 What is grammatical gender? 69 4.1.1 Defining grammatical gender 69 4.1.2 What is gender for? 78 4.1.3 The syntax of gender 84 4.1.4 The Spanish gender system 93 4.2 How gender is processed 100 4.2.1 Processing gender in L1 101 4.2.2 Processing of gender in L2 104 4.3 How is grammatical gender acquired? 107 4.3.1 First language acquisition of gender 107 4.3.2 Bilingual L1A 113 4.3.3 Second language acquisition of gender 114 Chapter 5 The empirical study 5.1 Design 121 5.1.1 Hypotheses 121 5.1.2 Population and sample 123 5.1.3 Proficiency measure: University of Wisconsin Spanish Placement Test 126 5.2 Naturalistic data 127 5.3 Experimental tasks 130 5.3.1 Test 1: Guessing game 134 5.3.2 Test 2: Missing word task 142

43

69

121

Table of contents 

5.3.3 Test 3: Cloze/multiple choice task 154 5.3.4 Test 4: Grammaticality judgement task 162 5.3.5 Test 5: Novel word task 169 5.3.6 Test 6: Gender assignment check 182 5.4 Overall summary and interpretation of results 186 Chapter 6 Discussion 191 6.1 Revisiting research questions and hypotheses 191 6.1.1 Second language acquisition of other PFFs 192 6.1.2 Could other theories account for the data at hand? 194 6.2 A representational account of divergence in the L2 endstate 197 6.2.1 Compensatory strategies 198 6.2.2 Why a critical period for the acquisition of parameters? 201 6.3 Concluding remarks – A case for focusing on Orwell’s problem 203 Notes References Appendices Name index Subject index

207 215 241 283 287

Abstract

This study investigates the grammatical representations of nearnatives with the aim of providing an account of the selectiveness observed in the morphosyntactic properties that can be acquired up to nativelike levels in adult SLA. It is argued that persistent selective divergence is related to a critical period for the acquisition of parameterized functional features (PFFs), in support of a strong version of the Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (FFFH, Hawkins & Chan 1997). One of the corollaries of the proposed critical period for the acquisition of PFFs is that the potential for the acquisition of target-like L2 knowledge will be restricted to features already instantiated in the L1. This prediction is tested on a group of nearnative speakers of L2 Spanish from a variety of L1 backgrounds, and the focus of the empirical investigation is their knowledge of Spanish grammatical gender. The results suggest that adult learners can acquire nativelike knowledge of L2 grammatical gender, but their chances of success are largely determined by their L1, as predicted by FFFH. It is argued that adult L2 learners and child L1 speakers do not make use of the same range of functional features from the inventory made available by Universal Grammar (UG), but that the development of their grammars is otherwise subject to the same UG constraints. The differences between natives and nonnatives are therefore not seen as a result of the lack of UG constraints in SLA, but rather as the implementation of UG principles and operations on the basis of a restricted set of representational primitives.

Acknowledgements

This book is a revised version of my PhD thesis completed in 2002 in the Language and Linguistics Department of the University of Essex. My deepest gratitude goes to my supervisor, Roger Hawkins, for his unfailing support. He is a model of professionalism and scholarship and I was very fortunate to work under his supervision. I am also grateful to Martin Atkinson and Aafke Hulk for being my PhD examiners and encouraging me through their questions and comments to explore avenues that I had not previously considered. Essex University’s Language and Linguistics Department is a stimulating academic environment and my interaction with other students and staff there was highly beneficial to my work. I am very grateful to the UK Department for Education and Skills and the University of Essex for the financial support they provided for the completion of this work. I owe thanks to all the people who collaborated in the empirical study, who are too many to name individually here. I also wish to express my thanks to the LALD series editors, Lydia White and Harald Clahsen, for making the publication of this book possible. Kees Vaes at John Benjamins deserves a special mention for being very patient and supportive. Comments on the entire version of the manuscript by Lydia White, Julia Herschensohn and an anonymous reviewer were also very helpful and allowed me to make several improvements, for which I am grateful to them. All remaining errors are of course mine. Finally, I would like to thank Martin and my family for their support and love. This book is dedicated to them, especially to my mother.

List of appendices

Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Appendix 8 Appendix 9 Appendix 10 Appendix 11 Appendix 12 Appendix 13 Appendix 14 Appendix 15 Appendix 16 Appendix 17 Appendix 18 Appendix 19 Appendix 20 Appendix 21 Appendix 22 Appendix 23 Appendix 24 Appendix 25

Greenberg’s (1963, 1966) typological universals involving gender Number of subjects that participated in each task Case and number mistakes made during spontaneous speech production Mistakes made by the Italian subjects in spontaneous production Test 1 – Guessing Game Test 1 – Design features of test sentences Test 1 – Design of distractor sentences Test 2 – Provide the missing word Test 2 – Detailed results Test 3 – Cloze/Multiple choice task, with key to answers Gender clues in Test 3 items, sorted by FF’s code Gender clues in Test 3 items, sorted by PP’s presentation order Gender clues in Test 3 items, sorted by PP’s code Test 4 – GJT with correction Test 4 sentences arranged according to variables Lexical items used in Test 4 Sample of pictures used in Test 5 Test 5 – Novel words Task – Test items and colours Test 5 – Novel words Task – Script as recorded on tape Test 6 – Gender assignment check Test 6 items in alphabetical order and with information about where in the other experimental tasks they were used Nouns used in Tests 1 and 6 Nouns used in Tests 2 and 6 Nouns used in Tests 3 and 6 Nouns used in Tests 4 and 6

List of tables

Chapter 2 2.1

Comparison of theories of SLA making different basic assumptions

Chapter 3 3.1 3.2

Teasing apart the effects of age and previously acquired linguistic knowledge Empirical evidence compatible with FFFH/(1.5)

Chapter 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Favoured loci of gender marking (Nichols 1992) Interaction between gender and inflectional class (Harris 1985: 36) Nominal inflectional class hierarchy (based on Harris 1985: 42, 1991: 32) Patterns of inflectional classes allowed in mating pairs (for nouns referring to humans only) based on Harris (1991: 38–39) 4.5. Sample of singular and plural Spanish determiners 4.6 Summary of Bergen’s (1978) gender assignment rules for Spanish 4.7 Mel’cuk’s (1958: 15–16) gender assignment rules for Spanish 4.8 Developmental milestones in the Rafael corpus (Hernández-Pina 1984) 4.9 Gender errors in child L1 and L2 acquisition (from Liceras, Díaz, & Mongeon 2000) 4.10 Comparison of Bruhn de Garavito and White’s (2000) and Hawkins’ (1998) results

Chapter 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

List of variables relevant to the present study Predictions of hypothesis (1.5) Subjects’ age at the time of the interview and tests Interviews – Subject information

Chapter 1

Introduction

A common observation in research into language acquisition is that adult second language (L2) learners are not inevitably successful in acquiring the target L2, whereas child first language (L1) learners are. Since post-childhood L2 learners nevertheless display some of the characteristics of L1 learners, such as systematicity in the development of linguistic knowledge and undertermination of that knowledge by the input (for reviews see for example Doughty & Long 2003; Gass & Selinker 2001; Hawkins 2001a; Herschensohn 2000; White 2003), a major advance in second language acquisition (SLA) research would be to find a theory capable of accurately predicting and explaining what can maximally be acquired by (adult) L2 learners. This monograph aims to contribute towards finding an answer to this question by investigating the causes of divergence in the endstate of L2 morphosyntactic development.

. Theoretical background This study has been inspired by the work of Tsimpli and Roussou (1991), Smith and Tsimpli (1995) and Hawkins and Chan (1997), who have suggested that although L2 learners have access to the principles of UG, they may have difficulty with certain parametric specifications. My proposal follows in this tradition and elaborates on the possible reasons why the parametric options made available by UG may pose a different learnability problem in first and second language acquisition. The proposal will be formulated within Chomsky’s Principles and Parameters framework and the Minimalist Program (MP). The account that I shall argue for makes a number of assumptions about how language is represented in the mind of a speaker and how it is acquired. These assumptions are discussed in Chapter 2, and what follows is a brief sketch of the main ideas. I shall take an innatist view and assume that language acquisition is driven by an interaction of the elements in (1.1).




(1.1) Essential elements in language acquisition: a. the computational resources made available by UG (principles and operations),1 b. the representational resources made available by UG (feature inventory), and c. a minimum of exposure to primary linguistic data (PLD).

. Misfit between input and acquired knowledge This set of assumptions is compatible with two important observations about the acquisition of knowledge made by Chomsky (1986). One is known as ‘Plato’s’ or the ‘poverty of the stimulus’ problem, that is, the problem of how we come to know things about language that are not necessarily inferable from the linguistic input. This becomes less of a puzzle if we assume, as in (1.1a), that humans have a faculty of language (FL) designed to work in a particular way, that is, if we assume that we possess dedicated computational resources that guide the acquisition of language. This accounts, among other things, for the fairly rapid and homogeneous way in which children acquire language, and for the otherwise mysterious ability of learners always to come up with correct guesses about certain obscure constraints operating on languages, ranging from general principles such as structure dependence (see e.g., Radford 1997: 12–16) to highly specific restrictions such as the Overt Pronoun Constraint (Montalbetti 1984, 1986; Kanno 1997). The second observation is what Chomsky (1986) has called ‘Freud’s’ or ‘Orwell’s’ problem, that is, the problem of why learners fail to acquire certain types of knowledge even when the evidence available to them, in this case the linguistic input, is very rich. Chomsky uses the term ‘Orwell’s problem’ to refer to this question in the domain of social life and political institutions, but the same can be asked about language acquisition. Reuland (1993), for example, has suggested that this problem applies to first language acquisition (FLA), since enriching the language data that a child receives does not speed up acquisition beyond a restricted margin of individual variation. Similarly, if it is true that L1 development consists of a gradual building up of phrase structure, as has been argued by researchers working in the weak continuity tradition (e.g., Clahsen, Eisenbeiss, & Vainikka 1994) and the maturational hypothesis framework (e.g., Radford 1990), then children must be insensitive to some aspects of the input at some stages of development. Furthermore, children are exposed to

Chapter 1. Introduction

a fair amount of ‘noise’ in the input they receive (in the form of mistakes, slips, different accents, dialects or registers, etc.), and yet come up with robust native speaker grammars (excluding pathological cases, of course). This is likely to be achieved by ignoring certain aspects of the linguistic input and imposing some sort of structure on the chaotic input. Several SLA studies have addressed Plato’s problem (see White 2003: Chapter 2, for an overview). In contrast, discussions of the gap between L2 input and the L2 knowledge that is actually acquired have not often been framed in terms of Orwell’s problem. The relevance of Orwell’s problem for SLA research has been hinted at by Hale (1988: 31–32), for example, but to the best of my knowledge there have been no in-depth discussions of this issue. I hope to show here that it is worth concentrating some efforts in trying to find out how Orwell’s problem may be used as a heuristic tool for investigating the course and outcome of SLA. I shall do so by drawing attention to selective insensitivity to the L2 input and the overriding effects of the reliance on internal, pre-existing knowledge by adult L2 learners at very advanced stages of development. Orwell’s problem could also be interpreted as one aspect of the ‘developmental problem’, that is, the question of what makes grammars go through different stages of restructuring until they reach the mature state. If, when exposed to the same PLD, L1 and L2 learners do not arrive at similar states of knowledge about the language they are learning, then it is possible to assume that the same data may have different triggering status for different types of learners. A further complication considered here is the fact that, unlike L1 learners, different groups of L2 learners seem to be impervious to different aspects of the PLD. As we shall see, however, this seemingly complicating factor may be a clue to the answer. Although this study only focuses on what cannot be acquired to nativelike levels in adult SLA, I hope that it will also throw some light on issues related to Orwell’s problem in the context of language acquisition more generally. As will be discussed in Chapter 3, SLA researchers who have looked at the problem of persistent native vs nonnative speaker differences can be classified according to the element from the list in (1.1) to which they assign most weight in accounting for these differences. Plato’s and Orwell’s problems suggest that the analysis of the linguistic data to which learners are exposed (1.1c) is unlikely to lead one to a conclusive account of divergent learning outcomes. It is as though the PLD to which a learner is exposed is perceived through a prism with two types of interesting effects. One effect is to lead all learners to the same analysis of the data, even when the data are in principle compatible with several possible analyses. This type of underdetermination of the linguis-






tic analysis by the data to which a learner has been exposed is what gives rise to Plato’s problem. The second interesting effect of the linguistic prism through which language learners seem to look at language data is the persistent failure to detect certain aspects of the language input. Orwell’s problem is about this blinding effect observed in some areas of language learning. These two problems make (1.1c) in principle not an ideal candidate as the basis for an account of persistent NS/NNS differences. On the other hand, I shall argue that placing the burden of such an account on the computational component of FL (1.1a) leads to a number of theoretical and empirical problems. Chapter 6 will present the details of a proposal suggesting that the representational resources (i.e., linguistic features) made available by UG (1.1b) constitute a better candidate to explain persistent NS/NNS differences under our current state of knowledge about FL.

. A failed features account of divergence in the L2 endstate It is conceivable that we can only acquire knowledge of linguistic properties for which we possess primitive features capable of capturing them, in the same way that our bodies can only absorb nutrients if we have the enzymes that can break nutrients down into units that our bodies can assimilate. My assumption is that learners ‘break down’ the linguistic input and process it through the use of the set of features made available by UG. I shall explore the idea that the main difference between L1 and L2 learners resides in the properties of the linguistic input that they can ‘assimilate’ into their mental grammars. Furthermore, I shall investigate whether such difficulties in assimilating certain aspects of the L2 data may be the result of adult L2 learners’ use of different sets of representational primitives to ‘break down’ the L2 input. The gender acquisition data that will be presented in this study is an example of different groups of learners reacting differently to the same PLD, with some learners ‘assimilating’ some features (i.e., restructuring their mental grammars to incorporate them) and others apparently ignoring them. Spanish gender agreement morphology provides clear evidence for the dependencies that exist between nominals as syntactic elements. While gender morphology is enough to trigger the establishment of uninterpretable gender features in native speakers (NSs) and some nonnative speakers (NNSs), it does not appear to have the same effect on a subgroup of NNSs. The view argued for here will be that this is due to the lack of appropriate representational resources (in the form of uninterpretable


gender features) in the second group of L2 learners. L1 and L2 acquisition are otherwise assumed to be subject to the same basic principles. I shall argue that this approach to the explanation of NNS divergence has a number of advantages. First, it is a parsimonious account, since the similarities and differences between the L1 and L2 endstate can be accounted for in a unified manner. Second, it is testable and allows one to predict specific areas of difficulty in the grammars of speakers of different L1/L2 pairings that are likely to be found. Moreover, the study of the acquisition of grammatical gender presented here as well as other studies that will be discussed in the relevant literature review sections show that this account’s predictions are empirically supported. In addition, there is indirect supporting evidence from similar phenomena affecting other modules of the mind/brain. The proposal in this book relates to the acquisition of the formal features on the basis of which CHL operates and this is not very different from categorical perception in the visual or auditory systems. Some interesting parallels in the relationship between input and acquired representations in the areas of visual and auditory perception on the one hand and language acquisition on the other suggest that cognitive systems whose development is linked to biological maturation may have a similar role in restricting the types of representations that can be acquired. These and other arguments will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. The focus of the empirical study will be on native and nearnative representations of Spanish gender and it will be guided by the following research questions: (1.2) Can adult learners acquire nativelike knowledge of grammatical gender in the L2? (1.3) In adult L2 learners, is the possibility of nativelike attainment in the area of grammatical gender determined by the learner’s L1? (1.4) If it is found that even nearnatives have divergent representations of grammatical gender in the L2, what prevents them from reaching the same endstate knowledge as L1 speakers?

I shall investigate these questions by testing a version of the ‘Failed Functional Features Hypothesis’ (FFFH) proposed by Hawkins and Chan (1997). I shall test a strong hypothesis derived from Hawkins and Chan’s proposal that can be summarised as follows: (1.5) Strong FFFH Parameterized functional features (PFFs) cannot be acquired after childhood unless they are instantiated in the L1.






A more detailed discussion of the key assumptions behind the formulation of (1.5) will be provided in Chapter 2.

. The empirical study The proposal that NNS divergence relates to the unavailability of the full set of representational resources in adult SLA will be investigated empirically through the study reported in Chapter 5, which focuses the acquisition of grammatical gender, an area of the grammar known to be problematic for L2 learners. This is an appropriate area of the grammar within which to investigate the relevance of Orwell’s problem to adult SLA since gender clues are generally abundant in languages with grammatical gender, and more specifically in Spanish. The statement in (1.5) is a critical period (CP) hypothesis. I shall take ‘childhood’ in (1.5) to be loosely defined as the period in a person’s life starting at birth and culminating around puberty. My aim is not to determine at what exact age there might be a cut-off point for the nativelike acquisition of PFFs, but rather to find out whether adult learners, post-CP learners by hypothesis, can acquire the full range of the L2’s PFFs. I shall test (1.5) in the context of the acquisition of Spanish grammatical gender in native and very advanced adult L2 speakers from different L1 backgrounds, drawing on spontaneous speech and experimental data. A total of 110 native and nonnative speakers performed a range of tasks comprising a proficiency test, an informal recorded interview, an interpretation task, a cloze test, a multiple choice test, a grammaticality judgement task (GJT) with correction, an oral elicitation task using novel words, and a gender assignment check. The age of first exposure (AFE) for all subjects was after puberty and their level of L2 proficiency is very high,2 and I shall treat their L2 knowledge as indicative of endstate grammars. Choosing the endstate as the stage of development on which to focus is a natural consequence of adopting (1.5) as my working hypothesis, since the only reasonable way to test whether a particular feature can or cannot be acquired is to work with learners who have had realistic chances of acquiring it. Defining and identifying what constitutes the endstate is not an easy task, however, and more will be said about this in Chapter 2. As a study of critical period effects, this one has fairly restricted aims, since it addresses only one aspect of this issue, but I hope that it will nevertheless provide a useful contribution to the critical period literature, as a study of post-CP grammars. The empirical investigation reported in Chapter 5 is only one of a number of possible ways in which hypothesis (1.5) could be tested. The choice of L2 is


not central to the theoretical issues addressed in the thesis, nor is the choice of L1s. The only feature determined by the design was that the L2 investigated should be a language with a given PFF, and that the subjects’ L1s should be of two types: one group of languages should have the PFF in question in their feature inventories, while the other should not. Uninterpretable gender features were good candidates because they are present in some languages (e.g., Spanish) but not in others (e.g., English). Also, I had access to advanced speakers of L2 Spanish from a variety of L1 backgrounds, mainly from the immigrant population of some regions of Latin America. This combination of design and practical reasons determined the choice of Spanish grammatical gender as the focus of the empirical study. My aim in testing hypothesis (1.5) on this population is to achieve a better understanding of how knowledge of PFFs is represented in mature L2 grammars, how it varies within the adult L2 learner population, and how it compares with L1 competence. In investigating these questions, I shall address the topics of L1 and L2 ultimate attainment and the role of the L1 in SLA. Although the main focus will be the acquisition of syntactic features, I shall also consider some issues related to the acquisition of morphology, as it can be very difficult to determine where the domain of syntax finishes and that of morphology begins when dealing with agreement inflection.

. Broader significance of the study Supposing that it could be established that persistent NS/NNS differences were due to restricted access to representational resources (1.1b) in adulthood, a question that would still remain to be answered is why FL should be designed in such a way. Why should access to the whole inventory of representational primitives be subject to a critical period, allowing child L1 learners, but not adult L2 learners, full access to it? One can only speculate, but if it is assumed that the FF inventory is the locus of parametric differences between languages,3 and persistent differences between NS/NNS speakers happen to cluster in areas of the grammar driven by parameterized features, then the link between parametrization and CP suggests itself in an obvious way. Chapter 6 will explore the relation between the two and consider the consequences for adult SLA. Although parametrization does not entail CP (nor vice versa), the fact that they seem to go hand in hand in language and a number of other biological systems is compatible with the idea that this link may have been favoured by evolution. More fundamental answers to this sort of question are possibly






to be found through the study of evolutionary biology, and reference to some of the relevant work in this area will be made in Chapter 6. As pointed out by Hawkins (2001b), persistent NS/NNS differences can give us a new perspective from which to learn more about FL. MacLaughlin (1993), for example, provides compelling arguments that SLA can be as useful as FLA in informing learnability and syntactic theory. It is possible that the diverse outcomes of other types of language acquisition (e.g., bilingual or delayed L1 acquisition, the acquisition of sign languages, pidgins or creoles, impaired language acquisition, language attrition, etc.) will provide further insights into the design of this module of the mind. There are other areas of investigation that can also contribute to this aim, such as the study of comparative grammar, psycho- and neurolinguistics, and visual and auditory perception, among others. The present study of divergence in mature L2 grammars is intended as a small contribution to the wider research programme that seeks to answer fundamental questions about human language.

How the book is organized The contents of the book are organised as follows. Chapter 1 explains the motivations for the study and presents the main research questions to be investigated. Chapter 2 presents the definition of key terms used throughout the book and discusses some of the theoretical and methodological assumptions that underlie much of the discussion. The following two chapters contain the review of the literature relating to explanations of persistent NS/NNS differences (Chapter 3), and the description and acquisition of grammatical gender, with special reference to Spanish (Chapter 4). Chapter 5 reports on my study of the acquisition of Spanish grammatical gender by native and very advanced non-native speakers, in which research questions (1.2) and (1.3) are empirically investigated. Finally, Chapter 6 considers research question (1.4) and the predictions of (1.5) in the light of the empirical data and discusses their implications for SLA theory.

Chapter 2

Definitions, assumptions and predictions

Chapter 1 introduced the questions that motivate this study. This chapter will outline the main theoretical assumptions underlying the approach chosen for addressing these questions. I shall discuss some of the more important (and in some cases controversial) assumptions in my definitions of technical terms, theoretical framework and research methodology. Assumptions about the scope of UG constraints on grammar building, the idea of a critical period for the acquisition of specific areas of the grammar, and the availability of L1 resources in the building of L2 grammars will also be discussed in this chapter.

. Definitions .. Computational and representational resources The terms computational and representational resources were introduced in Chapter 1 in the discussion of elements that drive the language acquisition process listed under (1.1). As already mentioned in that discussion, the term computational resources will not be used to refer to real-time processing abilities.1 Instead, it will be used to refer to the abstract principles and operations underlying the workings of mental grammars, and CHL is shorthand for it. For example, all languages can build constituents by combining lexical items together. In the theoretical framework adopted here this is assumed to be achieved by the application of the operation Merge, one of the computational resources made available by UG. Other operations such as Select, Move or Agree, and the constraints operating on them (e.g., Merge before Move) constitute the operational machinery that learners/speakers have at their disposal to generate and evaluate expressions in the target language. Representational resources will be used to refer to the grammatical primitives that FL utilizes in the representation of grammatical knowledge. I shall assume that these primitives roughly correspond to what we call grammatical features, such as [±Past], [±plural], [±count], etc. Chomsky (1998) defines




features as “the properties of language that enter into PF, LF and the computational system that generates them” (p. 3). It is quite possible that some traditional features will be redefined or analysed into smaller component parts as linguistic theory develops and we reach a better understanding of what specific items are like. However, this does not invalidate the assumption that FL operates on the basis of representational primitives of some sort, and that particular languages use subsets of representational primitives selected from those made available by UG. Grammatical features defined in this way are not simply abstract labels used to describe the smallest building blocks of language. More importantly, they stand for mental resources that play a fundamental role in the representation of linguistic knowledge. One may ask how such representational resources operate in mental grammars. Chomsky (1998) proposes that FL utilizes features in the following way: UG makes available a set F of features (linguistic properties) and operations CHL (the computational procedure for human language) that access F to generate expressions. The language L maps F to a particular set of expressions EXP. Operative complexity is reduced if L makes a one-time selection of a subset [F] of F, dispensing with further access to F. It is reduced further if L includes a one-time operation that assembles elements of [F] into a lexicon LEX, with no new assembly as the computation proceeds. On these (conventional) assumptions, acquiring a language involves at least selection of the features [F], construction of lexical items LEX, and refinement of CHL in one of the possible ways – parameter setting. (pp. 12–13)

In more recent formulations of this proposal Chomsky (1999: 2, 2000: 25, 2001: 3) eliminates the idea of a ‘refinement of CHL in one of the possible ways’. Parameter setting can then be assumed to be restricted to optional feature selection from F, and it is in this sense that I shall interpret this concept. When FL architectural issues are discussed in Section 2.3, more will be said about the way in which speakers make use of features in the building of grammatical representations. Different classes of grammatical features can be identified using a number of possible criteria.2 For example, features can be classified according to the type of grammatical information that they contribute to the representation, resulting in groupings such as phi-features3 (person, number, gender), Case features (nominative, accusative, etc.), categorial features (N, V, and combinations of these). They can also be classified according to whether they are readable at the PF or LF interface, and this results in the label ±PF/LFinterpretable. For example, [person] is LF interpretable on nominals, but uninterpretable on verbs. A related distinction is that between functional, purely grammatical, formal or

Chapter 2. Definitions, assumptions and predictions

syntactic features on the one hand, and lexical or substantive features on the other, depending on whether the features have clear descriptive content or not. Features can also be classified as intrinsic or optional, according to whether they are associated with lexical items in the lexicon or assigned to them as they enter the lexical array/numeration.4 Similarly, we can distinguish between items that have unvalued features (e.g., [ugender] on adjectives before agreement with a noun has taken place) and those in which features are valued (e.g., [gender: f] on nouns). LF uninterpretable features are particularly important in this study, since it would appear that at least a subset of these features can be persistently problematic for L2 learners. It is possible that this difficulty is somehow related to the fact that LF uninterpretable morphosyntactic features appear to be the locus of parameterization (more on this in Section 2.3). I shall introduce a further distinction between the subset of features that are invariably selected by all languages, which I shall call universal features [F]U , and those only optionally selected by languages, which I shall refer to as parameterised features [F]P . The set F of features made available by UG can then be said to be made up of the union of these two subsets: F = [F]U ∪ [F]P . The results of this study and a number of other studies that will be singled out in the course of the discussion suggest that the theoretical distinction between universal and parameterized features has some empirical support, as different types of features would appear to pose different problems for language learners. The way in which distinctions such as the one proposed here relate to language acquisition will not necessarily be straightforward, though. For example, the universal/parameterized distinction seems to interact with the presence or absence of features in the L1 inventory. (For discussion of this interaction, see Franceschina 2001c, 2002, and Chapter 6 here.) The empirical study reported in Chapter 5 will focus on the acquisition of the parameterised functional feature [ugender] in L2 Spanish, and this will at times be contrasted with the acquisition of another parameterised functional feature ([unumber]) and a universal functional feature ([uCase]5 ). .. Attainment in SLA The second group of potentially confusing terms are those used to refer to high levels of linguistic proficiency and the later stages of acquisition. I shall now briefly discuss the interpretations given to terms such as nativelikeness and steady state and explain the method followed in determining whether particular grammars fall within the boundaries of these definitions.






Let us consider the concept of nativelikeness first. There is experimental evidence showing that NSs of a particular language can generally identify speakers who are not NSs of this language (Moyer 2004: 70; Scovel 1988: 101), except when NNSs perform in highly contrived experimental conditions (e.g., Bongaerts 1999). Although intuitively easy to grasp, the concept of nativelikeness is elusive when one tries to pin down its defining characteristics. Some degree of idealization will be necessary to allow for a usable definition of nativelikeness here. I shall assume that nativelike grammars are those which obey the constraints of the target language (TL). This is tantamount to equating nativelike with targetlike, and I shall therefore use these terms interchangeably.6 The practical investigation of nativelikeness presents a number of pitfalls for SLA researchers. It has been argued by some that nativelike syntactic representations underlie the production of divergent morphology (e.g., Lardiere 1998a, b; Prévost 2004; Prévost & White 2000; Ionin & Wexler 2002; to be discussed in some detail in Chapter 3). At the same time, there is some empirical evidence suggesting that nativelike L2 production does not always correspond to nativelike interpretations. I agree with White’s (1996) proposal that the null hypothesis should be taken to be that “similar [targetlike] behaviour on the part of NS and NNS has the same origin” (p. 92). However, it is clear that there are cases where one is justified in rejecting the null hypothesis. A case in point is that of the nearnative speakers of French investigated by Coppieters (1987). These speakers were reported often to pass as native speakers on the basis of their oral L2 production, but when asked about their intuitions about a series of frequent grammatical phenomena (e.g., pre- vs. post-nominal adjectives, Imparfait vs. Passé Composé, etc.) they were found to be very different from French NSs. Another example of divergent representations underlying targetlike production is the use of referential subject pronouns by L1 Greek speakers of L2 English reported in Tsimpli and Roussou (1991). These learners made targetlike judgements of overt subject pronouns in some contexts, accepting sentences like (2.1) as grammatical: (2.1) He lives with his mother.

However, they also accepted sentences like (2.2) as grammatical: (2.2) Is raining.

Tsimpli and Roussou (1991) argue that the representations underlying the correct use of referential pronouns such as in (2.1) are probably nontargetlike, or else the systematic failure to see the ungrammaticality of null expletive pronouns, as in (2.2), cannot easily be explained. Tsimpli and Roussou suggest


that these speakers are operating under the +prodrop L1 parameter setting and misanalysing English subject pronouns as agreement markers on the verb. In view of the potential difficulties determining when L2 production is a reliable indicator of underlying competence, I shall adopt a strategy for the interpretation of L2 data that consists of applying certain checks before committing myself to the view that specific samples of divergent production are a reflection of divergent representations, or that a given sample of targetlike production is evidence of targetlike interpretations. This can be done in a number of ways. For example, given the case of L2 speakers whose production of Past Tense forms in speech is nonnativelike, one can use a Past Tense interpretation test and compare the results. Let us now consider the converse situation. For example, an L2 speaker may correctly inflect verbs with -ing in progressive contexts, but this in itself is not enough to show that their underlying knowledge is nativelike. One would also want to check for example whether he overextends the -ing marking to non-progressive contexts, or whether he uses this marking more or less frequently in certain contexts and whether these frequencies reflect the input patterns or are linked to other variables (e.g., predicate type). One could also check whether the speaker’s interpretations of -ing marked verbs are more or less restricted than those of NSs. Another way of investigating whether learners have acquired nativelike competence of a given property of L2 is to look into the subject’s interpretations of a related syntactic phenomena. Consider the case of the ±prodrop parameter, for example. It has been suggested in the syntactic literature (e.g., Rizzi 1982; Jaeggli 1982) that there is a link between ±prodrop, the possibility of subject inversion and that-trace effects, such that in –prodrop languages it is not possible to extract subjects from embedded clauses in the presence of an overt complementizer.7 One way in which one could supplement the investigation of the production of overt subjects in English (a –prodrop language) by L2 speakers whose L1 is +prodrop (e.g., Greek, Italian, Spanish) would be by looking at the learners’ interpretations of the phenomena that cluster in –prodrop and +prodrop languages respectively. For instance, learners could be made to judge the grammaticality of sentences such as *Who did you say that will come? to find out whether they are sensitive to that-trace effects. Nonnativelikeness can take at least two forms: (a) unsystematic divergence (a.k.a. ‘optionality’), and (b) systematic divergence.8 Let us first consider optional nonnativelike grammars. Papp (2000) defines optionality in the following terms:






[Optionality] can be defined as the coexistence of two variants of a given construction with identical Logical Form (LF) representations within the same grammatical system. (p. 173)

A well known example of optionality in SLA is found in a longitudinal study by Lardiere (1998a, b, 2000) of an L1 Chinese speaker of L2 English known as Patty. Despite being very proficient in other aspects of the L2 grammar, she only provides Past Tense marking on verbs in approximately 34% of obligatory contexts, and there is no discernible pattern distinguishing the verbs that get Past Tense inflection from those that do not beyond a relatively higher incidence of marking among irregulars. Assuming that nativelike syntactic knowledge is syntactic-feature-driven, and given that the optionality described by Papp is standardly assumed to be disallowed by targetlike grammars, one can conclude that nativelike syntactic knowledge should be correlative with lack of syntactic optionality. Lack of optionality may be a necessary condition for nativelikeness, but it is obviously not a sufficient one, as one could imagine the case of a nonoptional, but nevertheless divergent grammar. This brings us to the second type of manifestation of nonnativelikeness: systematic divergence. Evidence for systematic divergence comes, for instance, from studies of the acquisition of wh-movement in English by L1 Chinese speakers. It has been observed that these learners systematically fail to detect the ungrammaticality of sentences such as (2.3): (2.3) *Which test don’t you know who failed _ ?

The movement of the wh-phrase from the position marked with an underscore to the front of the sentence in (2.3) is disallowed by English NSs because of superiority effects. It has been proposed (e.g., White 1992; Martohardjono & Gair 1993; Hawkins & Chan 1997) that Chinese speakers do not analyse English sentences as containing wh-movement. Instead, sentences such as (2.3) are analysed as containing base-generated wh-phrases associated with a null pro in the gap position. Another example of nontargetlike systematic constraints on L2 grammars can be found in a longitudinal study by Schwartz and Sprouse (1994) of an L1 Turkish speaker of L2 German known as Çevdet. This learner went through a stage of L2 development in which he produced targetlike XVS order in matrix clauses only when the subjects were pronouns. Schwartz and Sprouse suggest that Çevdet may have misanalysed German pronouns as clitics that incorporate into the finite verb, and this would be compatible with the observable patterns


of inversion with pronouns but not with other types of subjects in Çevdet’s L2 spoken production. This example shows firstly that divergence does not necessarily imply optionality, and secondly that a divergent grammar is not necessarily unconstrained by UG. Another example of systematic divergence is reported in Sorace’s (1993) study of advanced L2 Italian speakers. She shows that her L1 French subjects have divergent but stable representations of the syntactic reflexes of unaccusativity in Italian, which she argues is due to L1 transfer. She contrasts these subjects’ performance with that of the L1 English subjects in the same study, who are claimed to have optional representations for the same L2 syntactic phenomenon. A question that arises in connection with the definition of nativelikeness (or lack thereof) is how it can be measured. One proxy that can be used is degree of variability. A caveat is in place here, though. Firstly, one should bear in mind any potentially masking effects of systematic divergence. Secondly, there may be factors other than those being investigated contributing to the variability. Until it can be demonstrated that the observed variability is related to whatever one suspects may be causing it, variability itself is not very informative. Despite these caveats, one can in principle gain useful insights from measures of variability, provided one is aware of the limitations of such data. For example, the previously mentioned study by Coppieters (1987) showed that very advanced L2 French speakers who were classed as nativelike in most areas of the L2 based on their production were much more variable than the French NSs in their interpretations of very frequent constructions of French grammar. In this case the differences in within-group variability between the NS and NNS groups would be enough to determine that the two samples do not belong to the same population. Another interesting example of variability was described by Johnson and Newport (1989). They found that people starting to learn their L2 in early childhood reached levels of attainment that correlated negatively with age of first exposure to the L2 (i.e., the older they were at first exposure, the lower the level of L2 attainment). In contrast, there was seemingly unconstrained variability in the attainment of those who had been exposed to the L2 after the age of 16: no correlation between age of first exposure or length of residence and attainment could be established. When the empirical data in the present study are presented in Chapter 5, both individual and group variability will be taken into consideration in the discussion of the results. A concept that is closely linked to nativelikeness is that of the endstate, especially in the context of FLA, where they normally go hand in hand. It will be






hypothesised here that the language learner’s main learnability task is to establish which of the parametric options made available by UG should be selected given the input he or she is exposed to. It is possible to conceive of a stage in L2 development where the learner’s parametric choices correspond to the TL and stabilize. This is when the learner has reached a mental state that can be described as the mature grammar.9 Other terms that can be used to describe this mental state are adult grammar, steady state, endstate, final state, or ultimate attainment. There are some slight differences in meaning between these terms, but they are not crucial in the context of FLA. Identifying the endstate in FLA is relatively straightforward, as all normal children immersed in normal linguistic environments attain adult grammars in a fairly homogeneous manner, both in terms of the time it takes them to get there, the route they follow and the system that is eventually acquired. By contrast, L2 learners can vary considerably in the time they take to reach similar stages of development. L2 developmental paths are relatively less homogeneous (seemingly subject to the influence of age of acquisition and L1, for example), and the exact shape of the acquired system is not as easy to predict as in FLA. Since L2 grammars sometimes (arguably most of the time) appear to stabilize (or ‘fossilize’) at levels of development that stop short of being completely nativelike, the terms L2 endstate, L2 steady state, etc., unlike their L1 counterparts, will not be assumed to imply the notion of targetlike systems. SLA researchers have often made a distinction between temporary and permanent cessation of learning in learner grammars. Disagreement sometimes comes about when people try to establish whether given learners have reached temporary plateaus in development (a.k.a. stabilization) or whether the cessation of learning is indefinite (a.k.a. fossilization). The following passage from Long (2003) highlights some of the difficulties one faces when maintaining this distinction: [. . .] where testability is concerned, a claim that something in a person’s makeup is ‘permanent’ is unfalsifiable during her or his lifetime, yet permanence is the only quality distinguishing fossilization from stabilization. Either an inevitably somewhat arbitrary minimum period must be specified as acceptably long for permanence to be inferred, therefore, or a claim of fossilization remains untestable. (p. 490)

In my view, this terminological distinction is not useful. I shall therefore use the terms stabilization and fossilization interchangeably and will make explicit reference to the length of duration of the developmental plateau where relevant.


Hypothesis (1.5) can only be tested by investigating the L2 endstate. Given that the present study is not longitudinal, it cannot demonstrate that the subjects’ grammars are definitely endstate grammars. However, I shall assume that they are, for the following two reasons. Firstly, all of the subjects’ L2 knowledge globally matches the TL very closely, as indicated by the fact that they fall within the NS range of scores in the proficiency test. That is, they are nearnatives from the point of view of overall L2 proficiency. Secondly, these subjects have had very prolonged and mostly naturalistic exposure to the TL (mean: 28.09 years). I shall assume that the combination of global nearnative performance and long, uninterrupted immersion in an L2 environment constitute an acceptable benchmark for allowing a comparison between these subjects and adult NSs.

. Approach to SLA research As stated in the previous sections, the object of investigation of this thesis is the most advanced stage of the development of interlanguage (IL) grammars. I shall approach their study from two perspectives: (2.4) a.

as language systems in their own right, subject to their own sets of rules and constraints, and b. in comparison with other L1 and L2 grammars.

There is a sizable body of literature arguing for the treatment of L2 grammars as language systems in their own right (see, for example, Bley-Vroman 1983; Cook 1992, 1999; Lakshmanan & Selinker 2001; Schwartz & Sprouse 1994; Selinker 1972, 1992; White 1992, 1998, among others). Research strategy (2.4a) has been extensively justified in these and other sources, and I am not aware of any arguments that may have been raised against it, so I shall assume that the consensus in the field is that it is a valid approach. By contrast, strategy (2.4b) is likely to be more controversial. One potential strand of criticism follows from the proposal that comparing L1 and L2 grammars is not a legitimate research strategy because monolingual and bilingual grammars are intrinsically different (e.g., Ellis 1991; Cook 1992, 1999) and therefore should not be measured with the same yardstick. However, there are some clear indications that this criticism would be unjustified within the context of the present study. If the differences between grammatical representations due to the mono- or multilinguality of the speakers were to explain the production and/or comprehension differences between NSs and NNSs, one






would expect, for example, that all NNSs should behave differently from the monolingual NS controls, but this is not the case: some NNSs do not seem to behave any differently from their monolingual counterparts. If at least some L2 speakers can achieve nativelike knowledge of the L2 grammar, then we must conclude that multilingualism itself is not a barrier to nativelikeness. A different criticism levelled at research strategy (2.4b) has been that it is uninteresting at best, and misguided at worst. For example, White (1998) concludes a section on this topic by stating that “the issue [. . .] is whether the IL grammar is a ‘possible’ grammar, not whether it is equivalent to the L2 grammar” (p. 5).10 Bley-Vroman (1983) labeled the tendency of much SLA research to use the TL/NS as the norm against which to measure L2 grammars the comparative fallacy. He formulated this notion against the background of a spontaneous speech study which made use of Suppliance in Obligatory Contexts (SOC) as the scoring technique.11 A problem with Bley-Vroman’s analysis is that arguments against the TL/NS bias in determining what constitutes an obligatory context are presented together with arguments against SOC (e.g., the fact that this scoring system disregards overextensions). In my opinion, what his discussion achieves is to demonstrate that SOC is a deficient scoring technique, but not that the comparison of NS/NNS grammars is not worthwhile. The latter should be determined by the aims of individual investigations and not by an a priori decision about what SLA researchers should or should not be interested in. Blind adherence to an anti-comparative approach is, in my view, as limiting as the sole reliance on TL/NS measures of the L2 grammar. For example, consider the following passage from Lakshmanan and Selinker (2001), in the context of a discussion of the low suppliance of Past Tense morphology by Patty, the L2 English speaker studied by Lardiere (1998a, b, 2000): We think that in order not to err on the side of underestimating Patty’s suppliance rate of past tense marking, Patty’s use of past tense marking should also be analysed to determine whether it is being selectively used to signal grounding distinctions and/or lexico-semantic distinctions. If the analysis indicates that Patty’s use of past tense marking is not random but varies in relation to the grounding distinctions and/or lexico-semantic distinctions, then, in computing her suppliance rate for past tense marking, only those contexts where the use of past tense marking is predicted in terms of her interlanguage should be considered as obligatory contexts for past tense marking. (p. 407)

The hypotheses about grounding and lexico-semantic distinctions proposed by Lakshmanan and Selinker could be very useful in making sense of the proper-


ties that are relevant to this speaker’s IL morphosyntax. However, not allowing the study of Patty’s L2 competence also to be done in comparison with the NS norm prevents the formulation of another important question, namely, why this speaker has not arrived at a grammar that makes a distinction more compatible with the L2 input (i.e., [± Past Tense] ↔ ± past tense inflectional morphology), a distinction adopted by all NSs and some NNSs. Discarding the potential usefulness of NS/NNS grammar comparisons because they have often been associated with poor scoring techniques such as SOC, or with studies that overlooked IL systems that were different from the L1 and the TL, is in my view like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The comparative element of the analyses that will be presented here can be said to be an example of what Granger (1998: 12) has called “Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis”, as it involves NS vs. NNS comparisons as well as NNSA vs. NNSB comparisons. The combined approach described in (2.4) aims at uncovering the internal principles of IL grammars as well as determining what distinguishes them from other natural language systems. In the context of the present study, exclusive reliance on (2.4a) or (2.4b) would necessarily result in a partial account of the area of L2 grammatical knowledge under investigation.

. General view of the grammar I shall adopt a view of the architecture of FL based on Chomsky’s recent work. Many of the key elements in this architecture were mentioned in the excerpt from Chomsky (1998) cited in Section 2.1. As already mentioned in that section, I shall assume the version of parametrization adopted in Chomsky (1989: 44, 1999: 2, 2000: 25, 2001: 3), which eliminates the idea of a ‘refinement of CHL in one of the possible ways’. Accordingly, parameter setting will be assumed to be restricted to optional feature selection from F and assembly of these features into LEX. Figure 2.1 schematically presents these ideas and other fairly standard assumptions about the architecture of FL that I shall adopt here.12 The process of language acquisition is represented on the left-hand side of the diagram. Presented with PLD, the language learner determines which features from the feature inventory F (also referred to as ‘representational resources’ in previous sections) are useful in making sense of the linguistic input. I shall assume, following Chomsky, that F is universal and innate, so all children have the full set available to them when they start to acquire their L1. The operations through which these features are manipulated do not need to






MERGE AGREE MOVE ASSEMBLE

SELECT F

[F]

SELECT LEX

S-O

SELECT LA/N

EXP

ë ð

Figure 2.1 Schematic representation of the architecture of FL

be learned either. Following Chomsky, I shall assume that FL’s computational resources (CHL ) are also universal and innate. The process of feature selection from F in response to PLD happens at the same time that these features are assembled into operationally defined bundles (i.e., in the construction of lexical items or LIs). The inventory of LIs amassed during the course of language acquisition constitutes the lexicon (LEX), and it is this component of memory that speakers/hearers will access during actual language use. The mechanism for the computation of expressions in any given language is represented on the right-hand side of Figure 2.1. The first stage of a derivation will be the selection of LIs from LEX, resulting in the formation of a lexical array or numeration (LA/N). The syntactic operations Merge, Agree and Move will then be applied to these LIs as and when required, thus generating expressions in this language. Another step needed before an expression can be pronounced and/or interpreted is the application of the operation SpellOut, which separates LF- and PF-interpretable features. These features are then transferred to the relevant interfaces, where the derivation either converges or crashes depending on whether all features can be interpreted. If we assume that the operations and the universal set of features F shown in Figure 2.1 are innate, it follows that children learning their L1 will not need to learn them. What they will have to learn is which subset [F] of F to select, and how to assemble the features in [F] into lexical items, based on the linguistic input they receive. Exposure to different input will result in differently constituted [F] and LEX. I shall further assume that the variation within [F] and LEX is restricted or, more specifically, parameterized. I would like to draw attention to the economy considerations in the passage from Chomsky (1998: 12–13) cited in Section 2.1 and repeated separately below.


(2.5) Economy consideration 1 “Operative complexity is reduced if L makes a one-time selection of a subset [F] of F, dispensing with further access to F” (2.6) Economy consideration 2 “[Operative complexity] is reduced further if L includes a one-time operation that assembles elements of [F] into a lexicon LEX, with no new assembly as the computation proceeds”

The second economy consideration highlights the advantages of a system that can have ready access to lexical items in the derivation of linguistic expressions. This issue is not central to the present discussion so no more will be said about it here. The first economy consideration seems to imply that mature (L1) grammars are stable with regard to their [F] makeup, and that when a learner has established how [F]L1 is constituted, the parameterized part of language learning is completed. This is interesting from a learnability perspective, and it is directly relevant to some of the issues that will be discussed in Chapter 6. It has been fairly standard in PPT to assume that while the principles of UG apply generally to all areas of the FL, parameterization is restricted to the lexicon, and more specifically to its functional elements. Below is an early formulation of this view from Chomsky (1989): It has been suggested that the parameters of UG do not relate to the computational system, but only to the lexicon. [. . .] Properties of the lexicon too are sharply constrained, by UG and other systems of the mind/brain. If substantive elements are drawn from an invariant universal vocabulary, then only functional elements will be parameterized. (p. 44)

Although many researchers adopt this general view, the details of their proposals may vary. For same discussion of functional elements as the locus of parameterization see for example Borer (1984), Den Dikken (2000), Fukui (1988, 1995) and Tang (1998). A recent formulation of these ideas in Chomsky (2000) goes one step further and proposes that it is only a subgroup of functional elements which are the basis of parameterization, namely uninterpretable functional features: The basic principles of language are properties of the initial stage; the parameters can vary in limited ways and are set by experience. To a large extent, the parameters furthermore seem to be lexical, in fact properties of a small subcomponent of the lexicon, particularly inflectional morphology. Some recent work suggests that an even smaller subpart of inflectional morphology may be playing the central role in determining both the functioning and the






superficial variety of language: inflectional morphology that lacks semantic interpretation. (p. 25)

Given this view of FL, which I shall adopt here, one can classify the functional elements in F according to whether they are invariably present in [F] or whether they are selected by some languages but not others. I shall call the two types of functional features universal and parameterized respectively, as indicated in Section 2.1. A caveat on notation is called for here. Although I shall be discussing syntactic phenomena in the spirit of MP’s more recent developments (e.g., Chomsky 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005), some use of X’-theory and binding theory notation will be made given that there is as yet no new standard equivalent. In a strict sense, using this notation is at odds with the basic principle of Inclusiveness, since it introduces new features (e.g., indicating ‘projection of head’, indices, etc.) in the derivation. I am aware of this problem, but I shall take a pragmatic approach and use these labels where they are helpful for clarity. However, I do no wish to commit myself to the view that these elements have any specific status as grammatical representations.

. The syntax/PF interface One aspect of language design that was only briefly mentioned in Section 2.3 (Figure 2.1) was the mapping of expressions (EXP) generated in the narrow syntax to PF representations (π). This section will discuss the syntax to PF mapping in slightly more detail, given that different assumptions about how this interface works can lead to different accounts of NNS divergence. The reader must be warned that the exact location and nature of morphological processes is still the subject of much debate. It is not the aim of this section to enter this debate, but simply to identify, insofar as it is possible, the proposal that is more compatible with my general assumptions about the architecture of FL. According to Spencer (1991: 304), there are two main trends in morphological theory. There are those who favour syntactic approaches to morphology, as exemplified in proposals such as the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985, 1988) or Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993, 1994), and there are others who adopt more lexicalist approaches, such as Di Sciullo and Williams (1987) or Lieber (1992). While the former put more emphasis on the parsimony of an integrated theory of morphology and syntax and regard aspects of morphology mainly as the consequence of principles of syntax, the latter


treat morphology as an independent area of the grammar and attempt to solve the interface problem by encoding syntactic relationships and dependencies into lexical representations. In what follows, I shall mention some proposals at different points in the spectrum between pure syntactic and pure lexicalist approaches to morphology. At the lexicalist extreme of the continuum are proposals such as Di Sciullo and Willliams’ (1987), who maintain a strict distinction between syntax and morphology. Their approach constitutes one of the strongest defences of the Lexicalist Hypothesis, which proposes that the operations of syntax have no access to the internal structure of lexical items. Morphology is understood as a pre-syntactic, unitary word formation component that is part of the lexicon. Di Sciullo and Williams distinguish between the word as a morphological object, made up of morphemes via processes like affixation or compounding, and the word as syntactic atom, i.e., the basic, indivisible unit of syntax. According to this view, the former concept of word is relevant exclusively to morphology and only the latter belongs to the domain of syntax. Moving away from the lexicalist extreme of the continuum we find Word-and-Paradigm (WP) Morphology, of which Matthews (1972, 1991) and Anderson (1982, 1992) are archetypal representatives. WP proposes a distinction between inflectional affixation and other morphological processes such as derivation and compounding, also known as the ‘Split Morphology Hypothesis’. According to this view, morphological representations constitute bundles of unordered features (e.g., person, number, gender, tense, etc.) which originate in the syntax, and the application of language-specific morphosyntactic rules to these representations results in inflectional affixation. On the other hand, word formation processes (e.g., derivation and compounding) operate from the lexicon and are independent from the syntax. Anderson’s (1992) A’-Morphous Morphology is an extension of WP. He maintains the Lexicalist Hypothesis, while at the same time adhering to the Split Morphology view. The aspect of his proposal that is directly relevant to the present study is its view of the interface between morphology and syntax, represented by inflectional processes. He defines inflection in the following terms: [. . .] inflection is precisely that morphology with respect to which principles of syntax and of word formation interact within particular grammars. (pp. 84–85)

This means to say that there must be at least some properties of words visible to the syntax. Anderson proposes that exchanges of information between the morphology and the syntax take place via the Morphosyntactic Representation






(MSR) of words. According to this proposal, the terminal nodes of syntactic representations are not lexical items but MSRs. MSRs are different from the formal composition of words and instead consist of abstract properties. These properties are realised as unordered lists of morphologically and syntactically relevant features, and constitute the only aspect of word structure that the syntax can manipulate. According to Anderson the syntax can manipulate MSRs in the following ways: – – –

by contributing configurational properties to the MSR, by distributing the properties of a constituent to its members, by assigning features to items in order to cause them to agree with another one.

There are other possible effects of syntax on MSRs that I overlook here as they are less relevant to this study. All syntactic interventions on MSRs are subject to a principle that Anderson calls ‘monotonicity’ which states that the only effect that a syntactic principle can have on an MSR is to add features to it, but never to delete or replace existing ones. Moving towards the more syntactic approaches to morphology, we find Word Syntax, which proposes that word formation processes are constrained by the argument structure inherited from the stem and the principles of syntax (e.g., Marantz 1984; Sproat 1988; Baker 1988). In a more recent formulation of some of these ideas, Halle and Marantz (1993, 1994) lay out the principles of Distributed Morphology (DM). The reason behind the name of this approach is the claim that what have traditionally been referred to as morphological phenomena are actually not concentrated in a single component of the grammar but distributed among several different components. However, the assignment of phonological features to morphosyntactic entities is strictly post-syntactic. According to Harley and Noyer (1999), the following are some of the basic tenets of DM: – – – –

Late insertion: Phonological expressions (‘Vocabulary Items’ or ‘VIs’) are inserted only after syntax. Underspecification of Vocabulary Items: VIs need not be fully specified for the syntactic positions where they can be inserted. Syntactic hierarchical structure all the way down: Syntactic and morphological elements enter into the same types of constituent structures. Rejection of the Lexicalist Hypothesis: There is no lexicon in DM. The jobs traditionally assigned to the lexicon in other frameworks are distributed through other components.


–

Vocabulary insertion (or Spell-Out): This involves the association of phonological pieces (VIs) with abstract (i.e., morphosyntactic) morphemes. The spell-out of f-morphemes (roughly equivalent to functional morphemes in traditional terminology) is done by competition for insertion among sets of VIs, in which the item chosen matches the greatest number of features specified in the terminal morpheme. By contrast, in the spell-out of l-morphemes (roughly equivalent to lexical or content morphemes) VIs are inserted freely.

A part of the theory that is particularly relevant to the present study is the DM view of inflection, a typical formulation of which is as follows: In general, then, DM claims that inflectional features are picked up in packaged morpheme bundles in the grammar, not in the ‘lexicon’ or Vocabulary, and that word formation is syntactic and postsyntactic, not lexical. (Halle & Marantz 1993: 166)

Given the variation in basic assumptions in different frameworks, one may ask which approach expresses the view of the syntax/PF interface that is most compatible with the assumptions made here about FL (cf. Section 2.3). While some of the proposals outlined above are partially compatible with what has been assumed about the architecture of FL, once one looks at the detail one finds that there is no single proposal that matches these assumptions without some need for modification. Chomsky has shown some support for both lexicalist and distributed views. For example, he has suggested that, from a theoretical perspective that views a grammar as an optimal solution to the problem of mapping meaning to form, features of lexical items which enter into derivations should be represented in a unitary form in the lexicon: “In the simplest case, the entry LI is a once-and-for-all collection (perhaps structured) of (A) phonological, (B) semantic, and (C) formal features” (Chomsky 1999: 8). That is, in the simplest case they are not distributed. At the same time, he allows for the possibility that “empirical phenomena might call for ‘distribution’ of [the features of the lexicon]” (p. 7). The same duality can be seen in the following excerpt from Chomsky (1998): In the course of construction of LF, an operation Spell-Out delivers the structure already formed to the phonological component, which converts it into PF. If lexical items LI express Saussurean arbitrariness in the conventional way, then Spell-Out ‘strips away’ the true phonological features, so that the






derivation can converge at LF; it will crash if later operations introduce LIs with phonological features. On the assumptions of Distributed Morphology, the phonological features are introduced after Spell-Out by phonological operations applying to LIs lacking them. I will assume some instantiation of this array of options to be correct. (p. 33)

More recently, Chomsky (2001) seems to have opted for DM, as transpires for example from his discussion of the operation Spell-Out (pp. 20–21). Current minimalist architecture and DM are not fully compatible in some respects. Nevertheless, as minimalist theory seems to be moving in this direction the areas of incompatibility between the two frameworks may be smoothed out in future work. For the time being I shall assume that in principle some version of A-morphous morphology or DM is compatible with MP assumptions about the structure of FL, although adjustments are likely to be needed before either can be fully integrated with current MP ideas.

. Specific assumptions about language acquisition .. How Strong FFFH came about In Sections 2.3 and 2.4 I presented the general assumptions about grammatical knowledge that I shall be making and which follow from adopting a particular generative framework. In this section I shall discuss more specific assumptions about the nature of language acquisition that constitute the basis for the formulation of hypothesis (1.5), repeated below, which are not necessarily adopted by all generativists working on language acquisition. (1.5) Strong FFFH Parameterized functional features (PFFs) cannot be acquired after childhood unless they are instantiated in the L1.

As mentioned in the introduction, this hypothesis stems from the Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (FFFH, Hawkins, & Chan 1997). The original formulation of FFFH was as follows: [. . .] the virtual, unspecified features associated with the initial state of functional categories like C, Agr, D, and which determine parametric differences between languages, are available in that form only for a limited period in early life. [. . .] Beyond the critical period the virtual, unspecified features disappear, leaving only those features encoded in the lexical entries for particular lexical


items [. . .] The principles of UG, however, remain fully available and constrain grammar building. (p. 216)

In what follows, I shall spell out the key assumptions about the nature of language acquisition implicit in this proposal, indicating how hypothesis (1.5) fits into this scheme. One key assumption is that L2 grammatical representations are UGconstrained in the same way that L1 representations are. If it is the case that humans are endowed with cognitive resources specifically designed to deal with language, then it seems reasonable to assume that they will be used in the acquisition of any language, be it first, second or third, simultaneously or consecutively acquired, spoken or signed, unless evidence is found to the contrary. Why would humans resort to using other cognitive abilities to learn languages when they possess more efficient and arguably domain-specific cognitive resources? All other things being equal, the default hypothesis seems to be that UG constrains the grammatical representations of any natural human language. Moreover, there is considerable empirical evidence that this is the case for SLA as well as FLA (see, for example, DuPlessis et al. 1987; Epstein, Flynn, & Martohardjono 1998; Flynn 1996; Flynn & Lust 1990; Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996, 2000; White 1989, 1992, 1996, 2003). Another assumption of FFFH and (1.5) is that parameterised functional features (PFFs) are subject to a critical period. This means that unless they are acquired in childhood, these features will not be fully acquired, even when the learners have had extensive periods of exposure to the language and have achieved nativelike competence in other areas of the L2 grammar. Unlike the first hypothesis, this one does not follow from other more widely accepted assumptions about language acquisition. Putting it in the context of the architecture presented in Section 2.3, this hypothesis would imply that adult learners cannot select a new subset [F]L2 from F during the acquisition of an L2. The third and final main assumption that I would like to mention here is related to the role that L1 grammatical features, particularly PFFs, play in SLA. I shall assume that once a speaker has established which features in the universal set F are necessary in order to make sense of the L1 input, this subset of features is selected and remains available for the creation of new lexical items in the L1 (for example, to accommodate the learning of new L1 vocabulary) or any other language subsequently acquired. In other words, I shall assume that the subset [F]L1 selected in FLA is fully available for the construction of the L2 grammar’s LEX (LEXL2 ), just as it is available for the modification of LEXL1 throughout life. These assumptions about the availability of L1-selected features for the






building of LEXL2 requires independent empirical justification, and the section on the role of the L1 (Section 2.7) will address the issue in more detail.13 In summary, apart from adopting a general view of grammar in the spirit of Chomsky’s recent work, I shall make the following assumptions: (2.7) Top-level assumptions about language acquisition: a. UG operates normally in all types of natural language acquisition. b. L1-selected PFFs are available in the acquisition of languages other than the L1 (i.e., it is possible to use L1 PFFs in L2, L3 or Ln, grammar building). c. There is a CP for the acquisition of PFFs.

These three assumptions have scope over all types of language acquisition, and for this reason I shall refer to them as ‘top-level hypotheses’. Figure 2.2 shows how they relate to other less general hypotheses that I shall be considering in the study. For example, hypothesis (1.5), a mid-level hypothesis, follows when these top-level hypotheses are adopted in the study of adult SLA. One Background hypotheses Top-level hypotheses

PPT and MP assumptions about the architecture of FL (see Sections 2.3 and 2.4) – All natural language acquisition is UG-constrained. – L1-selected PFFs are not language specific in their application. – PFFs are subject to a critical period. =(2.7)

Mid-level hypotheses

In adult SLA nativelike knowledge of PFFs will be restricted to the subset instantiated in the L1 =(1.5)

Low-level hypotheses

Adult L2 learners of Spanish whose L1 is French, Italian, Greek, German or Portuguese can acquire native-like knowledge of grammatical gender, while adult learners whose L1 is English, Chinese, Japanese or Korean cannot.

Figure 2.2 Organisation of hypotheses in the study

FLA delayed beyond the critical period will show lack of native-likeness in all areas related to PFFs


Table 2.1 Comparison of theories of SLA making different basic assumptions Assumptions a. UG principles operate normally in SLA b. There is L1 transfer at the level of PFFs c. There is a CP for the acquisition of PFFs

Theory A Theory B Theory C My proposal (2.7) ×

×

×

can think of other mid-level predictions that follow from the assumptions in (2.7) in the context of SLA and in other language acquisition contexts. One such example, related to delayed FLA, has been provided in Figure 2.2. Finally, a low-level prediction stemming from hypothesis (1.5) is shown in Figure 2.2, and it applies directly to the L2 population investigated in this study. Again, other low-level hypotheses could be formulated to test hypothesis (1.5) in other narrowly defined SLA settings. One sensible question to ask at this point is whether the three key assumptions I have made are all necessary to account for SLA outcomes. I shall consider this by evaluating the plausibility of building a theory of SLA based on only two of these assumptions at a time. There are three possible combinations, as summarized in Table 2.1. I would like to argue that theories A-C would not be satisfactory theories of SLA. Theory A can be discarded on the basis of numerous empirical studies which have shown that L2 grammars are constrained by UG, even when they are not nativelike (see the references cited in this connection at the beginning of this section; also see the discussion of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis and similar proposals in Chapter 3). Theory B can also be discarded, given the extensive body of evidence showing that there is transfer of L1 grammatical knowledge with far reaching consequences for ultimate attainment (see relevant references and discussion in Section 2.7). Theory C is, in my opinion, the most plausible of the three. One current proposal that makes similar assumptions to this hypothetical theory is the Full Transfer/Full Access theory of Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996, 2000). FT/FA claims that although the starting point of L2 grammar building is [F]L1 , learners have full access to the representational resources made available by UG and if the input requires the use of any features outside those in [F]L1 they can incorporate them into their L2 grammars directly from F and restructure their L2 grammars accordingly. So learners are assumed to start from the position that the features in [F]L1 are the appropriate resources for the representation of the L2, but when they are exposed to enough L2 data they realise that this initial






strategy is not appropriate for all areas of the L2 grammar and so modify [F] accordingly, adding new features from F as needed. The only possible case in which learners may fail to do this is where the input is ambiguous in the sense that it is compatible with both the L2 setting and the L1 setting (I discuss this case below). However, and despite the intuitive appeal of such a view of SLA, it does not appear to make the correct predictions for L2 ultimate attainment or delayed L1 acquisition, as will be shown in Chapters 3 and 5 (independent evidence against this prediction for SLA can also be found in Hermon 1992 and MacLaughlin 1995). In conclusion, a quick consideration of these issues suggests that the three top-level assumptions in Figure 2.2 may be necessary for the construction of a satisfactory SLA theory of ultimate attainment. .. How the L1 and the L2 may differ Several types of relations may hold between different languages, and each type presents different learnability issues to learners with different L1/L2 combinations. Consider two languages LA and LB , each selecting a subset of FFs (represented as a, b, c, d, e and f in Figures 2.3–2.8) from the universal set of features F made available by UG. The intersection between [F]A (i.e., the subset of FFs selected from F by LA ) and [F]B (i.e., the subset of FFs selected from F by LB ) may in principle comprise anything from every feature selected by each language to ø. However, knowledge of what the languages of the world are like suggests that neither extreme is likely to be found in real language pairs. For example, the case illustrated in Figure 2.3, where [F]A ∩ [F]B = {a, b, c, d, e, f}, [F]A – [F]B = ø, and [F]B – [F]A = ø would be very odd, as it would mean that [F]A and [F]B are extensionally identical with regards to FF composition (i.e.,

[F]A

[F]B a

d

b c

Figure 2.3 [F]A = [F]B

e f


[F]A

[F]B d

a

e

b f

c

Figure 2.4 [F]A ∩ [F]B = ø

[F]A

a

e [F]B

b d f

c

Figure 2.5 [F]B ⊂ [F]A

[F]A = [F]B ). This would mean that any differences between these languages would be restricted to the assembly of these features in LEX. Such language pairs are logically possible, but unlikely.14 The case of two languages not sharing any features at all would also seem to be odd, given that the inventory of features is limited and that even typologically unrelated languages show some basic similarities. I shall assume that there are certain universal features that all languages invariably select (e.g., [uCase]), so the case of [F]A ∩ [F]B = ø, as illustrated in Figure 2.4, is ruled out. A third logical but unlikely option is the case of a pair of languages such that all the features selected by one of them are contained in the other language’s inventory but not vice versa. This is illustrated in Figure 2.5, which represents [F]B ⊂ [F]A . If such pairs of languages existed, the prediction that would follow from my assumptions would be that L1 speakers of [F]A would in principle be able to attain nativelike knowledge of all aspects of the grammar of [F]B (but not vice versa). While it is likely that a subset-superset relation will






[F]A

[F]B a

d c

b

e

f

Figure 2.6 Typical language pairs

[F]A

[F]B a

d c

b

e

f

Figure 2.7 Properties of the L2 for which nativelike knowledge is predicted to be attainable

[F]A

[F]B a

b

d c

e

f

Figure 2.8 Properties of the L2 for which nativelike knowledge is predicted not to be attainable


hold for some of the expressions generated by one language in relation to the expressions of another in some language pairs, it is unlikely that this relation will hold for every expression that may be generated in each language (as in the case of Figure 2.5). I shall therefore not consider this case any further. From the way in which the languages of the world appear to differ syntactically from one another, and assuming that this variation is related to differences in PFF inventories, one could assume that most language pairs will share some PFFs but not others. It may be reasonable to expect that the proportions of shared versus distinctive features in different pairs might be linked to whether the languages are historically or typologically related, but this has no bearing on L2 learnability issues. Figure 2.6 is a representation of what I assume typical language pairs to be like, irrespective of exactly how many features populate each subset, as long as they have a cardinality of at least 1. Regarding the likelihood of nativelike acquisition of particular areas of the grammar, two predictions follow given the three assumptions outlined in (2.7). The first is that L2 learners will be able to acquire nativelike knowledge of areas of the L2 grammar driven by the features in the set [F]A ∩ [F]B , where [F]A is the subset of FFs selected by the L1, and [F]B the subset of FFs selected by the L2. This corresponds to the shaded area in Figure 2.7. As was already mentioned, Figures 2.3 and 2.5 represent the unlikely cases in which all the features of the L2 fall within the area where nativelike knowledge is fully attainable. I shall assume that Figure 2.6 depicts a more realistic SLA scenario, where L1 = L2 and L2 ⊂ L1 with regard to FF composition. By contrast, nativelike knowledge will not be achievable in areas of the L2 grammar driven by features in the set resulting from [F]B – [F]A . This prediction is illustrated in Figure 2.8, where the shaded area represents the features that L2 learners are predicted not to be able to acquire in a nativelike manner. Figure 2.3 represents the case where L2 learners would not be faced with any impossible learnability task, given that [F]B – [F]A = ø. As has already been noted, however, the situation represented in Figure 2.3 is an unlikely scenario. The predictions illustrated in Figures 2.7 and 2.8 will be tested in the empirical study reported in Chapter 5. The experimental groups in this study face the task of learning features in the shaded areas in Figure 2.7 (in the case of the experimental group made up of L2 Spanish speakers whose L1 has grammatical gender) and Figure 2.8 (in the case of the experimental group made up of L2 Spanish speakers whose L1 does not have grammatical gender). Parametric differences between languages are taken to be differences in PFF composition in [F] (see Section 2.3). It follows that there will always be a difference in PFF composition between [F]L1 and [F]L2 (i.e., [F]L2 – [F]L1 = ∅).






Given my assumption that adult L2 grammar building is limited to the representational resources in [F]L1 (as per 1.5) and taking into account that [F]L2 – [F]L1 = at least 1, it follows that [F]L1 will always be insufficient to build the grammar of an L2 in the way that a child L1 learner does so, as there will always be at least one PFF needed for building the L2 in a nativelike way missing from [F]L1 . In brief, NNS grammars are expected to be based on a subset of the syntactic features operative in NS grammars as a result of the reduced number of FFs accessible in SLA. Returning to a metaphor mentioned earlier, one could say that the [F]L1 should, to varying degrees, be insufficient to ‘break down’ all the relevant aspects of the L2 input. NNSs should in principle be able to acquire nativelike knowledge of areas of the L2 grammar driven by PFFs present in [F]L1 , while their knowledge of other areas of the L2 grammar may exhibit some degree of divergence, because this knowledge is not driven by (the same) functional features. Different learning problems will arise depending on the relation that holds between the samples of language generated by the L1 and the L2. Let us consider three specific cases here. Imagine the case of a parameter P with two values i and j, and two languages L(Pi) and L(Pj), each instantiating one of the values of this parameter. One possibility is that the expressions generated by L(Pi) and L(Pj) respectively are always different. In set theoretic terms, the relation between the two sets of expressions from each language would be disjointness. A second scenario is where some expressions from L(Pi) and L(Pj) overlap. This would mean that some of the sentences generated by these languages could be interpreted as being generated by either of the two languages. A third possibility is the case of pairs of languages where one of them generates expressions that are always possible outputs of the other language, but not vice versa. The relation between two such languages is one of subset-superset. The last case is potentially problematic because a learner whose L1 is the superset and whose L2 is the subset should in principle find it impossible ever to reset the value of P to that of the more restricted L2 on the basis of positive evidence alone, as every sample of the L2 will also be compatible with the L1 setting. The third situation, where the input is ambiguous for the L2 learner, is predicted by theories such as FT/FA to lead to persistent difficulties and to account for NNS divergence even in nearnatives. However, this prediction is not without problems, as mentioned earlier. I shall not go into more details here as the type of parametric options that the present study focuses on are not cases where the L1/L2 can be argued to be in a superset-subset relation. Instead, the relevant scenario is the first case here, where the L1 and L2 are languages with different


settings of a given parameter that generate two disjoint sets of expressions. In principle, such learners should have no unsurmountable difficulties in learning what the appropriate parametric options are in such cases, as the evidence available to them is not ambiguous.

. The critical period One of the key elements of the main hypothesis investigated in this study is the assumption that there is a critical period for the acquisition of certain aspects of language (2.7c). More specifically, I have suggested that the acquisition of parameterized functional features (PFFs) falls within the area of the grammar that is subject to age effects. In this section, I shall provide a brief summary of the current state of knowledge about age effects in SLA. (For indepth discussions and overviews of the L2 critical period literature see, for example, Birdsong 1999; Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson 2003; Krashen, Scarcella, & Long 1982; Long 1990; Scovel 1988; Singleton 1989; Singleton & Lengyel 1995, Singleton & Ryan 2004.) I shall use the term critical period in a broad sense, following Johnson and Newport (1989): In this paper, we use the term critical period broadly, for the general phenomenon of changes over maturation in the ability to learn (in the case under consideration in this paper, to learn languages). We therefore include within this term maturational phenomena which other investigators have called sensitive, rather than critical, periods. By using the term in this broad fashion, we mean to avoid prejudging what the degree or quality of such maturational change may be (e.g., is it a sharp qualitative change vs. a gradual quantitative one?) and what the nature of the underlying maturational mechanism may be (e.g., is it a change in a special language faculty vs. a more general change in cognitive abilities?). (pp. 60–61, n. 1)

There is general agreement among SLA researchers that in situations of naturalistic exposure to an L2 the earlier exposure begins, the higher the level of L2 proficiency eventually attained. It is less clear whether this is also the case in instructed SLA, although there are some indications that it may be (see Singleton 1992, for relevant discussion). Another established fact is that adults generally have an advantage over children in terms of speed of acquisition in the early stages, but children typically catch up with and surpass them in the long run. These are strong general tendencies, but it is not the case that if exposure to an L2 starts early in life it will invariably lead to highly targetlike attainment. Sim-






ilarly, it is not the case that late starters will never do as well as early starters, and cases of exceptional late learners who perform almost like NSs have been reported in the literature (e.g., Ioup 1995; Ioup et al. 1994). Evidence in favour of the hypothesis of a critical period for SLA comes from a cross-sectional study by Johnson and Newport (1989). They studied a group of 46 Korean and Chinese learners of English living in the US whose ages of arrival (AoA) ranged from 3 to 39 years. All the subjects had at least five years’ exposure to English and at least three years’ uninterrupted residence in the country at the time of the study. The experimental task was an orally presented GJT testing a range of areas of morphosyntax, namely progressive aspect, past tense, third person singular present tense, plural marking, determiners, pronominalization, particle movement, subcategorization, auxiliaries, yes/no questions, wh-questions, and word order. Johnson and Newport found that the earliest arrivals performed virtually at the same level of accuracy as the NS controls. Those whose AoA was between 8 and 15 showed a steep decline in accuracy with increasing AoA. Finally, those whose AoA was 17 or over were considerably less accurate than NSs and the earlier arrivals, but showed no clear decreasing trend in accuracy with increasing AoA. Not one of the 23 late arrivals performed within the NS range of scores. An overall negative correlation between AoA and level of L2 attainment has been reported by other studies (e.g., Bialystok & Hakuta 1999; Birdsong 1992; Birdsong & Molis 2000; DeKeyser 2000; Flege 1999; Johnson & Newport 1991; Newport 1990; Oyama 1976), although there are some differences in terms of age of terminus and exact regression slopes between the studies. The age literature contains reference to studies where fluent late learners behave worse than NSs without exception (e.g., Hyltenstam 1992; Johnson & Newport 1989; Oyama 1976), even in cases where the subjects have been screened for nearnativeness (Coppieters 1987; Sorace 1993). Nevertheless some researchers object to any definite conclusions drawn on the basis of such studies on the grounds that there are other studies reporting individual cases (Ioup 1995; Ioup et al. 1994) or multiple cases (e.g., Birdsong 1992, 1999; Bongaerts 1999; White & Genesee 1996) of late learners who have achieved nativelike proficiency in the L2. Birdsong and Molis (2000: 20) estimate that in most studies reporting nativelike attainment levels in late learners this comprises approximately 5–20% of the sample, which suggests that these cases should not be treated as exceptional. However, it is important to note that all studies reporting such high percentages of late learners performing at nativelike levels have looked at typologically close language pairs, such as Dutch/English or English/French.


It is generally accepted that age effects may be different in different areas of the grammar. A distinction is usally maintained between critical period claims for morphosyntax, phonology and vocabulary. The evidence available suggests that the terminus may be earlier for phonology than for morphosyntax (e.g., Lamendella 1977; Seliger 1978; Walsh & Diller 1981), and there is no evidence suggesting that there is an age after which L2 vocabulary learning is problematic (the same is true of L1 vocabulary learning) or that an earlier start leads to more effective L2 vocabulary acquisition (Singleton 1995: 16–21). Some have gone as far as to suggest that there may be different critical periods for the acquisition of different subareas within these general grammar domains (e.g., Eubank & Gregg 1999: 67). Support for this last claim comes from ERP studies, for example, which have found age effects in the processing of functional categories but not lexical ones (Weber-Fox & Neville 1996, 1999). There is disagreement among researchers about whether the age-related facts mentioned here do in fact justify the idea of a critical period for language acquisition. Some believe in age effects but they would rather account for them in a different way (e.g., as a gradual decline in ability to learn over the whole life span, as in Bialystok 1997 and Bialystok & Hakuta 1999). There are also different views among those who believe that the idea of a critical period is generally correct. Among these researchers disagreement relates to which specific aspects of the grammar are subject to a critical period, and what accounts for age affecting the acquisition of these specific areas of the grammar and not others. Martohardjono and Flynn (1995) have suggested that while there may be a critical period for the acquisition of the areas of the grammar that are learned in an inductive way, those areas acquired through deductive processes are not subject to the effects of age. In the former category they include lexical and idiosyncratic rule learning, and they include UG principles and parameters in the latter. A similar view is taken by researchers such as Lardiere (1998a, b, 2000), Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996, 2000) and White (1996), who assume that UG is fully accessible throughout life. A different view is taken by Tsimpli and Roussou (1991), Smith and Tsimpli (1995) and Hawkins and Chan (1997), who suggest that while UG principles remain accessible throughout life, the full range of parametric options does not. In this study, I shall test a version of the latter approach. (For more details on these proposals, see Section 3.2.) Another area of debate relates to the question of why there should be a critical period for (second) language acquisition in the first place. This question is fundamental and the study of language acquisition alone cannot be expected to provide a full answer to it. It is more likely that the answer will combine knowledge from different disciplines, probably including cognitive






science, evolutionary biology, and linguistic theory. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to provide such an interdisciplinary account, although reference will be made to some of the relevant research from other fields when the link between parameters and the critical period is discussed in Chapter 6.

. The role of the L1 In the final section of the present chapter, I shall expand on the idea of L1 transfer introduced in Section 2.5. Although some have argued against the notion of L1 transfer in SLA (e.g., Flynn 1987), the consensus seems to be that the grammatical properties of the L1 can exert an important influence on various aspects of L2 development, from the initial state, throughout intermediate developmental paths, to the endstate, and it can affect a wide range of linguistic phenomena. For an overview, see for example Cenoz, Hufeisen & Jessner (2001), Dechert & Raupach (1989), Gass (1996), Gass & Selinker (1983, 1992), Kellerman & Sharwood-Smith (1986), Odlin (1989, 2003), Ringbom (1987). In line with the general view in the field and as stated in Section 2.5, the assumption in this study will be that there is L1 transfer in SLA. Although transfer probably affects a wide range of language areas, this study is only concerned with how it affects the acquisition of morphosyntax. More specifically, the focus will be on the use of L1 representational resources in the construction of the L2 grammar. I assume that transfer does not affect computational resources, as I take these to be universal and invariant across languages. I shall thus adopt a relatively narrow definition of transfer, as follows: (2.8) L1 transfer consists of the use of elements from [F]L1 in the construction of LEXL2 .

[F]L1 denotes the subset of features selected by the L1 from the universal feature inventory made available by UG, and LEXL2 is shorthand for the L2 lexicon. This definition of transfer is fully compatible with my assumptions about adult L2 learners not having access to PFFs other than those in [F]L1 . The fact that the L1 and L2 draw from the same inventory of representational resources (i.e., [F]L1 ) does not mean that the L1 and the L2 end up being identical grammars, for at least three reasons: firstly, some of the resources in [F]L1 may be superfluous to the construction of the L2 grammar, in which case they may not be used in the assembly of L2 lexical items and will not be part of LEXL2 ; secondly, the L2 input may (most probably will) require L2 lexical items to be assembled in a different way from L1 lexical items; finally, the two gram-


mars may contain different elements from those found outside the domain of FFs, where there is no universal/parameterized distinction. In other words, the L1 and the L2 grammars will be necessarily different at least in the sense that LEXL1 and LEXL2 will be different. There is some empirical evidence suggesting that a view of L2 grammar construction restricted by the representational resources of the L1 is along the right lines, and not just for syntactic features. One strand of evidence comes from the acquisition of L2 phonology, where it seems to be the case that adult L2 learners cannot acquire L2 phonological contrasts not present in the L1. That is, new segmental representations can be acquired in the L2 as long as they contrast with other L2 segments in ways recognised by the L1 grammar. A study by Brown (2000) investigated this question and looked, among other things, at the L2 acquisition of the coronal contrast /r/ vs. /l/ in English by L1 Korean and Chinese speakers with mean ages of L2 exposure of 9.9 years and 10.4 years respectively. The phonemic inventories of Korean and Chinese have the /l/ segment but lack the /r/ segment. There is a crucial difference between these languages, however: while the [coronal] feature that distinguishes /r-l/ is a contrastive feature in Chinese (as it is in English), it is not in Korean. Using a discrimination task and a forced picture selection task, Brown found that while her L1 Chinese subjects could discriminate /r-l/ to the same level of accuracy as the NS controls, the L1 Korean subjects were significantly poorer in both tasks. Larson-Hall (2004) reports similar results from a study of L1 Japanese speakers of L2 Russian. A case similar to the L1 Chinese speakers in Brown’s study is that of the L1 English speakers of L2 Spanish reported in Franceschina (1999, 2001a, d). These studies looked, among other things, at the L2 speakers’ accuracy on number marking on nominals. English and Spanish have uninterpretable number features, but while [unumber] is marked on adjectives in Spanish, it is not in English. In the same way that the Chinese subjects in Brown’s study did not have problems with the new segment /r/, the English speakers in these studies did not have any problems constructing adjectives marked for number in the L2, as seen by their nativelike performance on adjective number agreement. This is compatible with the assumption in (2.8): these speakers’ [F]L1 has uninterpretable number features, as evidenced for example by number agreement between subjects and verbs. My interpretation is that the exact feature composition of lexical items (adjectives in this case) in the L1 should not be taken into account for deciding whether a particular FF will be available for transfer and L2 grammar building, just as the exact L1 phonemic inventory does not appear to matter for predicting L1 phonemic transfer, as long as






the relevant feature/contrast is present in the L1. In the case of the acquisition of [unumber], L2 speakers should in principle be able to construct adjectives marked for number if so required by the L2 input, as long as these features are present in [F]L1 , and regardless of how LEXL1 may be arranged. In other words, it would appear that [F]L1 , not LEXL1 , constrains LEXL2 building. It is possible that when a learner’s [F]L1 does not have a particular PFF to build a nativelike representation of an aspect of the L2 input, he or she may be able to provide an alternative interpretation of the L2 by recourse to other features in [F]L1 . If such a strategy was at work in adult SLA, we should expect to find that in some cases learners would judge grammatical L2 data as grammatical but not for the same reasons as NSs. And such cases have indeed been reported in the literature. Let us consider the case of Chinese, which does not have wh-movement (as mentioned in Section 2.1.2). Proficient Chinese speakers of L2 English have been reported to judge sentences such as (2.9) as grammatical (Martohardjono & Gair 1993; White 1992). (2.9) Which test did you fail?

A nativelike interpretation of (2.9) is presented in (2.10a). If adult Chinese learners were not able to acquire the PFFs necessary to build such a nativelike interpretation of (2.9), one would expect that they would judge these sentences as ungrammatical. However, they do not. Does this mean that L1 Chinese speakers can acquire nativelike representations of wh-movement after all? Not necessarily. As previously mentioned, and following suggestions by Martohardjono and Gair (1993), and White (1992), it may be that these speakers assign a different interpretation to such sentences through the use of other representational resources available in [F]L1 . For example, they may interpret (2.9) as shown in (2.10b). (2.10) a. [Which test]i did you fail [which test]i? b. [Which test]i did you fail proi ?

Now if these learners resorted to features other than those used by NSs in making sense of wh-movement data, then the constraints on wh-movement may be different in NS English grammars and the L2 English grammars of these speakers. This possibility has been confirmed by reports in the cited literature that Chinese speakers interpret sentences such as (2.3) (first mentioned in Section 2.1.2), as grammatical. (2.3)

*Which test don’t you know who failed?


This sentence is ungrammatical for NSs, who assign it the representation in (2.11a). It is possible that Chinese speakers assign to it the interpretation in (2.11b) instead, and this would explain why they treat such sentences as grammatical. Hawkins (2001a: 302) has also pointed to the fact that the L1 Chinese subjects in Johnson and Newport (1989) were more successful than the English NSs in assigning grammatical interpretations to sentences such as (2.3). This lends further empirical support to the proposal that L1 Chinese speakers may be operating on the basis of nonnativelike representations such as (2.10b) and (2.11b). (2.11) a. *[Which test]i don’t you know who failed [which test]i? b. [Which test]i don’t you know who failed proi ?

Cases such as these lend support to the idea that in cases where [F]L1 does not contain the appropriate features to yield nativelike interpretations of the L2 input, L2 learners can sometimes resort to other features from [F]L1 . However, these features will most likely provide only partial solutions to the analysis of L2 input and they may even lead to systematic misanalyses of the data, as was suggested in Section 2.1 during the discussion of optional and systematic divergence in IL grammars. Moreover, given that knowledge of language comprises knowledge of a range of different types of linguistic features, in the absence of appropriate syntactic features, other types of linguistic knowledge interacting with the syntax may play a role in producing what we perceive as divergent syntactic intuitions and/or production. In summary, the view of transfer as reliance on the L1 feature inventory for the construction of L2 lexical items adopted here finds some empirical support in the existing SLA literature. The adequacy of this proposal will be further investigated in the context of the study of the acquisition of grammatical gender in L2 Spanish presented in Chapter 5.

Summary In this chapter I have presented some of my basic assumptions about language and language learning. The most important ones in terms of the weight they carry in arguments that will be developed later on are the three top-level hypotheses on the nature of (second) language acquisition listed under (2.7), concerning (a) the normal operation of UG principles in SLA, (b) the possibility of L1 transfer, and (c) the existence of a critical period for the acquisition of parameterized functional features (PFFs).



Chapter 3

Competing theories of NS/NNS ultimate attainment differences

Child L1 and adult L2 acquisition can be differentiated in a number of ways. Two of the distinctive characteristics of adult SLA attainment relevant to the present study are the following: (3.1) a.

Attainment is generally less targetlike in adult L2 than in child L1 learners. b. Attainment is subject to more individual and group variation in adult L2 than child L1 learners.1

A number of competing theories have attempted to provide an explanation of these facts, and this chapter will review some of these proposals. Section 3.1 presents a brief overview of extra-linguistic accounts that explain NNS divergence as a result of detrimental biological, cognitive, social, affective or learner-external influences. Section 3.2 reviews a number of linguistic accounts of NS/NNS attainment differences in some detail.

. Extra-linguistic approaches .. Biological accounts One often cited explanation for why adult learners are less successful than children at language acquisition is loss of neural plasticity in the brain (Penfield & Roberts 1959). One version of this account is Lenneberg’s (1967) suggestion that there is a CP for language acquisition as a result of the completion of brain lateralization and hemispheric specialization around puberty. He drew this conclusion from evidence of the difficulty with which adult patients with brain injuries recovered the linguistic functions controlled by the injured areas. Children who had suffered similar injuries showed much higher recovery rates and could in many cases fully recover linguistic ability. This suggested to him that the brain is able to reorganise in children so that intact areas take over the




functions of damaged areas. This ability to adapt and (re-)learn language seems to be lost in adulthood, and this is the main reason why adults are poorer L2 learners than children, according to this account. In more recent discussions of these ideas, myelination of neural pathways has been suggested as an alternative explanation for the loss of brain plasticity (see the discussion in Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson 2003). Myelin is a lipid substance (i.e., fat) that surrounds some axons and serves to speed up axonal transmission in the brain. The myelination of neurons makes transmission across larger cerebral distances easier, but more difficult for the connections between neighbouring neurons, and it is sometimes used as an index of maturation. Marcotte and Morere (1990) have suggested that the observed age effects in language acquisition are the result of Broca’s area undergoing myelination. Seliger (1978), for his part, proposed that CP effects may be the result of a thickening of the corpus callosum. Biological explanations seem to be very promising as empirical accounts of NS/NNS differences, but it is probably too early in the development of neurolinguistics to know whether we are anywhere near a fully satisfactory explanation. Even the more tentative biological accounts available at the moment have their critics (e.g., Walsh & Diller 1981). The rapid pace of development in neuroscience suggests that it may not be too long before the type of evidence needed to investigate potential biological causes of NS/NNS differences is available to us. .. Cognitive accounts Other researchers have suggested that cognitive maturity may be a disadvantage for adult L2 learners. For example, Felix (1985, 1987) has proposed that there is a certain kind of competition between UG and domain-general cognitive systems which has adverse effects for adult L2 learning. This is known as the Competition Hypothesis. The emergence of problem-solving abilities around puberty is taken to cause adult L2 learners to have to deal with a dual approach to language learning that constitutes a suboptimal language acquisition strategy. In similar vein, Rosansky (1975) proposed that when Piagetian formal operations emerge they act as inhibitors of language learning. Another cognitive account has been proposed by Birdsong (1994), who suggests that adults have cognitive skills that get in the way of successful SLA. More specifically, he suggests that the principles that guide decision making in adults interfere with the language learning process and that this makes adults poorer language learners than children.

Chapter 3. Competing theories of NS/NNS ultimate attainment differences

As Long (1990) has pointed out, however, there does not seem to be clear co-variation between attainment and the types of cognitive ability alluded to in some of these proposals. For example, less intelligent or more immature adults are not necessarily better L2 learners. In fact, where correlations are found between cognitive abilities and L2 attainment, the more developed these abilities are the higher the level of ultimate attainment is in adult learners. For example, a study by DeKeyser (2000) has found that high verbal ability correlates positively with high levels of ultimate attainment in adult (but not child) L2 learners. (Very similar results were found by Harley & Hart 1997, for immersion learners; see Robinson 2001 and Sparks & Ganschow 2001, for recent reviews of the literature on language aptitude more generally.) A different type of cognitive explanation relates to the input processing strategies used by children and adults. One such account is the ‘less is more’ hypothesis proposed by Newport (1990) and Goldowsky and Newport (1993), which claims that limited cognitive capacity allows children to focus on and store only some of the component pieces of the linguistic input, while adults try to analyse complex chunks of the L2 at once, with detrimental learning effects for the latter. Some indirect evidence for this hypothesis comes from the training of connectionist networks, which do better when they ‘start small’. Elman (1993) has shown that these networks are more successful at learning grammar when they are trained on input that only contains simple sentence (no embedded sentences) or when they are only given small memory resources early in training and gradually given more memory resources as the training proceeds. Another input processing account is Carroll’s (1989), who has proposed that L2 learners focus on different aspects of the input from L1 learners due to their cognitive and linguistic maturity. She focuses on the acquisition of gender in French and proposes that L1 learners first treat articles as part of the noun, and when they realise that they are separate lexical items, this triggers the establishment of the gender feature in their grammars. By contrast, L2 learners ignore the phonological status of determiners and treat them as independent lexical items from the start, so there is never restructuring in their development. MacWhinney (1992) makes a similar proposal. He suggests that adults, but not children, use ‘top-down constructive processing’ of information, which allows them to understand incomplete or badly heard utterances by filling in details with previous knowledge. Although useful in the native language, this strategy may have negative effects for SLA because it may allow adult learners to skip some crucial stages of linguistic development. Processing differences between child and adult learners are found even at advanced levels of proficiency. Juffs (1998) has shown that advanced L2 En-






glish speakers who have very few problems with grammatical judgements of L2 argument structure still differ from NSs in their deployment of on-line parsing mechanisms, as indicated by differences in response latencies. A previous study by Juffs and Harrington (1995) had shown a similar dissociation between judgement and parsing data with regard to chain formation in wh-phrases and trace location. It is hard to judge the full implications of these proposals and findings at the present time, as the current state of knowledge about how parsing and linguistic knowledge relate to each other is still rather fragmentary. Nevertheless, input processing accounts seem to me to be more promising than the other cognitive accounts mentioned here in helping us to understand ultimate attainment in different types of learners. .. Social and affective accounts Learner’s attitudes towards the second language and culture are believed by some to account for the commonly observed variability in NNS ultimate attainment. For example, Schumann’s (1978) Pidginization Hypothesis claimed that the reason why L2 grammars fossilize (or ‘pidginise’) is the learners’ failure to ‘acculturate’. Lack of acculturation was claimed to be a direct result of social distance (determined by factors such as domination, assimilation, enclosure, group size, congruence and attitude) and psychological distance (determined by language shock, culture shock, motivation, and ego permeability, among other things). Schumann argued that the case of Alberto, a Costa Rican immigrant to the US who failed to integrate to American society and preferred to socialize with other hispanophones, provided supportive evidence for these claims: Alberto ‘pidginised’ at a very early stage of L2 development because he failed to acculturate. From a more sociological perspective, Peirce (1995) has argued that successful L2 learning is related to the learners’ degree of engagement with native speakers and disposition to change the accepted social order by constructing and asserting their social identity. Learning is claimed to be successful when learners are able to summon up or construct an identity that enables them to impose their right to be heard. This requires what Peirce calls ‘investment’, i.e., commitment to learning the L2, something that learners will only do if they believe their efforts will increase the value of their ‘cultural capital’, i.e., if they believe that it will give them access to knowledge that will enable them to function successfully in a variety of social contexts.


A different type of proposal drawing on the learner’s perceptions of embarrassment, risk and other affective aspects of communicative acts was Krashen’s (1982, 1985) Affective Filter Hypothesis. Krashen proposed that a variety of affective variables (e.g., low motivation, little self-confidence, high levels of anxiety, etc.) impede linguistic input from reaching the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), thus acting as a sort of filter. Children were claimed not to have or use affective filters, while adults often use them, and this was claimed to explain the differences in attainment between the two. Several other proposals based on motivation, personality, anxiety and similar factors can be found in the literature. However, I believe that the investigation of such factors poses some important difficulties. One is that the data relevant to affective variables are notoriously difficult to categorize and quantify. Explanations based on the impact of socio-cultural variables on language attainment have the same potential drawbacks as those based on affective factors, since they typically have to be investigated via proxies. More importantly, however, empirical evidence from studies incorporating affective and social variables suggests that they do not have significant power to account for differential NNS attainment, at least relative to other types of variables. For example, attitudinal variables (motivation, American identification and selfconsciousness) were unable to explain away the age effects in Oyama’s (1978) study. The same was found in Johnson and Newport’s (1989) study, even when the three variables were pitted together against age. Other researchers (e.g., Long 1990; Gleitman & Newport 1995; Ellis 1994) have also arrived at the conclusion that social and affective factors cannot satisfactorily account for fundamental NS/NNS attainment differences. .. Accounts based on learner-external factors One account of ultimate attainment based on factors external to the language learner explains NS/NNS attainment differences by reference to differences in the learning environment, such as differences in amount or type of linguistic input received. For example, Lightbown (1985) estimates that after 6 years of exposure to the language, children L1 learners have 12,000 to 15,000 hours of linguistic exposure, while children in French immersion programmes have 4,000 hours of exposure, and learners in normal FL programmes have > 1,000 hours. It is therefore not surprising to find differences in ultimate attainment between these learners. However, one may question how far this can go in accounting for NNS attainment generally, especially if we take into consideration the results of studies such as Birdsong (1992), Flege and Liu (2001)






or Patkowski (1980), which indicate that, beyond a minimum period of naturalistic exposure, length of residence is not necessarily a good predictor of attainment. In other words, beyond a threshold, more input does not seem to improve L2 learners’ chances of becoming highly proficient. Also, I suspect that quantitative accounts of this sort would face difficulties accounting for attainment in bilingual FLA, as bilingual children most probably receive quantitatively less input than monolinguals for each of the languages that they acquire, and yet it is possible for them to become fully targetlike in both. Krashen’s (1985) Input Hypothesis is a different type of input-based account. He claimed that speakers acquire L2s by making sense of the language around them, and that this is possible when they are exposed to ‘comprehensible input’ (p. 2). He assumed that there was a common developmental path (or ‘natural order’) that all learners followed, and comprehensible input was defined as linguistic data slightly beyond the learner’s current state of grammatical development. He referred to the input that a given learner can make sense of at the current state of development as i and the input that he or she will be able to produce/understand at the next developmental stage as i + 1. The Input Hypothesis predicts that successful SLA is dependent on the learners’ getting i + 1. If an L2 learner receives the right type of input at the right point in development, he or she should in principle be able to achieve full mastery of the L2. If a learner does not achieve nativelike proficiency in the L2, the lack of i + 1 may explain his or her failure to do so, but other explanations cannot be ruled out. This proposal was extensively discussed in the literature in the 1980s and the consensus reached seems to be that it has some important problems, such as the practical difficulties establishing what counts as i + 1 (see Gregg 1984 and McLaughlin 1978, for some criticisms). A large body of research on the type of instruction that may benefit adult L2 learners is currently available (e.g., Doughty 1991, 2003; Doughty & Williams 1998; Jordens 1996; Housen & Pierrard 2005; Long 1983, 1988; Norris & Ortega 2000; Pienemann 1989; Van Patten 1996, 2004, to name but a few). However, not many of these studies set out to investigate the effects of instruction in determining the L2 endstate grammar. Among the exceptions are some studies considering the relationship between parameter resetting and type of instructional input (e.g., Trahey & White 1993) or the role of negative evidence (Schwartz 1993), and their findings suggest that even important differences in the input have a limited role in accounting for differential attainment. Parallel to the question of the input that learners receive is the issue of the amount of use of the L1 and L2 that they make, and there is some evidence showing that this can have an effect on attainment. For example, Flege and


colleagues found that the amount of L1 use was negatively correlated with degree of foreign accent in the L2 in very advanced L2 English speakers (Flege, Frieda & Nozawa 1997) and in bilinguals (Guion, Flege & Loftin 2000). The same was reported for the acquisition of English morphosyntax by L1 Spanish learners in Birdsong and Molis (2000: 27). Further support for the beneficial role of more contact with the TL in terms of attainment comes from Klein and Dittmar (1979) and Scott (1994). How decisive this influence is for ultimate attainment is less clear, however. It would be interesting to find out if there is a threshold of language input and/or use below which nativelike acquisition is not possible. What seems clear is that there is not a threshold above which nativelikeness is guaranteed in SLA, as indicated by studies of learners who have been immersed in an L2 speaking environment for a considerable number of years and still fail to acquire a targetlike command of the L2 (see Han 2000; Lardiere 1998a, b; and Long 2003, for some case studies). Detailed studies of how differences in the linguistic input determine the differences in NS/NNS ultimate attainment would be welcome, but they are lacking at the moment, excluding what is inferable from instructional intervention studies. There is a methodological difficulty intrinsic to adult SLA: while it is relatively easy to determine the type and amount of input that children receive, it is much more difficult to obtain representative samples of the input that adult L2 speakers are exposed to, as their linguistic interactions typically take place in a wide range of settings. Even if one could overcome these practical difficulties and somehow obtain a good measure of the input that adult L2 learners received, this would probably not be enough in itself to account for the course of L2 development and stabilization. The same is true for FLA research, where there is much detailed and carefully collected data (e.g., data available from the CHILDES database, MacWhinney 2000). The following example illustrates how limited the insights of input information alone can be. It has been observed that children acquire certain inflectional markers (e.g., -ed and irregular Past Tense markers) in such a way that their accuracy profiles over time follow a U-shaped curve because they are very accurate when they start using these inflectional markers, then they go through a period in which they make some mistakes (typically overregularizations), and they eventually improve and become targetlike.2 This happens without any obvious changes in the input they receive. So the language acquisition researcher is faced with explaining how the learner’s grammar goes from being accurate to inaccurate and back to accurate while exposed to the same type of input. This shows that even when one has all the desired empirical information at one’s disposal, the investigation of the






input a learner receives is limited in what it can offer us for the construction of an explanatory theory of language acquisition. A potential danger in developing any account of NS/NNS differences based primarily on extra-linguistic factors is that the proposed causes may turn out to correlate with the observable facts, but not in a causal manner. In order for extra-linguistic accounts of NS/NNS attainment to be insightful for SLA research, they also need to provide principled links between the proposed extra-linguistic factors and language learning. This has very rarely been done explicitly in SLA research, a notable exception being Carroll’s (2001) booklength discussion of input and SLA. The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to reviewing linguistic accounts of NS/NNS attainment differences. This is where I believe lies the most fruitful line of enquiry at the present time. I do not wish to undermine the contributions to L2 attainment of other factors, however. For example, any linguistic account of fundamental NS/NNS differences must ultimately be compatible with neurophysiological data. Similarly, cognitive, social and affective explanations are likely to help to account for the variability in attainment among NNSs, thus complementing linguistic accounts (a good example of such work is Moyer 2004). It is unlikely that a single explanation of L2 ultimate attainment will be able to account for all the relevant generalisations that can be made about this multifaceted phenomenon. When more is understood about the causes and mechanisms behind it there will probably be a place for accounts at different levels. For the time being, this is all I have to say about extra-linguistic accounts of ultimate attainment, and I shall concentrate on linguistic explanations from now on.

. Linguistic accounts This section will consider some linguistic explanations that have been proposed to account for differences in NS/NNS attainment. Four different types of approaches will be reviewed, each focusing on one of the following: no access to UG, problems in the periphery, absolute L1 influence and no parameter resetting. .. No access to UG Hardly anyone in the field still maintains the no access to UG view today, but I have decided to include it in this discussion because it has helped to shape


current thinking on NNS attainment. In the late 1980s and early 1990s discussion of NNS divergence revolved around the issue of whether L2 learners had access to UG. Among those claiming that access to UG was impaired or impossible were Bley-Vroman (1989, 1990), Clahsen and Muysken (1986, 1989), Meisel (1991, 1997) and Schachter (1988, 1989, 1990, 1996). They assumed that, owing to the impossibility of accessing UG, adult learners had to rely on general problem solving abilities for the construction of the L2 grammar, and this explained the differences in NS/NNS attainment. Even before the access versus no access to UG in SLA debate began to develop within the frame of Government and Binding or Principles and Parameters, a type of no access explanation had been proposed in the literature, arguing that the language learning faculty atrophies over time due to lack of use. This was known as the ‘exercise hypothesis’ and is exemplified by proposals such as Bever’s (1981). He proposed that acquiring a grammar (a ‘psychogrammar’ in his terms) is necessary in order to mediate between the capacities of speech and perception systems, but once the two systems are ‘well aligned’ with respect to a linguistic property, internal communication between them is no longer necessary. When the psychogrammar is no longer needed for mediation, the speech and perception systems ‘decouple’ and become autonomous. If new language learning is attempted after this has taken place learning may still be possible, but it will proceed in a different way than in childhood, as the psychogrammar cannot be used for mediating between speech and perception in adults. NS/NNS differences are therefore to be expected in ultimate attainment as well as throughout development. Clahsen and Muysken (1986, 1989) also proposed that adult language learning was qualitatively different from child L1 acquisition, but the details of their proposal are quite different from Bever’s. They investigated the L2 acquisition of German word order by speakers of Romance languages (Italian, Portuguese and Spanish) and Turkish in naturalistic settings. They compared the development of word order in the adult L2 learners and in German children, and found three main points of contrast between the two, namely: a. L1 learners assumed verb separation as soon as they started to produce compound verbs, but L2 learners went through a phase in which they assumed non-separation in main clauses; b. L1 learners assumed V2 in main clauses as soon as they learned to front non-subjects, but L2 learners allowed fronting of adverbs without V2; and






c. L1 learners assumed verb final position for tensed verbs in embedded clauses from the start, while L2 learners went through an initial phase in which they assumed SVO in embedded clauses. In view of these developmental differences, Clahsen and Muysken concluded that while UG constrains L1 acquisition, it does not constrain SLA. They suggested that L2 learners rely on general problem solving abilities to make sense of the L2 input, and build L2 systems which are ‘unnatural’ grammars (in the technical sense) as a result. In a study bearing some resemblance to Clahsen and Muysken’s, Meisel (1991) investigated the developmental patterns in the acquisition of L2 German by a group of Italian, Portuguese and Spanish immigrants living in Germany and three eight-year-old Italian children, also learners of L2 German, in a naturalistic setting. He observed that the emergence of subjects and the appearance of nominative case marking in the speech of these learners was independent from the development of agreement markings on the verb. These learners had acquired a fairly good command of verbal inflection but sometimes dropped subjects or did not mark them for case, which is in contrast with evidence from L1 German developmental patterns. Meisel concluded that the developmental disassociation between these two properties must be the result of missing functional categories in the L2 grammar and argued that inflection marking on the verb cannot be interpreted as evidence for the presence of functional features associated with T or AGR in L2 acquisition. He suggested that verb inflection encodes grammatical relations and carries semanticopragmatic functions in L1 grammars, but only semantico-pragmatic meaning in the case of L2 grammars. With regard to the claim that AGR is missing, he held the view that verb markings in the speech of these subjects does not encode agreement relations but personal deixis. His prediction was that only ‘functionally transparent concepts’ (p. 273) would be encoded in L2 surface inflection, such as personal reference or number. He concluded: [. . .] one may classify the underlying system of L2 as a surrogate of a grammar in the technical sense of the term. (p. 267)

Similar data and interpretations can be found in Clahsen (1988) and Meisel (1997), but see DuPlessis et al. (1987) and Schwartz & Tomaselli (1990) for a different interpretation of these and other L2 German data. The L2 acquisition of wh-movement is another area of the grammar that has been intensely studied and which has led some researchers to conclude that UG does not guide L2 learners’ development. One example is Schachter’s


(1989, 1990, 1996) study of the acquisition of wh-movement in L2 English by very advanced speakers whose L1s were Korean, Chinese, Indonesian and Dutch. The L1/L2 pairs in her studies are very interesting because they exemplify different parametric contrasts. Korean does not seem to have any wh-movement; Chinese and Indonesian have some wh-movement, but with different restrictions than in English; finally, Dutch is very similar to English with regard to this property. Schachter used GJTs to test the subjects’ sensitivity to wh-movement constraints in English and found that while the Dutch subjects were indistinguishable from the English NSs in rejecting ungrammatical wh-movement, the Chinese and Indonesian speakers were less accurate, and the Koreans were still worse. This led her to conclude that the principles of UG are not available in SLA outside those instantiated in the L1, and that this explained the observed differences between NSs and NNSs on the one hand, and among different groups of NNSs on the other. Schachter’s interpretation of the L2 wh-movement data has been challenged by Martohardjono and Gair (1993) and White (1992), who argue that although some L2 learners do not arrive at targetlike final state grammars, their L2 grammars are still UG constrained (cf. the discussion towards the end of Section 2.7). In line with the proposals just outlined, and based on the belief that child and adult language acquisition are fundamentally different, Bley-Vroman (1989, 1990) proposed the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH). One of the main differences between children and adults is ultimate attainment, as adults hardly ever reach completely targetlike levels of proficiency in the L2 (see Section 2.6 for some dissenting views). The FDH proposes that this is so because adults do not have access to UG, so they have to build the L2 grammar making use of general problem solving abilities. One of the criticisms that have been made to no access to UG approaches is methodological and concerns the fact that studies such as those mentioned above address the question of NS/NNS differences by a direct comparison of NS and NNS performance, without considering the IL system in its own right.3 Some researchers have argued against the adoption of such a strategy on the grounds that differences emerging from direct comparisons cannot be interpreted unequivocally. This concern has been voiced, for example, by White (1996): Although one can take as the null hypothesis that similar linguistic behaviour on the part of NSs and nonnative speakers (NNS) has the same origin (a competence grammar constrained by UG), if the behaviour is not the same, one cannot automatically conclude that lack of UG is the reason. The native system is only one of a number of possible grammars permitted by UG. (p. 92)






A more important problem relates to the existence of empirical evidence clearly pointing to the involvement of UG in L2 grammar building (e.g., DuPlessis et al. 1987; Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono 1998; Flynn 1996; Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996, 2000; White 1989, 1992, 1996). The strongest evidence for the involvement of UG in SLA probably comes from studies showing that the input underdetermines the knowledge acquired during L2 acquisition (e.g., Thomas 1991, on the interpretation of reflexive binding in L2 English and L2 Japanese). .. Problems in the periphery Other researchers have suggested that the differences in ultimate attainment between NS/NNS grammars are not to be explained by lack of access to UG, but rather as the result of the malfunctioning of certain systems peripheral to CHL . For example, Lardiere (1998a, b, 2000) has suggested that L2 speakers may have a problem mapping abstract feature specifications onto the correct morphological forms, and Prévost and White (2000) have proposed that L2 learners are capable of acquiring completely nativelike representations of the L2 grammar, but may have occasional difficulties in accessing the correct form from the lexicon, typically resulting in the retrieval of stem or default forms instead. Below is a review of their arguments and the empirical evidence on which they base their claims. Lardiere (1998a, b, 2000) argues for a dissociation between knowledge of surface morphology rules and knowledge of abstract syntactic features and claims that while the former is problematic in L2 acquisition the latter is not. She proposes that NNS divergence in the form of nontargetlike morphological production is the result of a deficit in the mapping function from syntax to PF, which is vulnerable to ‘derailment’ from post- and extra-syntactic factors such as phonological transfer from the L1 (Lardiere 1998a: 20–21). Lardiere studied the spontaneous production of a Chinese speaker of L2 English called Patty who emigrated to the United States as an adult. The data examined were recorded in three interviews with the subject. She had been living in the United States for ten years by the time of the first recording, and the second and third recordings were made almost nine years later. Lardiere (1998a) found that Patty had mastered the marking of Case on English pronouns but she failed to produce obligatory Past Tense inflections in a high percentage of cases. The rate of marking of Past Tense in obligatory contexts was approximately 34%, and this remained the same after the nine-year span between the first interview and the second and third. In a subsequent study


(Lardiere 1998b), she found that agreement marking on verbs in the Simple Present Tense was generally absent, especially in the case of thematic verbs, where Patty supplied the marking between 0% and 4.76% of the time. By contrast, she did not seem to have any problems with verb-raising, as shown by her virtually perfect placement of verbs in negation and adverb contexts. Lardiere interpreted Patty’s success at Case marking and non-verb-raising and her contrasting poor performance on Past Tense and Present agreement inflection marking as confirmation of a dissociation between knowledge of abstract syntactic features and knowledge of surface morphological rules. Patty’s performance on Case marking led her to conclude that her grammar had a fully and accurately specified T with nativelike finiteness features, despite the low rate of suppliance of Past Tense inflectional morphology. Similarly, she concluded that L2 agreement and strength features had been successfully acquired given Patty’s behaviour in verb-raising contexts, despite the low rate of agreement marking on verbs. Lardiere’s interpretation of the results was that Patty had completely nativelike syntactic representations of the English Past Tense and agreement systems but she had problems mapping this knowledge onto morphology. She further concluded that the difference between L1 and L2 acquisition lies outside the scope of syntax and originates at a post-syntactic stage, in the mapping to PF, instead. A second proposal suggesting that NS/NNS attainment differences do not reflect differences in the speakers’ syntactic representations has been put forward by Prévost and White (2000). Their proposal is known as the ‘Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis’ (MSIH) and is based on the following idea. [. . .] variability in adult L2 performance does not reflect a deeper lack of functional categories or features associated with tense and agreement. Rather, L2 learners have difficulties with the overt realisation of morphology. (p. 104)

Like Lardiere’s proposal, this statement implies that there must be a dissociation between knowledge of surface morphology and knowledge of abstract syntactic features. The authors propose that the mismatch between the two types of knowledge consists of a mapping problem between surface forms and abstract features. Prévost and White’s study focused on the acquisition of finiteness in two Arab speakers of L2 French, and two L2 German speakers, one with L1 Spanish and the other L1 Portuguese. They found that whereas non-finite forms appeared in both finite and non-finite contexts, when finite forms were used by these speakers they nearly always appeared in finite contexts and there was little faulty agreement in such cases. A similar phenomenon was observed by






Poeppel and Wexler (1993) in FLA: they found that while agreement morphology was often lacking in the early stages of the L1 acquisition of German, when agreement was present it was accurate. Prévost and White drew a parallelism between the lack of randomness in the variation of use of finite forms in L1 and L2 acquisition and interpreted this as an indication that the optionality observed in SLA cannot be due to problems in the syntax, since similar observations would not necessarily lead one to claim this of FLA. Instead, they argued that the nontargetlike performance of these L2 speakers was the result of occasional difficulties in retrieving the correctly inflected forms from the lexicon due to processing reasons or communication pressure. This is argued to explain the optionality in the use of finite inflection in both L1 and L2 acquisition, the main difference being that processing difficulties are transient in children but more persistent in adult L2 learners. One of the difficulties in assessing these accounts of NS/NNS differences based on mapping problems is that they move the problem from the domain of syntax and vaguely relocate it within the linguistic periphery. The theory of syntax-morphology mapping which is assumed by their proponents is far from explicit. In a way, this is understandable, because theories linking syntax and morphophonology which are compatible with standard MP architecture are not easy to find (see Section 2.4 for some discussion of the difficulties involved). Still, it would be helpful if these researchers were more explicit about the peripheral architecture they assumed, as central arguments in their proposals hinge on this (see Franceschina 2001b, for some discussion of the assumptions about the syntax-periphery interface that may be implicit in these proposals). Regardless of the exact details of the mental architecture assumed, it is clear that Lardiere and Prévost and White are arguing for the existence of a computational deficit in adult SLA, and that this deficit is outside the domain of the narrow syntax. In order to maintain this view it is necessary to assume that interface problems are post- but not pre-syntactic, as a well-functioning syntactic component should not be able to process defective input coming from other systems. If the syntax were fed garbled input from interface systems the derivation should crash. If peripheral problems proposals are restricted to assumptions of post-syntactic derailments, predictions can be made about the type of mistakes into which such derailments might be translated. For example, it may be that they consist of the misapplication of morphological rules of inflection. Patty may have problems applying the appropriate morphological rule for Past Tense, and the L2 German and L2 French speakers in Prévost and White’s study may have difficulties applying the respective language-particular inflectional suffixes.


However, there is some empirical evidence from the acquisition of Past Tense morphology in L2 English suggesting that it is not the case that morphological rule application is necessarily a problem for NNSs. Such evidence comes from a study by Beck (1997), for example. She investigated whether there may be processing problems with the application of the rule for the Past Tense inflection on regular verbs in L2 English, and tested English NSs and NNSs of various L1 backgrounds. The subjects were shown verb stems and were asked to provide the past form orally. Beck made the assumption that NSs generate regular Past Tense forms by means of a rule, and that it takes the same amount of time to apply a particular rule to any stem. Thus her prediction was that there would be no significant differences in NS response times (RTs) in the production of high- and low-frequency regular Past Tense forms. If NNSs also handle regular inflection by means of a rule, she argued, there should be no significant differences in their RTs for frequent and infrequent verbs either. By contrast, frequency effects were predicted for both NSs and NNSs on irregular verbs, under the assumption that these are learned by associative memory.4 Beck found that neither group showed significant differences in RTs between frequent and infrequent conditions with regular verbs. An effect of frequency was observed in the NS groups but not in the NNS group with respect to irregulars.5 However, the results for regular verbs argues against the possibility of a general deficiency in the processing of regular past inflection in NNSs. Another prediction by those who believe that NNS divergence can be explained by reference to problems in the periphery might be that the difficulties NNSs face consist of occasional misapplications of phonological rules. This may be due to the fact that the L1 has different rules from the L2. Liszka (2001) investigated this possibility, among other matters, in a study of intermediate and advanced Chinese, Japanese and German speakers of L2 English. The interesting test case for the present discussion are the Chinese learners, because Chinese does not allow consonantal clusters in syllable initial or syllable final position, and some English regular Past Tense verbs are marked with such word final clusters. Liszka counted the number of mistakes that the Chinese subjects made in their oral production in Past Tense (e.g., I danced) and Past Participle contexts (e.g., I have danced), as well as in monomorphemes ending in consonantal clusters (e.g., just), all of which are subject to the application of the same phonological rules allowing split codas. She found that while the subjects had little or no problem producing word final consonantal clusters in Past Participle contexts and in monomorphemes, they were much less accurate in the production of these clusters in Past Tense contexts. This is a clear indication that the problems with Past Tense marking in these subjects must be more than sim-






ply phonological. Further evidence against purely phonological explanations of NNS divergence comes from a study of child L2 acquisition by Ionin and Wexler (2002), who found that third person singular -s omissions occurred at a very similar rate in regular and irregular (do, have and say) verbs. They concluded: “This suggests that -s omission is not purely phonological in nature: if it were, we would expect higher production of -s with irregular verbs, or use of stems such as ha and sa, which never occurs” (p. 109). Also, a study of L1 Chinese/L2 English speakers by Young (1989) showed that advanced learners’ plural marking omissions are independent of phonological variables. Crucially for peripheral accounts, derailment must be shown to be nonsyntactic in nature. However, the selectiveness of the areas where learners have persistent difficulties seems to be demarcated along syntactic lines. The contrast between difficulties with -ed marking in Past Tense contexts and the lack of problems with -ed marking in Past Participles in the Chinese learners in Liszka’s study points to a syntactic distinction, not a phonological one, between problematic and non-problematic areas. Further evidence comes from two studies by Franceschina (2001b, d), which investigate the acquisition of grammatical gender marking in L2 Spanish by L1 English speakers. Despite the fact that the subjects in these studies were very advanced L2 speakers, they made several gender mistakes. The mistakes were not distributed randomly across gender marked categories, but only occurred in those categories that receive gender via syntactic agreement (or concord). By contrast, nouns, which are inherently marked for gender, were never incorrectly inflected for gender. A similar asymmetry in the distribution of gender mistakes has been reported by Al-hamad (2002) in Chinese speakers of L2 Arabic. More will be said about this in the following chapters, but the difficulties of maintaining that NNS divergence is restricted to the morphology and/or phonology are already apparent. .. Detrimental effects of a previously acquired language The existence of an L1 grammar at the start of SLA has been claimed by Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996, 2000) and Schwartz (1998) to explain the differences in NS/NNS attainment. Their account is known as the Full Transfer/Full Access theory.6 These researchers assume that while UG is accessible to adult L2 learners and parameters can be reset, all L1 parameter settings are transferred in the initial state of L2 development, and so positive evidence in the L2 input alone may not suffice to trigger new settings because of the


interference from L1 knowledge. Schwartz (1998) summarizes the proposal as follows: Perhaps the main innovation put forward by Schwartz and Sprouse (1994) is the hypothesis that L2 acquisition makes use of precisely the same processes as in L1 acquisition (and indeed is restricted to only those), but that this does not imply that the products (i.e., the developmental stages, including the ultimate state) of the two will be identical, owing to the differences between the L1 initial state and the L2 initial state. (pp. 53–54, n. 12; emphasis as in the original)

This account of NNS divergence rests on the assumption that the existence of previously acquired linguistic knowledge may work against the triggering of correct parameter settings on exposure to L2 positive evidence alone, as this pre-existing knowledge could make the input ambiguous if it is compatible with more than one parametric option. Although this is a possible scenario, it is not the only conceivable one. For example, it would be equally possible to predict the opposite, i.e., that previous L1 knowledge should prove an advantage for subsequent language acquisition, as L2 learners have had some experience of selecting appropriate resources to represent input data. Equally, one could hypothesise that learners analyse L2 input independently from the existing L1 knowledge (after all largely independent acquisition of two grammatical systems seems to be possible in bilinguals), and that this knowledge will not constitute either an advantage or a disadvantage for L2 grammar building. Given that L1 effects are not the only possible reason for divergent acquisition, it is important to understand how FT/FA justifies the assumption that L1 knowledge is a hindrance rather than a beneficial or neutral factor in SLA. The following passage from Schwartz and Sprouse (1996) provides some pointers: According to the FT/FA model, the entirety of the L1 grammar (excluding the phonetic matrices of lexical/morphological items) is the L2 initial state (hence the term ‘Full Transfer’). [. . .] This initial state of the L2 system will have to change in light of TL input that cannot be generated by this grammar; that is, failure to assign a representation to input data will force some sort of restructuring of the system (‘grammar’), this restructuring drawing from options of UG (and hence the term ‘Full Access’). (p. 41)

The criterion for triggering development is the detection of elements in the input that do not fit into the speaker’s current linguistic knowledge system. This is also known as ‘failure-driven’ development. In principle, one could assume that all the language-specific properties where the L1 differs from the L2 should eventually lead to recognition of the need to restructure on the part of the L2






learner, and that, given enough exposure, parameters should always be reset to match the TL. However, it is possible that an IL grammar still containing L1 settings may be able to parse a given aspect of the L2 input, but differently from the way NSs do. In such cases no restructuring would occur because there would be no need for it from the speaker’s point of view, and this may lead to permanent divergence in the L2 grammar. This is the mechanism through which L1 knowledge exerts a negative influence on L2 development and results in divergent, though UG constrained, attainment according to FT/FA. A concrete example of such a learning context would be the acquisition of French word order by L1 Dutch speakers. Dutch is a V2 language, which means that if the finite verb moves to C, some XP must also move to Spec, CP. In Dutch the requirement applies to all constituent types, but in French this applies only when XP is a wh-phrase. Hulk (1991) investigated the acquisition of this property in four groups of adult L1 Dutch learners of L2 French at different levels of proficiency, from beginner to advanced, to test whether the task of ‘unlearning’ the Dutch requirement to raise all types of constituents to Spec, CP would pose a problem. She found that in a GJT even the most advanced group still had considerable difficulties in rejecting certain ungrammatical French sentences corresponding to the Dutch setting. An example of the sentences that the Dutch speakers failed to reject was: (3.2) *Hier mangeait Jean les fraises Yesterday ate John the strawberries

Other examples showing that adult L2 learners can be persistently divergent if faced with ambiguous input come for example from Berent’s (1994) study on the acquisition of relative clauses and Young-Scholten’s (1993) study on the acquisition of L2 phonology. Another case of ambiguous input was investigated by Müller (1998), who looked at the acquisition of word order in German subordinate clauses in child French/German bilinguals. The German input could be argued to be ambiguous (for both monolinguals and bilinguals) on the grounds that although root clauses are V2 and subordinate clauses are verb final, verb-final and non-verb final orders can be found in both types of clauses for a number of reasons (e.g., in the presence of certain conjunctions). This ambiguity does not arise in French, which is VO. Müller hypothesized that bilingual children may resort to the transfer of the French settings as a ‘relief strategy’, i.e., as a heuristic method that allows them to parse the German data unambiguously. The resulting VO analysis of German subordinate clauses is nontargetlike but still partly compatible with the input. Some monolingual children adopt this strategy at one point


in development, but it is much more common among the French/German bilinguals studied by Müller, and she suggests that this is due to their knowledge of French. All the children investigated became fully targetlike at later stages, but the bilinguals took longer and their error rates were higher than in monolinguals. Crucially, however, all children eventually overcame the VO bias and adopted categorical OV order for German subordinate clauses. The key difference between the adult L2 data from Hulk (1991) and the child bilingual (and monolingual) data from Müller (1998) would seem to lie in the fact that ambiguous input constitutes a temporary hurdle in the development of language in children, but results in persistent problems in adult L2 learners. In other words, initially adopting the wrong hypothesis leads to a sort of ‘entrenchment’ in the latter but not in the former.7 It is not immediately obvious how FT/FA would explain the difference in outcomes in children and adults faced with the same learnability problem (i.e., unlearning a wrong parametric choice in a situation where positive evidence alone is not enough to make the parametric choice error evident). There is another shortcoming of this proposal that I would like to consider briefly. As was mentioned previously in the discussion of hypothetical Theory C (see Table 2.1, Section 2.5.1), FT/FA makes the following assumptions: (3.3) Full Transfer/Full Access basic assumptions about language learning a. UG principles operate normally in SLA b. There is L1 transfer (more specifically, there is absolute L1 transfer in the L2 initial stage) c. There is no CP for the acquisition of an L2

As mentioned in Sections 2.5 and 2.7, there is empirical evidence suggesting that UG is involved in SLA and that there is L1 transfer, in accordance with assumptions (3.3a) and (3.3b). However, there is also evidence for age effects in SLA (see Section 2.6), and this calls (3.3c) into question. One way to defend position (3.3c) in the face of the critical period data might be to argue that age effects are only apparent, perhaps simply due to the fact that adult L2 learning is typically confounded with availability of L1 knowledge, but if these two factors could be teased apart one would find that L1 influence in the initial state would explain away the apparent age effects. Fortunately, this can be checked against existing data through two comparisons, as follows. One method consists of comparing adult SLA, where there are potential age and previous linguistic knowledge effects, with delayed FLA, where age effects can be investigated while ruling out any potential effects of previously acquired linguistic knowledge. FT/FA would predict that delayed FLA should






Table 3.1 Teasing apart the effects of age and previously acquired linguistic knowledge Acquisition contexts

Factors involved

Ultimate attainment

delayed FLA vs. adult SLA

+age –L1

worse

Comparison 1

+age +L1

better

Comparison 2

child FLA vs. child SLA

–age –L1 similar –age +L1

be like child FLA: by hypothesis, all learners have access to UG principles and parametric options, and in both these cases there are no interfering effects of previously acquired linguistic knowledge. Adult L2 learners, by contrast, should be disadvantaged because of their previous L1 knowledge. However, studies comparing delayed FLA and adult SLA have found just the opposite: delayed L1 learners achieve well below the levels of attainment typical of adult L2 learners. Evidence for this comes from studies of the acquisition of signed language in learners who acquired a signed language from birth, delayed L1 signers and L2 signers (e.g., Emmorey 2002; Jacobs 1989; Mayberry 1993; Mayberry & Eichen 1991). The second context that provides an opportunity to see the separate effects of age and previously acquired linguistic knowledge on ultimate attainment is the comparison between child FLA and child SLA. FT/FA would predict that child SLA, like adult SLA, might have different outcomes from child FLA because of the interference caused by preexisting L1 knowledge. However, the studies which have looked at attainment in child L2 learners (cf. Section 2.6) have found that they are very similar to NSs, unlike their adult counterparts. The two comparisons are summarised in Table 3.1. In brief, when age of acquisition remains constant and the effects of the presence or absence of previously acquired linguistic knowledge are analysed, we find that FT/FA’s predictions are not confirmed. It is possible then to conclude that the previous acquisition of L1 knowledge per se does not seem to lead to persistent L2 divergence. .. Impossibility of resetting parameters The final theoretical approach to NNS divergence to be considered in this section is the proposal that UG is accessible to L2 learners, but the full rage of parametric options is not. One such proposal has been advanced by Eubank (1993/4), Eubank et al. (1997) and Eubank and Grace (1998), who have pro-


Elicited Translation Task

Grouping 1

Group 1 (n = 18) [+strong] agr (target-like)

Grouping 2

Group 2 (n = 30) [–strong] agr (non-target-like)

Group 3 (n = 26) [+inversion] (target-like)

Group 4 (n = 21) [–inversion] (non-target-like)

Matched Sentence Online Task

Grouping 1

Group 1 (n = 18) GRTs = URTs (non-target-like)


Grouping 2


Group 4 (n = 21) GRTs > URTs (target-like)

Figure 3.1 Schematic representation of Beck’s (1998) design and findings; GRTs = response times for pairs of grammatical sentences; URTs = response times for ungrammatical sentences

posed that the feature strength of functional categories is permanently ‘inert’ or unspecified in L2 grammars. This is known as the ‘Valueless Features’ hypothesis. In line with the work of Eubank and colleagues, Beck (1998) hypothesised that the strength of features associated with functional categories is impaired in SLA. Her proposal is known as the Local Impairment Hypothesis (LIH). She predicted that the strength of verb inflection, i.e., the property that determines whether verbs raise from V to T (and in some cases up to C), is impaired in L2 grammars and, as a consequence, optional verb-raising will be observed in L2 production, independently of whether the learners have acquired verb morphology or not. She tested this prediction on a group of English learners of L2 German and NS controls. On the basis of an elicited translation task from English into German, Beck classified her 48 subjects twice: once according to whether they had acquired target-like [+strong] verb agreement morphology and a second time according to whether they had acquired target-like verb inversion (see Figure 3.1 for a schematic representation of the groupings). She






then administered and experimental task which required the subjects to say whether pairs of German sentences presented on a computer screen were identical or not. This testing procedure works on the assumption that stimuli consisting of pairs of grammatical sentences should be processed faster than pairs in which either one or both sentences are ungrammatical, and that this should be reflected in shorter reaction times (RTs) for pairs of grammatical sentences in cases where the subject recognizes them as gramamtical. The grammatical sentences were S-V-Adv-O, and the ungrammatical ones were S-Adv-V-O. The results showed that the NSs had shorter RTs for grammatical than ungrammatical pairs, as expected. Neither the [+strong] agreement group (group 1) nor the [–strong] agreement group (group 2) showed significant differences in RTs between grammatical and ungrammatical pairs of sentences, as predicted by Beck. This may indicate that the speakers are insensitive to the verb-raising requirements in the L2 and could be interpreted as evidence for inert strength features. However, the results for the second grouping are more problematic, because while the [+inversion] group (group 3) showed no significant differences in RTs to different stimuli, as predicted by LIH, the [–inversion] group (group 4) had shorter RTs for grammatical than ungrammatical pairs of sentences. This is particularly puzzling because the less advanced group with regard to inversion seems to be better at the online task than the group who had mastered inversion. In order to accommodate these results, Beck suggested that the learners with no inversion must have been at a VP-only developmental stage, and that for them to reject S-V-Adv-O sentences (i.e., sentences with raised verbs) would be logical since they would not have had a landing site for the verb to move to.8 As for the advanced ones, who are assumed to have established functional categories above VP, Beck argued that their results confirm her hypothesis, since they seemed to allow optional raising. While the data from Beck’s advanced group support her hypothesis, evidence from Lardiere (1998a, b) on L2 English and Yuan (2001) on L2 Chinese is problematic. These researchers looked at whether L2 learners of English and Chinese had any difficulties with verb-raising in the L2, and both found that their subjects had categorical targetlike performance (i.e., they never raised lexical verbs to I or C). English and Chinese are [–strong] agreement languages, whereas German has [+strong] agreement, so the difference in findings may be to do with the different direction in which parameters have to be reset. Unfortunately, however, this possibility does not rescue LIH, as inert features should be inert regardless of the parameter value, at least in its current version. A different version of the no parameter resetting account is the idea that while access to UG is not impaired in adult (L2) acquisition, there are nev-


ertheless maturational constraints affecting functional categories/features. The implication is that parameters cannot be (re-)set in adult (L2) acquisition because their (re-)setting is dependent on accessing functional categories/features different from those instantiated in the L1, which, by hypothesis, become inaccessible beyond the critical period. An early formulation of this idea can be found in Tsimpli and Roussou (1991), Tsimpli and Smith (1991) and Smith and Tsimpli (1995). Smith and Tsimpli investigated the L2 acquisition of several languages by Christopher, a famous subject who has some impaired cognitive functions but enhanced ability for language learning. They investigated Christopher’s successful acquisition of several languages and came to the conclusion that he could not reset parameters when the L2 required a change from his L1 English settings; his L2 systems seemed to be constrained by UG principles, though. Tsimpli and Roussou (1991) investigated the acquisition of English subject pronouns by L1 Greek speakers at intermediate and postintermediate levels of L2 proficiency. They tested whether these learners had acquired the English values of three properties commonly associated with the pro-drop parameter (Rizzi 1982), namely null subjects, VS order and extraction across overt complementizers, all of which are disallowed in English but allowed in Greek. They found that while the learners disallowed VS order and null referential subjects, they were oblivious to expletive omissions and thattrace violations. Tsimpli and Roussou concluded that these speakers had not reset parameters but misanalysed English subject pronouns as either agreement inflections on the verb or as sentential topics identifying pro subjects instead. According to Tsimpli and Roussou these speakers appear to be targetlike in some of these properties but not others because they have analysed the input in a way that produces similar surface effects to English, but they have an underlying grammar that has Greek parametric values. Shelton (1997) followed Tsimpli and Roussou’s (1991) line of argument in the analysis of results from a study of the acquisition of L2 French by L1 English speakers. She found that even advanced L2 learners of French had difficulties with gender agreement, and concluded that the functional feature responsible for this type of agreement (i.e., uninterpretable gender) had not been acquired, despite the morphological evidence in the French input. She suggested that uninterpretable gender was not acquired by these speakers because it is not amongst the parametric options available in their L1 English grammar. Like Tsimpli and Roussou, she speculated as to what could explain these learners’ relatively high (though variable) levels of success in gender agreement, and proposed that they may result from the use of compensatory linguistic






strategies based on misanalyses of the input, a mechanism that she named ‘masquerading’. Another formulation of these ideas can be found in Hawkins and Chan (1997). They investigated the L2 acquisition of English restrictive relative clauses (RRCs) by L1 Chinese speakers. The acquisition of English RRCs by L1 Chinese speakers is interesting because there is a parametric difference between the two languages with respect to RRCs: while English RRCs involve wh-operator movement, Chinese RRCs do not. Hawkins and Chan set out to investigate whether L1 Chinese speakers could acquire both the surface and underlying properties of English RRCs, and found that the learners improved in their knowledge of predicative CP morphology (i.e., knowledge of the adequacy of relatives with wh-words, that or ∅) and [CP. . .gap] constructions) in cases where they would not be possible in Chinese (i.e., where a resumptive pronoun would be obligatory in Chinese) with increased L2 proficiency. By contrast, their accuracy on detection of wh-movement constraint violations was not only lower than for the surface properties related to English RRCs, but it also got worse with increased proficiency. At the same time, the subjects gradually learned to reject non-UG-licensed [wh-phrase. . .gap] constructions such as (3.4), which indicates that UG must constrain their L2 grammars. (3.4) *The girl cried [when e lost her way]

The account proposed by Hawkins and Chan was that functional features are subject to a critical period after which they cannot be acquired, even in the presence of positive evidence and long exposure to the TL. Where L1 and L2 parameters are the same, L2 speakers are predicted to be able to achieve NS levels of competence, but where the parameters are different, adult L2 learners will not be able to reset parameters and will find it very difficult or impossible to perform in a targetlike way. This is known as the Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (FFFH), and the predictions of a strong version of this hypothesis are listed under (1.5). Hawkins and Chan describe what they think are the practical consequences of the failure to reset parameters in SLA as follows: [. . .] where the L1 and the L2 differ in their F-feature specification, learners will not be able to determine the full functional significance of that new morphological material. (p. 199)

It would seem that FFFH and related accounts make some correct empirical predictions. By way of illustration, some L2 studies providing support for their predictions in the domains of gender, number, tense and Case are listed in Table 3.2. Where these features are present in the L1, evidence that L2 learners


Table 3.2 Empirical evidence compatible with FFFH/(1.5) Feature Is it in FFFH/(1.5) Predictions of the [F]L1 ? L2† [ugen]

no yes

Evidence

persistent difficulty Hawkins 1998 (L1English/L2French) it can be successfully acquired Franceschina 2001d (L1Italian//L2Span)

[unum] no yes

persistent difficulty Young 1989 (L1Chinese/L2English) it can be successfully acquired Franceschina 1999 (L1English/L2Spanish)

[upast] no yes

persistent difficulty Lardiere 1998a, b (L1Chinese/L2English) it can be successfully acquired Liszka 2001 (L1German/L2English)

[uCase] (no)†† n/a n/a yes it can be successfully acquired Lardiere 1998 (L1Chinese/L2English) †

[ufeature] refers to the unvalued, semantically uninterpretable version of the feature. See the note on the universality of structural Case in Section 2.1.

††

can successfully acquire them is documented in the studies listed in the righthand column. Where the features are absent in the L1, other studies show that learners experience persistent difficulties, even at very advanced stages. Han (2004) reviews a number of studies of fossilized L2 grammars and mentions the following properties as being particularly prone to fossilization: subject-verb-object word order, tough constructions, resumptive pronouns, certain types of case marking, certain constructions associated with passizivation, Tense/Aspect and causatives. Her analysis is not meant to be exhaustive and she does not discuss the data in terms of PFFs, but the list seems largely compatible with the idea of persistent divergence being typical in areas of L1/L2 parametric differences. The investigation reported in Chapter 5 will provide further evidence directly bearing on these issues by comparing the acquisition of gender by speakers whose [F]L1 contains this feature and others whose [F]L1 does not have it. This study will further investigate the adequacy of the second type of no resetting accounts presented in this section as explanations of divergent NNS attainment. The limitations of FFFH and similar accounts will be assessed in Chapter 6.



Chapter 4

Gender

The proposal that the acquisition of parameterized functional features is subject to a critical period and that these features can only be learned in adult second language acquisition if they are present in the learner’s L1 feature inventory will be tested in an investigation of the L2 acquisition of grammatical gender. Before the empirical study is presented in Chapter 5, the present chapter will delineate what NS competence in the area of grammatical gender consists of by presenting an overview of the formal properties of gender, as well as its online processing and acquisition. The contents of this chapter are organised as follows. Section 4.1 is a general introduction to grammatical gender and the main topics discussed therein are the distinctions between semantic, morphological and syntactic aspects of gender, the role of syntactic gender features in the grammar, and gender assignment. The last part of this section provides a description of the Spanish gender system. Section 4.2 discusses how grammatical gender is processed during on-line production and comprehension in natives and nonnatives. Finally, Section 4.3 is a review of the literature on the L1 and L2 acquisition of grammatical gender.

. What is grammatical gender? .. Defining grammatical gender Grammatical gender is a fairly common phenomenon in the world’s languages (Foley & Van Valin 1984: 326). According to Nichols’ (1992) typological survey based on a sample of 174 languages, just over one-fourth of them had gender or some other form of nominal classification system. Although the frequency with which gender is found in linguistic systems is not of vital importance from the point of view of language acquisition, it is still interesting to note that the linguistic phenomena under investigation here are not a rarity of the particular languages considered.




Many definitions of grammatical gender can be found in the literature. Although the formulations vary somewhat as they focus on different aspects of gender phenomena, there are certain basic elements that emerge as defining characteristics. Some sample definitions have been listed below, arranged according to where their emphasis lies.

a. Definitions focusing on the type of grammatical phenomenon that gender is (or isn’t) (4.1) genders are classes of nouns as reflected in the behaviour of associated words. (Hockett 1958: 231) (4.2) gender is an exhaustive classification of all nouns.

(Nichols 1992: 135)

(4.3) [gender] isn’t a meaning-bearing inflectional category like Tense or Number, nor is it a purely formal inflectional category marking dependencies between words, such as agreement or the purely syntactic use of cases. On the other hand, it isn’t a derivational category either. (Spencer 1999: 36)

b. Definitions focusing on how gender manifests itself (4.4) [gender is] a system in which the class to which a noun is assigned is reflected in the forms that are taken by other elements syntactically related to it. (Matthews 1997: 248) (4.5) [gender is] reliably detected not on the word that inherently carries the gender feature but rather on the lexemes that receive the feature by way of syntax. So although there are three genders in Latin, it is not always possible to tell the gender of a given noun by inspection. (Aronoff 1994: 61)

c. Definitions focusing on the function of gender (4.6) [gender is a type of reference-maintenance system that] involves the overt morphological coding of a classification of NPs, although it need not be on the basis of sex. These morphological distinctions are carried by anaphoric elements; anaphoric elements of the same class can be interpreted as coreferent, while those of different classes cannot. (Foley & Van Valin 1984: 323) (4.7) In gender systems nouns are assigned to classes on the basis of inherent features, and a particular NP is tracked through a discourse by virtue of its association with its class. (Foley & Van Valin 1984: 339)

Chapter 4. Gender

(4.8) [grammatical gender] has an important role in signaling grammatical relations between words in a sentence. (Crystal 2003: 197) (4.9) [gender] is a grammatical property whereby words are divided into different grammatical classes which play a role in agreement/concord relationships. (Radford 2004: 454) (4.10) [Gender] agreement is [. . .] a syntactic process accessing syntactic (not semantic) features; it contrasts with pronominal reference, which is essentially semantic. (Adger 2003: 41) (4.11) [. . .] gender functions to divide up the lexicon (particularly the nouns) into classes which govern agreement. (Spencer 1999: 36)

d. Definitions focusing on the classifications that gender systems exploit (4.12) Grammatical gender is a classification of nouns which in most cases is based on perceived properties of the referents of the nouns. The most common basis is according to animacy and sex. (Foley & Van Valin 1984: 325) (4.13) [. . .] in many (and perhaps most) languages the gender assignment of nouns is semantically arbitrary except that for animate nouns or for human nouns gender is predictable from sex [. . .]. (Nichols 1992: 125) (4.14) Masculine vs. feminine vs. neuter. Does not have to be identical to the actual sex of the referent. (Carnie 2002: 21) (4.15) Many languages have what is called grammatical gender, where words are assigned a gender category (masculine, feminine, neuter) which bears no obvious semantic relation to what the word refers to. (Adger 2003: 40)

While the definitions grouped under (a) and (b) are largely uncontroversial, those under (c) and (d) are not, which one can somewhat gather from the somewhat contradictory nature of the cited quotations. The definitions under (c) will be further discussed in the next section, which is devoted to reviewing proposals on the possible functions of gender. In connection with the definitions under (d), gender assignment rules will be briefly discussed at the end of this section, and Section 4.1.3 will provide some details on the gender assignment rules of Spanish. This section will end with a composite definition of grammatical gender incorporating many of the elements in (4.1)–(4.15). I shall maintain a distinction between triggers (or controllers) and targets of gender agreement. When the syntax of gender is discussed in Section 4.1.3 this metaphor will be reversed – gender targets will be referred to as Probes, and gender triggers as Goals – but it will become clear that the deeper mean-






ing expressed by both is basically the same. Triggers are defined as the lexical items containing intrinsic gender values that can be copied onto other lexical items, namely targets, which are not inherently marked for gender and receive this via syntactic agreement (or concord). Triggers are nouns and in the majority of cases they are inherently marked for gender, although there are some exceptions in the case of nouns reflecting natural gender (e.g., maestro/maestra ‘male-teacher/female-teacher’; see Corbett 1991: Chapter 8; Nichols 1992: 130; Spencer 1999, on this point). Targets are the lexical items that agree with nouns either present in the linguistic context or tacitly implied by it. What counts as a gender target varies crosslinguistically, and it can include almost any word category. In view of the distinction between triggers and targets, it has been suggested that gender inflection on nouns has a different status from gender inflection on other categories marked for gender, despite their often being phonologically isomorphic (Harris 1985, 1991, 1992). Another important distinction is that between the concepts of gender, inflectional class and sex. Gender will be used here to refer to a specific type of syntactic agreement feature, and inflectional class to the morphological realizations of that feature. Sex distinctions are one of the possible semantic bases for gender assignment rules in the case of nouns referring to human beings or sexed animals. The three concepts are interrelated in Spanish, with certain preferred associations between their values, but they belong to the domains of syntax, morphology and semantics respectively and are therefore subject to different constraints. Roca (1989) provides a very thorough discussion of how the three interact in the Spanish gender system, and more general discussion with reference to other languages can be found in Aronoff (1994: Chapter 3), Corbett (1991: Chapter 3), Nichols (1992: 134) and Spencer (1991: 9–12, 1999: 36–37), among others. An assumption that these three aspects of grammatical gender are largely autonomous is implicit in the following remarks on the Spanish gender system by Harris (1991): [. . .] no word marker [i.e., inflectional class] ‘occurs always and only’ with a particular ‘meaning’ (whatever that means), nor is any particular ‘meaning’ always associated with any particular gender, nor any gender with any form. Of the three factors meaning, gender and form, only gender has direct syntactic relevance. (p. 28; inverted commas as in the original)

Figure 4.1 illustrates the interconnections between the three concepts. For further discussion of the interface between the semantics and syntax of Spanish gender (interface 1 in Figure 4.1), see Roca (2000), and for proposals about the interface between gender and inflectional class (interface 2) in Spanish see

Chapter 4. Gender SYNTAX gender 1

SEMANTICS

2

sex 3

inflectional class

MORPHOPHONOLOGY

Figure 4.1 Interrelation between gender, sex and inflectional class in Spanish

Harris (1985, 1991, 1992), Mel’cuk (1958) or Teschner and Russell (1984). I am not aware of any study exclusively investigating the interface between sex distinctions and inflectional class (interface 3), but this topic has received some attention in discussions of the overall interaction between gender, inflectional class and sex (e.g., Harris 1991; Roca 1989; Teschner & Russell 1984). Examples (4.16)–(4.19) provide an illustration of how complex the association between gender, inflectional class and sex can be in Spanish. The same inflectional marker (-a) is found in feminine and masculine nouns, and in nouns referring to humans of both sexes and unsexed objects (niña ‘girl’, mesa ‘table’ and poeta ‘poet’). Also, nouns of the same gender (muchacho ‘boy’ and poeta ‘poet’) are marked by different inflectional markers. (Many more combinations are possible, a fairly comprehensive list of which can be found in Section 4.1.4.) (4.16) una niña pequeña a.fem girl.fem small.fem ‘a small girl’ (4.17) una mesa grande a.fem table.fem big.fem ‘a big table’ (4.18) un muchacho moreno a.masc boy.masc dark.masc ‘a dark boy’ (4.19) un poeta famoso a.masc poet.masc famous.masc ‘a famous poet’






Gender is one of the ways in which nouns can be classified, but it is not the only one. There are various other systems of nominal classification amongst the world’s languages. Senft (2000) proposes the following types of nominal classification, pointing out that the list is not exhaustive and that there is overlap between the categories. (4.20) Systems of nominal classification (Senft 2000) a. Classification of nouns according to kind and degree of possession b. Classification of nouns by noun incorporation, where a generic noun is syntactically incorporated into the verb and cross-classifies a noun which is syntactically governed by the verb c. Classification of nouns by verbs d. Numeral classification (in the so-called ‘classifier languages’) e. Noun class systems (e.g., Bantu) f. Gender systems, where the determining criterion is syntactic agreement (e.g., Spanish)

In what follows, I shall mainly focus on gender systems, but will occasionally refer to other types of nominal classification for comparison. One key feature that distinguishes systems of the (a)–(d) type on the one hand and those of the (e)–(f) type on the other is the fact that while the latter realise the classification by way of agreement, the former do not. The following further distinctions proposed by Lucy (2000) can be made between different types of nominal classification systems, along two axes. Axis 1: What is being classified a. experience b. linguistic form Axis 2: What qualities of the referent the classifiers indicate a. intrinsic type b. extrinsic individuation status c. discourse presupposability

The categories in the first axis are not meant to be discrete, but represent the two extremes of a continuum where different nominal classification systems may be located. Grammaticized forms are typically desemanticized and can shift from being classifications of experience to classifications of linguistic form. The second axis of classification indicates that nominal classifiers of different types form a continuum from those dealing with relatively permanent intrinsic qualities of a referent (e.g., noun classes or generic nouns), through

Chapter 4. Gender

those dealing with relatively extrinsic qualities (e.g., numeral classifiers), to those dealing with relatively transient pragmatic contingencies of the speech event (e.g., forms indicating definiteness, presupposability or existence in the current discourse, such as genitive or locative classifiers).1 If Lucy’s distinctions were adopted, gender would be classed as a grammatical device for classifying linguistic form (rather than experience) on the basis of an intrinsic quality of the linguistic referent, which could be conceived as a lexical feature of the noun. Moving on to the question of how gender manifests itself in different languages, it is worth noting that the locus of class marking varies crosslinguistically. Languages may mark gender on syntactic dependents (e.g., French determiners; Russian adjectives; Maung2 possessors), on the syntactic head (e.g., Maung possessed elements; Chechen verbs) or neither on the head or dependent (e.g., Luganda3 nouns; French anaphoric pronouns).4 It is worth emphasizing that gender is inherent to nouns, but they do not always bear gender markings themselves (see definitions 4.4 and 4.5). Below are examples of the configurations in which gender manifests itself in Spanish. Gender-marked categories include nouns, adjectives, articles, demonstratives, pronouns and passive participles. (4.21) la cultura catalana the.fem culture.fem Catalan.fem ‘the Catalan culture’ (4.22) un nuevo esquema a.masc new.masc scheme.masc ‘a new scheme’ (4.23) Los nuevos me agradan más the.masc e new.masc me please more ‘I like the new ones better’ (4.24) Las casas del pueblo están hechas de barro the.fem houses.fem of the village are made.fem of mud ‘The village houses are made of mud’ (4.25) Los niños están felicísimos de verte the.masc children.masc are very-happy.masc of to-see-you ‘The children are very happy to see you’ (4.26) A medida que aprendo la materia disfruto más de estudiarla as I-learn the.fem subject.fem I-enjoy more of to-study-it.fem ‘As I learn the subject, I enjoy it more’






(4.27) Me lo dieron abierto to-me it.masc they-gave open.masc ‘It was given to me open’ (4.28) A ella la nombraron líder del partido to-her.fem her.fem they-appointed leader.fem of-the party ‘She was appointed leader of the party’

There are other categories where gender marking may appear in other languages, including the following. (4.29) past participles L’autore de questo libro è morto recentemente the.masc-author.masc of this book is died.masc recently ‘The author of this book has recently died’ (4.30) tensed verbs Kniga lezˇala na stole book.fem lay.fem on table ‘The book lay on the table’

(Italian)

(Russian; source: Corbett 1991: 110)

(4.31) relative pronouns kniga kotoraja lezˇala na stole book.fem which.fem lay.fem on table ‘The book which lay on the table’ (Russian; source: Corbett 1991: 111) (4.32) complementizers datje (jij) komt that.masc (he) comes ‘That he comes’ (4.33) adverbs k’ija ars sˇawa us¯ar two.I son.I at-home.I I.be ‘Two sons are at home’ (4.34) adpositions A `xra y´ z`´ Axra.3rd.sg.human.masc.for ‘For Axra’

(West Flemish; source: Corbett 1991: 113)

(Lak; source: Corbett 1991: 113)

(Abkhaz; source: Corbett 1991: 113)

Nichols (1992) notes that most languages mark gender class in more than one place. The categories in Table 4.1 are the favoured loci of gender marking. Marking on articles figures rather low on the list (9/47, or 20%) but this may be partly explained by the fact that not all languages possess articles (1992: 137).

Chapter 4. Gender

Table 4.1 Favoured loci of gender marking (Nichols 1992)

the verb modifying adjectives in the NP the noun itself personal and anaphoric pronouns

x/47 gender languages in sample

Percentage

32/47 26/47 22/47 22/47

68% 55% 47% 47%

The geographical distribution of gender languages indicates that they tend to occur in ‘hotbeds’, i.e., in areas in which most languages have classes. They do not tend to overlap with numeral classifier systems, which seem to be much more restricted geographically than gender languages. This can be partly explained by the fact that gender and noun class systems are commonly found in fusional or agglutinating languages, while classifiers are more commonly found in isolating languages (Dixon 1986: 111; Löbel 2000: 259). Based on the frequencies of simultaneous presence of gender and other properties, Nichols (1992) suggests that the following are to be typically expected in gender languages. (4.35) Properties whose presence correlates with the presence of gender a. location in or near a hotbed; b. preference for head-marking morphology; c. moderate to high morphological complexity; d. non-accusative alignment. (Nichols 1992)

Some correlations between the existence of gender and other inflectional categories in the languages of the world have been stated in the form of typological universals by Greenberg (1963, 1966). The universals involving gender have been listed in Appendix 1. The last point I would like to mention in this section concerns gender assignment rules, which are only relevant to gender triggers (i.e., nouns). Nichols (1992) surveyed her typologically varied sample for gender assignment rules and found that the classification of nouns is largely arbitrary, except within the human or animate subset of nouns (p. 130). On the other hand, Corbett (1991) argues that all gender systems are based on a semantic core. This is an area of some disagreement, and it is not my aim to enter the debate here. Regardless of whether Corbett’s position in this debate is correct or not, there is a theoretical distinction proposed by him that can be useful for the description of the different gender systems. This is the distinction between gender assignment systems based on semantic or formal criteria. Within the latter, he proposed a further classification between morphological and phonological assignment





Fossilized Second Language Grammars Gender assignment rules semantic

formal morphological

phonological

Figure 4.2 Types of gender assignment rules (Corbett 1991)

systems.5 This is represented schematically in Figure 4.2. (The rules of gender assignment specific to Spanish will be discussed in Section 4.1.4.) By way of summary of this section, a composite definition of gender will be proposed, as follows. (4.36) Composite definition of grammatical gender a. genders are classes of nouns that result from the partitioning of the lexicon into nominal classes; b. nouns are gender triggers, and other categories marked for gender are targets; c. gender triggers and targets are structurally related; d. nouns in gender systems are exhaustively classified (in most cases this means inherently classified, but there are some exceptions, as already mentioned); e. the following categories can be gender targets: determiners, pronouns, quantifiers, numerals, possessives, adjectives, past and passive participles, verbs, adverbs, complementizers, adverbs, adpositions; f. gender assignment rules vary crosslinguistically; g. the domain of gender agreement shows some crosslinguistic variation.

.. What is gender for? It might be useful to clarify – insofar as it is possible – what role grammatical gender plays in language. Some languages can do without it so it is not immediately obvious why others would need to have it. Given that gender is a type of nominal classification system and a type of agreement system, one could approach this issue by looking for answers to the following two questions: (4.37) What is the purpose of nominal classification? What is the purpose of syntactic agreement?

Chapter 4. Gender

One possibility that can be ruled out from the outset is that nominal classification may be implicit in syntactic agreement or vice versa, reducing the two questions to one. Evidence that this is not the case comes from the existence of nominal classification systems that are not realised via syntactic agreement (e.g., classifier systems), and agreement systems that do not rely on nominal classification (e.g., number, person or case agreement).

On the function of nominal classification Demuth (2000) has suggested that nominal classification should be thought of as the equivalent of the Reichenbachian classification of verbs with respect to inherent aspect. A similar approach is taken by Weber (2000), who proposes that gender is nominal aspect or perspectivization. According to this view nominal classifications express basic, presumably universal, semantic distinctions. Broschart (2000) goes as far as to propose that the semantic distinctions found in nominal classification systems reflect more general principles of perception and cognition. A problem with semantic approaches of this type is that although some classifier languages appear to rely on relatively coherent semantic notions to particularize noun reference, gender languages generally do not draw on universal semantic notions in establishing gender classes (cf. definitions 4.13–4.15 above). The grammaticalization of animacy or biological sex distinctions may be candidates for a universal semantic treatment of classification, but gender assignment rules interact with these only in an indirect way. Others have proposed language-specific semantic principles to account for nominal classification rules (e.g., Corbett 1991; Lakoff 1987). The principles they propose are probabilistic – of the type: ‘if the noun refers to an insect, it most likely belongs to class X’. It is interesting to note that different researchers have come up with different sets of semantic rules of this type for the same languages. For example, one can find different semantic rules for Spanish gender classification in Bergen (1978), Dinnes (1971), Da Silva (1975) and Ramsey (1956). The same applies to German, where different semantic classifications have been proposed by Spitz (1965), Steckelberg (1937), Strong (1976) and Zubin and Köpcke (1981). One undesirable consequence of adopting such proposals is that it is not immediately clear that these idiosyncratic classifications could form the basis of productive semantic rules that guide the acquisition of gender. In any case, there is strong evidence from L1 acquisition (e.g., of Spanish and French) showing that children pay little attention to semantic clues when they start to acquire gender (see Section 4.3.1 below). In my view, it is unlikely that this type of semantic approach can reveal much about the role






that nominal classification plays in language, as they are a posteriori accounts of observed patterns with only probabilistic predictive potential. A different approach has been to propose that nominal classification plays a facilitating role in establishing word and/or phrase reference. For example, Lucy (2000) proposes the following: [. . .] typically, the classifying forms have independent referential value and combine with other material of the noun phrase to help identify their referents, indicate the perspective from which they should be interpreted, or track their identity within and across clauses. [. . .] the actual logic uniting all forms of nominal classification [is] their contribution to adequate noun phrase reference. (p. 329, my emphasis)

He provides some examples from Spanish, showing how the meaning of some nouns would be ambiguous if they did not carry gender information: (4.38) a. muchacho (m) ‘boy’ b. muchacha (f) ‘girl’ (4.39) a. manzano (m) ‘apple tree’ b. manzana (f) ‘apple’

Gender would appear to contribute to adequate noun phrase reference by providing features that help to identify intrinsic properties of the referent, the latter being linguistic properties rather than denotation, and this eventually leads to correct identification of real-world referents. For example, identifying that the lexical item manzano has an intrinsic feature [–fem] is important for determining whether it refers to an apple or an apple tree. Evidence for the importance of gender information for disambiguation purposes comes from studies of agrammatic patients who have problems with gender resulting in difficulties interpreting sentences, such as those in the examples below. Jarema & Friederici (1994) reported that the French-speaking agrammatic patients in their study made an average of 35% of mistakes in a comprehension task that required them to rely on gender information on pronouns to disambiguate homophones. (The examples are from Jarema & Freiderici 1994: 687.) (4.40) a.

Le soldat le quitte the soldier is it.masc leaving (antecedent: le poste ‘the post’) ‘The soldier is leaving it’ b. Le soldat la quitte the soldier is it.fem leaving (antecedent: la poste ‘the post office’) ‘The soldier is leaving it’

Chapter 4. Gender

Ambiguity seems to be present in many aspects of language and humans can clearly cope with it. Why would only some languages need to have gender to eliminate it? Furthermore, gender does not completely eliminate the possibility of lexical ambiguity. Evidence for this comes from cases of homonymy found in gender languages, as shown by the following example from Spanish:6 (4.41) a. planta (f) ‘plant’ b. planta (f) ‘factory’

In my view, it is more likely that the disambiguating function of gender is a by-product of another function of gender. What seems to help towards adequate noun phrase reference is gender agreement, not the fact that there is a nominal classification system in place. Number agreement could be argued to fulfil this function too, and it does not rely on nominal classification. For example, the fact that the object pronoun in (4.42) is marked for plural rules out co-reference with singular phrases in the context, thus helping to disambiguate the interpretation of the sentence. (4.42) I saw them

A more likely proposal, in my opinion, is that nominal classification as realised in genders or noun classes is a subsidiary (and optional) grammatical property associated with agreement. The subsidiary role may consist of helping to reduce the time/effort in lexical access by reducing lexical search space. This possibility has been pointed out by Bates et al. (1996), Grosjean et al. (1994) and Guillelmon and Grosjean (2000), who suggest that gender may preactivate whole classes of nouns at a time, speeding up lexical access.7,8 More details on the role of gender in processing will be provided in Section 4.2. Nominal classification appears to be a possible development of agreement, but not the other way round. If the proposed link between gender and agreement is correct, then it is not surprising that diachronic development shows that agreement always exists prior to the appearance of gender in particular languages. Conversely, the reduction of classes and loss of agreement seem to result in loss of gender, as has happened in Romance and Baltic languages (Nichols 1992: 142) and English (Baugh & Cable 1993: 161–162). Also, when nominal classification exists without agreement (e.g., in classifier languages) it serves a very different function to gender (see for example Dixon 1982: 212– 218; Löbel 2000; Grinevald 2000, for detailed discussions of these differences, which involve semantic, syntactic and morphological properties). To summarize, I have argued that the purpose of nominal classification in the form of gender classes may be to optimize lexical (and syntactic) pro-






cessing. More work is clearly needed before this can be asserted with a higher degree of confidence. Some existing empirical evidence suggesting that this assumption is correct will be presented when the processing of gender is discussed in Section 4.2. For the time being, I shall assume that it is a reasonable assumption to make.

On the function of agreement The second aspect of the question of what gender is for relates to the function of agreement in human language. This is a fundamental question, and one for which I do not believe a definite answer has been found yet. I shall not attempt to provide a definite answer to it here, as this is an enterprise that deserves much more space than I am able to devote to it here. It is worth noting that different functions of agreement have been proposed in the literature. For example, it has been suggested that agreement exists to provide the necessary redundancy to overcome the noise in language transmission/reception channels, to allow word order to be freer, or to contribute to adequate noun phrase or clause reference by cross-indexing related elements. Interesting as these ideas might be, however, they are too loosely framed to allow a systematic treatment of agreement phenomena. I shall adopt a more narrowly focused strategy and only discuss how the problem is conceived in current minimalist theory. (For discussion of the function of agreement from other perspectives, see e.g. Barlow & Ferguson 1988; Corbett 1979; Givón 1976; Keenan 1974; Lapointe 1982; Lehman 1982; Moravcsik 1978.) Overt agreement may also confer some advantages for on-line processing. Some facilitatory effects have been reported in the psycholinguistic literature (see Section 4.2 for a brief overview). Whatever the processing advantages of agreement may be, they cannot however simply be a solution to speech processing constraints, as agreement is also found in sign language. Despite the fact that sign language agreement morphology is realized through handshape, hand orientation, place of articulation relative to the body and other movement characteristics, it operates in strikingly similar ways to its spoken language counterpart (e.g., Neidle et al. 1998; Neidle et al. 2000; Neidle & Maclaughlin 2002, for discussion of the realisation of agreement in ASL). From an MP perspective the question is couched in terms of optimal design. Language is conceived as an optimal solution to the legibility conditions imposed by the conceptual-intentional (C-I) and articulatory-perceptual (A-P) interfaces, so the question is how agreement contributes to making the computational system (CHL ) optimal. For example, the absence of look-ahead makes the system more economical by avoiding performing the same computations

Chapter 4. Gender

more than once. The potential benefits of agreement are less obvious. Moreover, it has been considered by some (including Chomsky) as a prime candidate for the label of ‘imperfection’ of language design. Chomsky (1998, 2005: 18) considered the possibility that it may only be an apparent imperfection and proposed that it may exist to implement Move, an operation that does not constitute an imperfection. Move can be justified because it creates more configurations, thus enhancing the expressive power of language, for example, so if Agree exists in the system to implement Move, there is an ultimate justification for it. Atkinson (2002: Chapter 4) has expressed reservations about this argument, as the application of Agree does not seem to be limited to contexts where it serves to implement Move. For example, (4.43) shows an instance of Agree without Move between finite T and the nominal further down in the structure: (4.43) a. There seem to be problems b. There seems to be a problem

It is clear from such examples that the operation Agree can value uninterpretable features (typically with morphological reflexes) even when no dislocation ensues. To the best of my knowledge, no definite account of this fact is currently available, but it is conceivable that this function of agreement may be related to learnability. Learners have two basic types of ‘clues’ available to them in the linguistic input to help them build their grammars: word order and morphology (perhaps also intonation/stress, at least in some languages). This is highly speculative, but it is possible that agreement morphology might be one of the properties of human language that makes particular languages readily learnable by providing a fairly direct route to the identification of the grammatical makeup of their lexical items. Given that languages rely on morphology to different extents, one could compare the acquisition of contrasting languages to check if there might be any effects of the availability of morphological clues on the way the languages are acquired. A superficial comparison of the L1 acquisition of articles in Spanish and English would appear to lend some support to this hypothesis. Definite articles can carry information related to definiteness and number, and in English this is all the grammatical information they seem to encode, but in Spanish they can also carry gender information, realised as inflectional morphology. It is interesting to note that articles emerge between the ages of approximately 2;7 and 3;5 years (31–41 months) in children acquiring English (Brown 1973), while they appear between the ages of approximately 1;2 and 1;6 years (14–18 months) in Spanish speaking children (Schnell de Acedo 1994). This compari-






son should be taken with some caution, as there are other features interacting with gender, number and definiteness in the DP which may be distorting the picture. For example, the comparison between English and Spanish definite articles may be confounded by a contrast between articles discovered by Chierchia (1998). He has shown that common nouns in Romance-type languages are [–argument, +predicate], while they are [+argument, +predicate] in Germanic-type languages. This has consequences for the distribution of overt determiners in both language groups, and he claims that the acquisition of Germanic-type articles should take longer than that of Romance-type ones, because learners need to encounter more evidence before they are able to set the right value of this parameter for Germanic-type nominals. If Chierchia’s prediction is correct, then English children may acquire articles later than Spanish children not because of the differences related to gender morphology but due to noun argumenthood differences which give Spanish-speaking children an advantage. To rule out this possible confounding factor, one could compare the emergence of articles in children exposed to two languages in the same groups in Chierchia’s classification; for example, two Germanic-type languages. This comparison is possible as data on the emergence of articles in German- and English-speaking children are available. Mills (1985) reviews a number of longitudinal case studies of children acquiring German as L1 and reports that articles emerge between the ages of 1;2 and 2;6 years in these children. As already mentioned, articles emerged between the ages of 2;7 and 3;5 years in the English-speaking children studied by Brown (1973). This may be taken to indicate that gender agreement can help to make functional lexical items such as articles more readily learnable, despite the interference of other factors. Presumably all overt agreement should bring about the same type of facilitation effects for acquisition. Quite clearly, this needs to be empirically tested in a more thorough way, but it makes some sense given our present state of knowledge. .. The syntax of gender In this section I shall provide the details of the structure that I am assuming for nominal projections, with a special focus on the role that gender features play in the Spanish DP alongside other phi- and Case features. I have been assuming that nouns are inherently marked for gender, in the sense that they enter the numeration with valued interpretable gender features (see for example Carstens 2000: 328; Kester 1996: 58; Panagiotidis 2001: 30ff.; Valois 1991: 376, for a similar view, but Ritter 1993, for a view that gender fea-

Chapter 4. Gender

tures originate in Num in Romance and so nouns get them via agreement with Num). It is not clear what exact effects gender features have at LF,9 so it may be more cautious to talk about nouns having inherently valued gender features, leaving aside the question of how LF handles them. I shall still use both interpretable and valued to refer to the inherent gender features of nouns, but the reader should bear this caveat in mind. At the point of merge, nouns are also specified with uninterpretable number features (I take this to be a parametric option present in Spanish but not in some other languages, such as Chinese), and uninterpretable Case features. Other gender-marked lexical items enter the numeration with unvalued uninterpretable gender features. In Spanish the noun raises overtly to n and Num (and covertly to D) for independent reasons and values the gender features of adjectives and D items it encounters along the way. In this sense, gender can be construed as a ‘free-rider’ feature, as it moves to configurations where it can be copied onto lexical items requiring it, but it does not motivate the movement itself (Carstens 2000: 325– 326). I assume that multiple agreement between the noun and several probes is possible because the noun’s gender feature is interpretable, so it is not deleted when agreement with a probe has taken place. It remains available as an active goal until its Case feature is valued. I shall adopt Carstens’ (2001) slightly modified definition of Agree, which accommodates gender concord more straightforwardly than the formulation in Chomsky (1998, 1999, 2001). Her version reads as follows: (4.44) In the Agree relation: a. A probe α has uninterpretable φ-features. b. A goal β has matching φ-features. c. Uninterpretable φ-features are valued, and delete. d. If α has an intrinsic structural Case value, it values any unvalued Case features of β; the two Case features then delete. (p. 151)

Her modification is stated in (d) and what it does is it to guarantee that Agree will not delete the goal’s Case feature unless the probe is what in traditional terms would be called a structural Case assigner. This allows for the possibility of multiple agreement, such as can be observed in concord.10 Chomsky’s formulation also allows for multiple agreement but ties deletion of Case to agreement with φ-complete items. Carstens argues that modification (d) is a more effective solution than the requirement of φ-completeness (see pp. 148– 153 for her empirical arguments), with direct consequences for the analysis of gender agreement and concord. I shall adopt her formulation of Agree, al-






though when the full facts about this operation are more clearly understood these assumptions may well need to be revised. The existence of an nP or ‘light’ noun shell outside the NP, parallel to a vP shell outside VP, has been assumed for some time now. From a theoretical point of view, it is attractive to assume the same structure in the CP and the DP (see Abney 1987, for the original suggestion of a close parallelism between CP and DP, and Carstens 2000, 2001; Radford 2000; Sportiche 1990; Valois 1991, for more details specifically related to nP). These researchers have suggested that the specifiers of nP are the base positions of different types of arguments, subject to a hierarchy which determines in which positions each type can be generated. I shall assume that nP is strong in Spanish and so nouns always have to raise to the head n. (See Radford 2000: 4–6, for empirical evidence showing that N raises to n in English as well, and discussion of the possibility that nPs may be invariably strong across languages, and not subject to parameterization.) It is standardly assumed that number specification originates in the Num head and can be copied onto other items via agreement/concord (e.g., Picallo 1991; Ritter 1991, 1993). In Spanish Num is strong (or affixal) and so requires nouns to raise in overt syntax. Assuming that intransitive adjectives11 are base-generated in the specifiers of functional projections above NP, N-raising to Num derives the noun+adjective order typical of Spanish and other Romance languages (Bernstein 1991a, b; Cinque 1990, 1994, 1995; Picallo 1991; Sleeman 1993; Valois 1991). The reason why not all adjectives will appear in post-nominal position in Spanish is that some may be generated in the specifier of Num or other functional projections between D and Num, and in such cases the surface order will remain adjective+noun even though the noun has raised to the Num head. I shall follow Cinque (1994, 1995) in assuming that all intransitive adjectives are generated as APs in the specifiers of functional projections.12 One of the advantages of Cinque’s assumption is that it can account straightforwardly for the different interpretations found in adjectives originating in different specifier positions, if we assume that their meaning is a function of the functional head they modify. As an example, let us consider the derivation of (4.45), a simple Spanish DP. (4.45) las pequeñas mesas blancas the.fem.pl small.fem.pl tables.fem.pl white.fem.pl ‘The small white tables’

Chapter 4. Gender

At the point of merge, the noun mesa- ‘table-’ is marked with an interpretable gender feature, and an unvalued uninterpretable number feature. It also has an unvalued Case feature. It merges with an n head as shown below.13 n’

(4.46) n

NP mesa[gen:f] [unum] [uCase]

Because the n head is strong (or has affixal features) the noun raises and adjoins to it, leaving an invisible copy behind. The n head projects a specifier, where the first AP is merged. The head of the AP is the adjective blanc- ‘white’, which has uninterpretable unvalued gender and number features at the point of merge. The unvalued features on the adjective search for a goal that can value them and they find one in the noun. Once valued, the adjective’s gender feature gets marked for deletion so that when Spell-Out is applied it is not included in the derivation to LF, although it will be sent to PF. The adjective and the noun have matching number features, but the noun cannot value the adjective’s features because its features are also uninterpretable. When an item with valued number features is encountered in the right configuration, the noun and the adjective will simultaneously agree with it and get identical number values.14 nP

(4.47) AP blanca[gen:f] [ánum]

n’ n N mesa[gen:f] [ánum] [uCase]

NP n mesa[gen:f] [ánum] [uCase]

Next the nP is merged with a Num head containing plural number specification. This head is strong in Spanish, so it requires the noun to raise to it in overt syntax. The noun can now get its number feature valued, but its Case feature is still unvalued, so it can still serve as goal for other applications of Agree. The






Num head projects a specifier, where the second AP is merged. As with the previous adjective, this one has unvalued gender and number features at the point of merge, and will get these features valued through agreement with the noun. NumP

(4.48) AP pequeñas [gen:f] [num:pl]

Num’ Num N mesas [gen:f] [num:pl] [uCase]

nP Num [num:pl]

AP blancas [gen:f] [num:pl]

n’ n N mesas [gen:f] [num:pl] [uCase]

NP n mesas [gen:f] [num:pl] [uCase]

Finally, the D head is merged with the NumP and the article gets its gender and number features valued via agreement with the noun. Note that the noun does not raise overtly to D here (see Longobardi 1994, 2001, for discussion of cases in which N may raise to D overtly in Romance). Also note that the noun’s Case feature has not been valued yet, but will be when the DP is merged with a head v* (in which case it will be valued as accusative) or T (in which case it will be nominative).

Chapter 4. Gender

(4.49) DP D’ D las [gen:f] [num:pl]

NumP AP pequeñas [gen:f] [num:pl]

Num’ Num N mesas [gen:f] [num:pl] [uCase]

nP Num [num:pl]

AP blancas [gen:f] [num:pl]

n’ n N mesas [gen:f] [num:pl] [uCase]

NP n mesas [gen:f] [num:pl] [uCase]

I have so far assumed that gender is a functional feature that does not project its own phrase, but this is not the view taken by all researchers in the field. There have been proposals suggesting that there is indeed a GenP, at least in some languages. For example, Bernstein (1993) proposes the existence of WMP (Word Maker Phrase) in Italian, Spanish, French and Catalan, and Picallo (1991) Gen(der)P for Catalan and Romance in general. Picallo’s (1991) argumentation is representative of this line of thought: she assumes that all inflectional elements head their own projection, and given that Catalan and other Romance languages have number and gender inflection, she assumes that there are number and gender functional heads and their projections between DP and NP in these languages. (Using the same logic, she posits that since verbs in the Romance languages have as part of their inflection a theme vowel indicating which conjugation class they belong to, there must be a functional projection headed by the theme vowel to which verbs raise.) Although this type of proposal may be appealing on grounds of transparency of morphosyntactic realization in relation to functional structure, and possibly desirable from a learnability perspective, it is not without its problems. Positing the existence of syntactic structure only on the basis of morphological






form may be in direct competition with economy considerations (see Bobaljik 2000, for arguments against the assumption that morphology drives syntax). A minimalist strategy would be not to pose the existence of syntactic structure unless there is clear positive evidence for it in the syntax. So the question is whether there is syntactic evidence for the presence of a GenP. Panagiotidis (2001) argues that there are two properties of gender that make GenP an unlikely functional projection: If gender is encoded on a separate Gen head here, then this Gen head has two very peculiar properties: a. In the vast majority of cases it can only select some lexical entries but not others, on either completely idiosyncratic criteria (feminine tables, neuter girls, masculine weather, and so on) or very transparent lexical semantic ones (feminine mothers, neuter things, masculine uncles). b. When this Gen head can select a noun freely, it can also assign a completely different meaning to it.15 Unless, of course, the noun has an animate referent (cf. il gatto versus la gatta, male versus female cat in Italian). (p. 32)

Other arguments against the idea of a GenP/WMP put forward by Kester (1996: 24–26) have been that there is no one-to-one correlation between gender and word markers, and that word markers are not restricted to gender-marked categories (e.g., they appear in adverbs in Spanish; see details from Harris 1985, 1991 in the next section). Further evidence against the idea of a GenP comes from the contrast between number and gender in both Romance and Germanic languages. Evidence from language processing and impairment in both language groups suggests that number features head their own functional projection different from the NP, but gender features behave as if they were inherent features of nouns. This evidence will be reviewed in Section 4.2. At the opposite extreme from those arguing for the existence of GenP are those who claim that gender is not active in the syntax at all, and that it only plays a role at PF. For example, Embick and Noyer (2001), Halle and Marantz (1993), and Harley and Noyer (1999) have suggested that gender agreement/concord, like subject-verb agreement, takes place post-syntactically, at the point of vocabulary insertion (cf. Section 2.4 on Distributed Morphology) and the syntax is blind to the agreement process.16 For example, Embick and Noyer (2001: 580–584) argue that Swedish D-N definiteness concord is a well-formedness condition on N, applying at PF only. The relevant facts from Swedish are as follows: definite nouns are marked with the suffix -en both when there are no other lexical items in the DP and when there are determiners,

Chapter 4. Gender

which also carry a definiteness marker. This is illustrated with examples taken from Embick and Noyer (2001, their examples 58 and 59). (4.50) mus-en mouse.def ‘The mouse’ (4.51) den gamla mus-en the old mouse.def ‘The old mouse’

Embick and Noyer account for the definiteness concord facts by proposing two PF requirements to which the syntax is blind. The requirements are as follows. (4.52) Definiteness marking requirements (imposed at PF) a. The head N must be marked with definiteness when D is [def]. b. D[def] must have a host. (p. 581)

These requirements may suffice to account for the definiteness agreement facts, but (4.52a) cannot be a mere morphophonological constraint in the usual sense. If the domains of morphology and phonology are the word and its boundaries, operations involving the establishment of syntactic dependencies and the handling of semantic features should be beyond them. (In relation to gender, see Roca 1989, for a demonstration that Spanish gender cannot be handled by phonological rules alone, as it crucially needs morphosyntactic information to work.) An alternative to Embick and Noyer’s account of the Swedish definiteness concord facts is an analysis akin to the number concord analysis in (4.46)– (4.49): Swedish nouns carry uninterpretable definiteness features that must be valued via agreement with the D head, which carries interpretable definiteness features. When the numeration contains a determiner, it is merged as the head of D and bears the definite marker. The operation Agree applies between the definiteness features of D (with or without an overt determiner) and N, valuing the uninterpretable features of N. (See Kersten 1996: 149–154, for a second alternative analysis of definiteness concord.) The strictly post-syntactic treatment of gender in DM is partly due to adherence to what Embick (2000) calls ‘feature disjointness’: (4.53) Feature disjointness Features that are phonological, or purely morphological, or arbitrary properties of vocabulary items, are not present in the syntax; syntacticosemantic features are not inserted in morphology. (p. 188; my emphasis)






Gender is an idiosyncratic feature of nominals so, according to the first part of this tenet, it cannot be in the syntax. However, even if one accepts the basic intuition behind feature disjointness, there is independent evidence suggesting that it must be relaxed to allow for some features arbitrarily associated with roots to have an effect in the syntax. Embick (2000) himself provides evidence for this, as he shows that the feature responsible for the two forms (i.e., analytic and synthetic) of the Latin perfect has effects that are not merely morphological but also syntactic in nature, although this feature would be predicted by feature disjointness to be absent in the syntax given that it is an arbitrary property of certain Latin vocabulary items. I would like to suggest that gender (but not inflectional class) is also an arbitrary feature of roots that is visible to the syntax. Evidence of the effects of gender features in syntax comes, for example, from the crosslinguistic distribution of overt empty nouns like English one and null empty nouns. While languages that have gender agreement inside DP (e.g., Spanish or Italian) allow the use of null empty nouns in contexts such as (4.54), languages which do not have gender agreement within the DP (e.g., English) require the use of an overt empty noun like one, as in (4.55).17 (4.54) Pilar lleva una blusa roja y María una e blanca Pilar wears a.fem blouse.fem red.fem and María a.fem e.fem white.fem ‘Pilar is wearing a red blouse and Maria a white (one)’ (4.55) a. *Pilar is wearing a red blouse and Maria a white e b. Pilar is wearing a red blouse and Maria a white one

Although the identification of null elements is a complex issue that is beyond the scope of this study, examples such as these show that gender agreement can play an important role in the identification process, with syntactic consequences such as restrictions on the type of nominals allowed. (See Giannakidou & Stavrou 1999; Kester 1996: Chapters 4 and 5; Panagiotidis 2001: Chapter 3; Wiltschko 2002, for some discussion of how gender and other phi-features interact with ellipsis; on A’-binding mechanisms for licensing and identification of elliptical nominals within the DP, see Sleeman 1993.) Further support for the idea that gender is active in the syntax comes from FLA, where a correlation between mastery of gender and use of null nominals has been found in development. Liceras, Díaz and Mongeon (2000) analysed the longitudinal data from the María corpus (López Ornat 1994) and the Magín corpus (Aguirre 1995), two child L1 Spanish learners, and found that noun-drop became productive after the children mastered gender agreement

Chapter 4. Gender

between determiners and nouns, at approximately 2 years of age. (See Snyder, Senghas & Inman 2001, for similar findings.) To summarise, on the one hand there does not seem to be decisive evidence for the existence of a functional projection headed by a gender head. On the other, the effects of gender appear not to be purely phonological but also syntactic in nature. A position that is tenable in view of these facts is to assume that gender is a syntactic feature but that it does not head its own functional projection. This is what Carstens (2000, 2001), Di Domenico (1995), Kester (1996), Panagiotidis (2001), and Ritter (1993), among others, have assumed, and I shall follow them in assuming this. .. The Spanish gender system In Section 4.1 it was indicated that the gender of particular languages is the product of a complex interaction between syntax, semantics and mophophonology. Harris (1985) illustrates the interaction between syntactic gender and inflectional class (‘word marker’, in his terminology) in the Spanish system in Table 4.2. (Other correspondences between word form beyond just word final sound and gender can be found in Teschner & Russel 1984.) Harris claims that the inflectional forms shown in Table 4.2 display nearly the full set of ‘word markers’ in the language. Since any gender can occur with any of the forms, he concludes that “the correlation between word marker and grammatical gender is random and arbitrary” (1985: 37). And in a different passage he states: the underlying phonological representation of word markers and correlations of particular phonological shapes with grammatical gender are in large measure – though not entirely – matters of lexical idiosyncrasy of individual roots and affixes. (1985: 40)

Further evidence for the independence of inflectional class and gender comes from the forms of agreeing words. If gender and inflectional class were the same, we would expect a phrase headed, for example, by a masculine noun in -o to show the same inflectional class in all the agreeing words, but this is not the case, as shown in example (4.56). The same applies to feminine nouns, as shown in (4.57). (The same point was made in Section 4.1 regarding examples 4.16–4.19.) (4.56) ese niño idiota that.masc boy.masc stupid.masc ‘that stupid boy’






(4.57) una modelo elegante a.fem model.fem elegant.fem ‘an elegant model’

Harris (1985, 1991) proposed a list of seven or eight possible Spanish word markers (cf. Table 4.2), and proposed a hierarchical system under which these were organised, some of them being regular and others irregular. Within the regular forms he also divided word markers into two groups, one being less marked than the other. The inflectional class hierarchy is shown in Table 4.3. Harris explains that class A is regular because the vast bulk of nouns and adjectives in Spanish belong to it, and B is irregular because it has fewer members.18 Also, there has been evidence of historical drift of words that belonged to class B and migrated into class A, but there is no systematic migration in the opposite direction. Finally, new words (i.e., neologisms and borrowings) are typically assigned to class A. Harris (1991) claims that Spanish nouns, adjectives, pronouns, determiners and adverbs share these word markers and the same morphophonological Table 4.2 Interaction between gender and inflectional class (Harris 1985: 36) Inflectional class

Gender

Example

-a -a -a -a -o -o -o -o -Vs -Vs -Vs -u -u -s -s -i -i -e -e -Ø/-e -Ø/-e -Ø/-e

f m m/f – m f m/f – m f – f m m f m m/f f m f m –

muchacha ‘girl’ día ‘day’ pianista ‘pianist’ cerca ‘near’ muchacho ‘boy’ mano ‘hand’ testigo ‘witness’ dentro ‘inside’ Carlos ‘Charles’, análisis ‘analysis’ diabetes ‘diabetes’, síntesis ‘synthesis’ lejos ‘far’ tribu ‘tribe’ espíritu ‘spirit’ tórax ‘thorax’ fénix ‘phoenix’ bikini ‘bikini’ cursi ‘tacky’ ene ‘(letter) n’ nene ‘child’ col ‘cabbage’, madre ‘mother’ sol ‘sun’, padre ‘father’ atrás ‘behind’, delante ‘ahead’

Chapter 4. Gender

Table 4.3 Nominal inflectional class hierarchy (based on Harris 1985: 42, 1991: 32) Gender-marked/Inner core A-1 harto (m) carta (f)

Regular Not gender-marked/Outer core A-2 parte (m/f) par (m/f)

Irregular Residue B mano (f) día (m) síntesis (f) tribu (f) oboe (m)

rules apply to them all, although only the first four word classes carry syntactic gender information. Of all the classes that can be marked for gender, nouns are the most numerous and they are also the most varied in terms of mophological form since they can take more inflectional endings and have more marker/gender associations than any of the other categories carrying gender features (Harris 1991: 36). It is necessary to draw a semantic distinction between nouns referring to humans and the rest of nouns. For non-human nouns, gender is completely arbitrary and words are randomly assigned to all three form classes (i.e., A-1, A-2 and B), with no correlation with meaning. In the case of nouns referring to humans, there are some restrictions of form according to the word’s gender and the referent’s sex, and they have been organised into legal ‘mating pairs’ by Harris (1991), and are summarised in Table 4.4.19 In the case of nouns referring to animals, the great majority are epicene (i.e., they have gender but are unspecified for sex) but there are a few that have two forms. Of these, one group differentiates between male and females by means of different suppletive forms (e.g., toro/vaca ‘bull/cow’, caballo/yegua ‘horse/mare’, etc.) and a second group comprising some of the more familiar animals makes use of the rules in Table 4.4 (e.g., perro/perra ‘dog/bitch’, gato/gata ‘he-cat/she-cat’, etc.). From a learner’s point of view, it is questionable whether knowledge of these rules may be of any help, since they are of limited use in generalising to new cases. Suppose, for example, that an L2 Spanish learner comes across the noun mártir ‘martyr’ in a masculine syntactic context. How is she supposed to know that the corresponding feminine form follows the pairing pattern 2 (i.e., {A-2, A-2}, yielding mártir) when it would also be possible to get *mártira according to pairing pattern 3 (i.e., {A-2, A-1}, as in profesor/profesora)? Or how is the learner to predict that the masculine form corresponding to feminine poeta ‘poet’ is not *poeto (as she might predict given pattern 1: {A-1, A-1}, as






Table 4.4 Patterns of inflectional classes allowed in mating pairs (for nouns referring to humans only) based on Harris (1991: 38–39) Pairing pattern

Inflectional class pair

[–f]

[+f]

1. {A-1, A-1}

{-o, -a}

secretario

secretaria

2. {A-2, A-2}

{-e, -e}

estudiante esquimal mártir joven sirviente profesor colegial

estudiante esquimal mártir joven sirvienta profesora colegiala

duque poeta actor

duquesa poetiza actriz

aristócrata soprano

aristócrata soprano

macho hombre padre yerno

hembra mujer madre nuera

{-C, -C} 3. {A-2, A-1}

{-e, -a} {-C, -a}

4. masculine and feminine related by derivational suffixation 5. invariable -a or -o*

{-a, -a} {-o, -o}

6. suppletion

*

There is a clear numerical asymmetry within this pairing pattern as invariable -a nouns (of which there are 591 according to Teschner & Russell 1984) are much more frequent than invariable -o nouns (which according to the same source form part of a small group of 16 nouns).

in coqueto/coqueta ‘vain’) but poeta, as in pattern 5 (i.e., invariable -a)? The answer is probably that there is a large proportion of item-by-item learning in the acquisition of noun gender marking. Adjectives do not have inherent gender and therefore do not pose gender restrictions (i.e., there is no stem that can be only masculine or only feminine), but they do have inflectional class ‘mating’ restrictions. For example, an adjective meaning ‘beautiful’ can be either feminine or masculine and it takes the following suffixes: (4.58) [+f] → bonita,[ ] → bonito

This means that the pair {-o, -a} is a permissible mating pair for Spanish adjectives. Other permissible pairs are {-e, -e}, {Ø, -a}, {-a, -a}, among others. There are some pairs, however, that are not permitted in Spanish adjectives, not because they go against the phonological rules of the language but simply because they do not occur. Such cases are: *{-o, -o} and *{-o, -e}.

Chapter 4. Gender

Table 4.5 Sample of singular and plural Spanish determiners Singular

Plural

Masculine

Feminine

Masculine

Feminine

el un ese eso este esto otro aquel ...

la una esa – esta – otra aquella ...

ellos unos esos

las unas esas

estos

estas

otros aquellos ...

otras aquellas ...

There is an asymmetry in regularity between masculine and feminine singular determiners in that most feminine forms end in -a whereas there are various different endings (-o, -e and different consonants) amongst masculine determiners, as illustrated by the examples in Table 4.5. This asymmetry disappears in the plural, however, as most masculine forms end in -os and feminine forms in -as.

Rules of gender assignment in Spanish Different types of rules have been proposed as an explanation for the gender assignment system of Spanish nouns. Among the most frequently cited are the following: – – – – –

Semantic rules (e.g., the names of rivers are masculine) Grammatical form rules (e.g., infinitives, phrases, indeclinable words and compound nouns are masculine) Etymological rules (e.g., words of Greek origin ending in -a are masculine) Word ending rules (e.g., words ending in -l, -o, -n, -e, -r, -s are masculine) Phonological rules (e.g., uncommon words with a stressed -á- in the first syllable are masculine)

A number of Spanish pedagogical grammars specifically designed for L1 English learners propose a myriad of such gender assignment rules (and corresponding lists of exceptions). Some of the early attempts have been reviewed in Bergen (1978), (his article reviews Stockwell et al. 1965; Keniston 1937; Bull 1965; Bull et al. 1974; Dalbor 1972; Da Silva 1975; Dinnes 1971; and Ramsey 1956). Bergen came to the conclusion that the rules of gender assignment proposed in the studies he reviewed were not accurate enough and that they






required the student to learn too many rules and exceptions. He then went on to propose his own set of orthographically-based rules, which he claims are 97.3% accurate in predicting the gender of any given noun. He claims that “the bases for the gender of Spanish nouns are mainly phonemic” (p. 868) and proposes two semantic rules and eight phonemic rules by which the gender of Spanish nouns can be determined. A summary of his proposal is presented in Table 4.6. Table 4.6 Summary of Bergen’s (1978) gender assignment rules for Spanish A. Semantic rules

– a noun which refers invariably to one male being is of the masculine gender; – a noun which refers invariably to one female being is of the feminine gender. In all other cases, the gender of the noun is independent of the nature of its referent and the following phonemic rules apply.

B. Phonemic rules

1. Feminine nouns typically end in -a -d -z -ión -umbre -ie -is (unstressed) 2. Masculine nouns typically end in -l -o -n -e -r -s and sometimes in -i -u -j -m -t -x -y

C. Exceptions to the phonemic rules

1. nouns of high frequency with a stressed -á- in the first syllable, mainly bisyllabic, are generally feminine; 2. nouns of Greek origin ending in -ma are masculine; 3. gender ambivalent nouns; 4. other exceptions that cannot be grouped into classes.

Chapter 4. Gender

Table 4.7 Mel’cuk’s (1958: 15–16) gender assignment rules for Spanish Rules

Feminine nouns are those ending in -a (unstressed), and also in -ie, umbre, -d, -z (except for arroz, maíz, ajedrez, lápiz), -ion (except for avión and camión); -zon (except for corazón), and the nouns: a. mano, foto, radio b. parte, noche, calle, clase, tarde, muerte, gente, base, fe, sangre, fuente, frase c. ley, mar, labor, cárcel, sal, señal, flor

Exceptions nouns in -ma which have more than two syllables, and the nouns día, tema, drama, tanvía, clima, reuma, and noun-homonyms for which a difference in gender is related to a difference in meaning: la capital ‘capital city’ el capital ‘business capital’ la frente ‘forehead’ el frente ‘(war) front’ la parte ‘part’ el parte ‘communication’ la orden ‘order, command’ el orden ‘(law and) order; series’

Mel’cuk (1958) similarly proposed a set of rules and accompanying lists of exceptions based on feminine word endings which he claims account for 88% of the 187 most common Spanish nouns, and 75–78% of the 1,000 most common nouns. If the exceptions listed are also taken into account, he claims that his scheme covers 97–98% of the most common Spanish nouns. Table 4.7 contains a summary of the rules and exceptions. It is not easy to decide which of these systems, if any, is the correct one. Children acquiring Spanish rely on the form of nouns to build up the gender system (see Section 4.3 for an overview of the evidence), but whether they work on the basis of rules of this type, it is hard to say. Regardless of the forms that gender-marked categories take, there are some semantic generalizations that follow from masculine and feminine gender assignment to sexed referents. These have been discussed in detail by Roca (2000), and one of the key observations he makes is that while the sexual reference of masculine gender is underspecified, that of feminine gender is restricted to females (p. 10). Roca formalized this as the ordered set of rules in (4.59), where the bracketed features to the left of the arrow are semantic and those to the right are syntactic. The application of these rules is illustrated in examples (4.60) and (4.61). The noun in (4.60) is masculine, but it can refer to either boys or girls. By contrast, the feminine noun in (4.61) can only refer to female referents. (4.59) a. [FEMALE] → [+fem] b. [ ] → [–fem]



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

(4.60) El niño debe ser protegido the.masc child.masc must be protected.masc ‘Children must be protected’ (4.61) La niña debe ser protegida the.fem child.fem must be protected.fem ‘Girls must be protected’

These observations are related to the issue of default gender. In Spanish, as in many other languages, masculine is the default value in that where there is gender conflict or when the gender value is not specified, the syntactic value assigned by default is always be masculine. (See for example Corbett & Fraser 2002, for a discussion of default gender crosslinguistically.)

. How gender is processed There is a significant body of research on the processing of gender, mainly on native speakers. I shall briefly review this literature and then point out some of the differences with findings of studies of L2 processing. An important point to bear in mind in relation to any processing data is that they are not always easy to interpret in relation to linguistic theory. A note of caution bearing on this is voiced by Di Domenico & De Vincenzi (1999) in their introduction to the special issues of the Rivista di Linguistica on the processing of gender and number: As we have seen, some of the authors [of the studies in this volume] related their results to representational hypotheses concerning features, others trace back their findings to processing models, or take into play cognitive factors such as short-term memory to explain the differences. This suggests that the relation between psycholinguistic findings and linguistic theory is not a linear one [. . .] and more work needs to be done in this direction. (p. 9)

So although I shall report on the interpretations suggested by the authors of the studies cited below, I would like to make it clear that I share Di Domenico and De Vincenzi’s cautious approach here. A commonly used neuroimaging technique is based on the measurement of ERPs (Event-Related Potentials). These are electrophysiological changes in the brain induced by internal or external stimuli, usually recorded by means of electrodes placed in several different spots on the scalp. It has traditionally been assumed that the processing of semantic information can influence the amplitude of the ERP modulation resulting in what neurolinguists call an N400

Chapter 4. Gender

effect (i.e., a change in electrophysiological activity that is detected approximately 400 milliseconds after the stimulus has been presented to the subject, causing the signal to peak in the negative values of the amplitude scale). The presentation of information that is semantically anomalous typically induces N400 effects. Two other effects have been identified as being related to the processing of syntactic information. One is called LAN (left anterior negativity), with a similar signal as an N400 but manifested in more frontal areas of the brain. LAN effects have been observed in cases of anomalies in morphosyntax and word category information. The other is known as the P600/SPS (syntactic positive shift) effect, and it manifests itself as a positive waveform peaking at approximately 600 milliseconds after the presentation of the stimulus. (See Hagoort, Brown & Osterhout 1999, for more details on these and other effects and their interpretations.) .. Processing gender in L1 ERP studies of the processing of gender in NSs have shown that violations of gender agreement induce strong P600/SPS effects. For example, Hagoort and Brown (1999) recorded the ERPs of 24 Dutch NSs while they were being presented with sentences that contained article+noun phrases. The articles and nouns showed correct gender agreement in some of these phrases, but not in others, and the subjects had to indicate which were grammatical by pressing a button after reading each sentence. Hagoort and Brown found that the ungrammatical phrases induced classical P600/SPS effects, and concluded that the establishment of gender agreement must occur at a syntactic level. In the architecture they assume, this corresponds to the lemma level (Levelt 1989), which is the level of processing where the syntactic properties of words are specified. These findings were replicated with Dutch NSs by Sabourin (2001), and similar results were found for German by Gunter, Friederici and Schriefers (2000). Further evidence indicating that gender is encoded at a syntactic processing stage (called the ‘grammatical encoding’ processing stage in Levelt’s model) comes from studies of tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) states. TOT states result from the failure to access the phonological form or ‘lexeme’ of a word whose semantic and syntactic features or ‘lemma’ have been successfully retrieved. Vigliocco, Antonini & Garrett (1997), for example, have shown that 84% of the time Italian speakers in TOT states can accurately predict the gender of the nouns that they cannot pronounce. This was regardless of whether they could access some metrical or segmental information (e.g., number of syllables, or some letters or phonemes) or not. The subjects could equally predict the gender of regu-



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

lar and irregular feminines and masculines, which suggests that they almost certainly did not infer the gender from the retrieval of the word ending. Also compatible with the assumption that grammatical gender information is part of the grammatical as opposed to the phonological encoding of words is evidence from Dante, an Italian anomic patient reported in Badecker, Miozzo & Zanuttini (1995), who could correctly say what the gender of words was even when he could not retrieve their phonological form. A gender congruency effect has been a consistent finding in the literature on processing of grammatical gender in L1 Spanish and other languages (e.g., Garnham, Oakhill, Ehrlich & Carreiras 1995, for Spanish; Faussart, Jakubowicz & Costes 1999, for Spanish and French; Cole & Segui 1994; Guillelmon & Grosjean 2000; Grosjean et al. 1994, for French; Bates et al. 1995, 1996; Bates & Liu 1997, for Italian; Gurjanov, Lukatela, Lukatela, Savic & Turvey 1985; Gurjanov, Lukatela, Moskovljevic, Savic & Turvey 1985; Carello, Lukatela & Turvey 1988, for Serbo-Croatian; Jacobsen 1999, for German; van Berkum 1997, for Dutch). These effects consist of speeding up lexical decision or naming when the prime contains correct gender agreement, and/or inhibiting the response when the prime contains a gender agreement mismatch. For example, Grosjean et al. (1994) tested French NSs on two tasks (a gating paradigm task and a lexical decision task) designed to test any potential facilitatory effects of gender during lexical access. They presented the subjects with sentences such as the following, some of which had gender-marked articles (as in 4.62) and others which did not (as in 4.63): (4.62) a.

J’ai vu un joli cadeau samedi I-have seen a.masc nice.masc20 present.masc on Sunday ‘I saw a nice present on Sunday’ b. J’ai vu une jolie chapelle samedi I-have seen a.fem nice.fem chapel.fem on Sunday ‘I saw a nice chapel on Sunday’

(4.63) a.

J’ai vu de jolis cadeaux samedi I-have seen some nice.masc presents.masc on Sunday ‘I saw some nice presents on Sunday’ b. J’ai vu de jolies chapelles samedi I-have seen some nice.fem chapels.fem on Sunday ‘I saw some nice chapels on Sunday’

First the subjects were asked to write down the word presented after joli(e)(s) and indicate how confident they were about their response. In a second task they had to indicate whether the word that came after joli(e)(s) was a word

Chapter 4. Gender 

or a nonword. Grosjean and his colleagues found a robust facilitatory effect of gender: the presence of a gender-marked article helped with the recognition of the following noun as seen in shorter reaction times, more confident responses and no errors. They interpreted these findings as indicating that the presence of gender marking facilitates lexical access of words or helps the syntactic module to check agreement is correct, or both. There is conflicting evidence about how the form of gender markers affects processing. Bates et al. (1995), MacWhinney et al. (1989) and Taraban & Roark (1996) found that NS have more difficulty processing opaquely marked nouns compared to nouns transparently marked for gender. On the other hand, Taraban & Kempe (1999) found their NS subjects to be unaffected by the form of the gender marker, both in terms of processing speed and accuracy. More research is clearly needed in this area. While both gender and number appear to constrain syntactic processing, there are some clear differences between the behaviour of the two features. Domínguez et al. (1999) García-Albea, Del Viso & Igoa (1989) and Igoa, García-Albea & Sánchez-Casas (1999) argue that noun gender and number have different processing loci: gender is in the lemma representation of a word while number is assigned through grammatical encoding operations that assemble phrase structure. Igoa, García-Albea & Sánchez-Casas (1999) based their conclusion on their observations that number is much more likely than gender to be exchanged and stranded in induced word exchanges in Spanish, as shown by naturally occurring slips from the Corpus of Spanish Slips of the Tongue (Del Viso et al. 1987; Del Viso 1990) and experimental results. Example (4.64) illustrates the relatively frequent type of exchange with number stranding, and (4.65) is an example of the less common type with gender stranding: (4.64)

(4.65)

a.fem *leather.fem of *sole.masc ‘A sole leather’ (Intended meaning: una suela de cuero)

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

It would seem that there is a strong relationship between the noun stem and the gender affix, but less so with the number affix. This ties in quite neatly with our assumption that number is a syntactic head with its own projection with which nouns agree, but not gender, which is an inherent feature of nouns. Other differences between the processing of gender and number have been found. For example, Faussart, Jakubowicz & Costes (1999) found that in comprehension gender violations are more disruptive than number violations for Spanish and French speakers. They presented their subjects with article+noun pairs, some of which had matching gender and/or number values and some which did not, and found that in both languages gender mismatches resulted in significantly longer response latencies than number mismatches. In production, it has been observed that gender errors are less frequent than number errors. In error-inducing experiments, it has been found that number error rates are higher than those for gender errors (e.g., 8.4% vs. 3% respectively in Antón-Méndez’ 1996, 1999 studies). An issue on which consensus has not been reached is the exact timing of NSs’ detection of gender agreement violations. Some have suggested that this is done before the parser commits itself to a structural analysis (Frazier & Clifton 1996; Vosse & Kempen 1998). Others argue that grammatical gender information is totally ignored by the first parse and only becomes integrated at late processing stages (Mitchell et al. 1995; De Vincenzi 1999; De Vincenzi & Di Domenico 1999). Yet others have proposed that although gender information gets processed after the parser has committed itself to an analysis, gender becomes integrated very quickly afterwards (van Berkum, Brown & Hagoort 1999). In summary, the L1 processing literature suggests that gender agreement is processed at a syntactic level and that it produces a robust congruency effect, speeding up lexical access when matching gender information is available and/or disrupting it when there are gender mismatches. Compared with number, gender seems more central to the noun’s lexical makeup, as seen by the reduced likelihood of gender stranding compared with number stranding rates in word exchanges, lower number of gender mistakes relative to number mistakes in production, and more disruptive effects of gender mismatches over number ones in language comprehension. .. Processing of gender in L2 In contrast with the large number of studies that have been published on the L1 processing of grammatical gender, there have been only a few on L2, thus

Chapter 4. Gender 

it is difficult to draw general conclusions from the studies available. Below is a summary of the main findings. Sabourin & Haverkort (2000) compared the on-line processing of grammatical gender in Dutch by NSs and L1 German speakers. The NNSs did very well on an off-line grammaticality judgement task testing knowledge of gender assignment and agreement (see Sabourin 2001, for details of the off-line study). Despite this, the results of the ERP study show that while violations of gender agreement result in a P600 effect in the NSs, they do not in the NNSs. Instead, the L1 German speakers showed a long-lasting negativity in reaction to gender agreement mismatches. Although it is clear that there is a difference between the way NSs and NNSs process gender agreement, it is not easy to determine what this means in terms of their grammatical representations. The fact that there is a difference may be related to other factors, for example, the fact that the NNSs were, inevitably, bilingual, while the NSs were not. Differences between NSs and NNSs have also been found with respect to the gender congruency effect. Guillelmon & Grosjean (2000) have shown that while French NSs’ lexical access is speeded up in correct gender agreement contexts and inhibited in contexts where there are gender agreement mismatches, a group of what they call ‘late bilinguals’, i.e., L1 English speakers of L2 French who started to speak French regularly after the age of 24;8 years on average (with an average age of first exposure to French of 15;11 years), were insensitive to gender agreement matches or mismatches during lexical access. This study is very interesting because it rules out the possibility that the differences could be explained simply as a result of the monolingualism of the NSs and the bilingualism of the NNSs. This is because Guillelmon and Grosjean also tested a group of ‘early bilinguals’, i.e., English-French bilinguals who had started using both languages on a regular basis in childhood, and found a congruency effect like in the monolingual NSs. A study by Taraban & Kempe (1999) investigated the sensitivity of Russian NSs and NNSs to the gender information provided via the presence of unambiguously gender marked adjectives in subject NPs, as well as the gender information marked on the noun, which could be either transparent (i.e., regularly marked) or opaque (i.e., ambiguous between feminine and masculine).21 The subjects in this study had to perform a forced choice task, where they had to select one of two possible verb forms to match a subject NP presented to them. Their reaction times and accuracy were recorded and it was found that both NSs and NNSs benefited from the presence of a gender marked adjective, as reflected in reduced latencies and fewer errors. There was, however, a marked difference between the two groups in that the NNSs were slower

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

and less accurate in contexts where gender marking on the subject noun was opaque relative to contexts where the nouns were transparently marked. The NSs were unaffected by the morphological differences between different types of gender markers. The fourth and last study on L2 processing of gender that I am aware of is a study of L1 Finnish speakers of L2 German by Irmen & Knoll (1999). Finnish does not have grammatical gender and it does not even encode semantic (i.e., natural) gender information in pronouns. According to Irmen and Knoll, and the literature cited in their paper, Finnish learners generally have difficulties with gender in L2 German, and so they set out to investigate whether the difficulties that these speakers have are due to problems with the processing of semantic or grammatical gender (or both). The subjects were university students with a good level of German, and the test consisted of a lexical decision task. The subjects were presented with sentences containing a main and a subordinate clause. The main clauses had two nouns (a subject and an object) and the subordinate clauses contained a pronoun each, which referred to either the subject or the object of the main clause. There were two experimental conditions: one in which the subject and object were of the same gender and so the pronoun’s antecedent had to be resolved by reference to the noun’s meaning; in the second condition the subject and object in the main clause were of different genders, so the pronoun could be disambiguated syntactically. The first condition was called the ‘no gender cue’ condition and the second the ‘gender cue’ condition. Additionally, the sentences were equally divided into those with nouns referring to people (where gender was semantic) and those with nouns referring to objects (where gender was arbitrary). The L1 German controls had quicker response times and more accurate responses in the ‘gender cue’ condition, both in sentences with nouns referring to people and objects. The L1 Finnish speakers were also faster and more accurate in the ‘gender cue’ condition in sentences containing nouns referring to people, but they were equally fast and accurate in the ‘gender cue’ and ‘no gender cue’ conditions in sentences referring to objects. Irmen and Knoll conclude that Finnish speakers appear to be able to learn to process semantic clues to gender like NSs, but not syntactic gender. Given the small number of studies available at present, there are still many questions that remain unanswered about the processing of gender in the L2. It would appear that there are some similarities and some differences in the processing of gender by NSs and NNSs, but further research is needed to make full sense of these initial findings.

Chapter 4. Gender 

. How is grammatical gender acquired? There is a relatively large body of research on the acquisition of gender. What emerges from most FLA studies is that gender is one of the earliest grammatical properties to emerge, and in many cases also to be mastered, the latter depending to some extent on the language being acquired. By contrast, it can be a persistent problem for adult L2 learners, even at high levels of proficiency. There are three possible sources of information that learners can rely on for acquiring the gender system of a language like Spanish. These are: (4.66) Different types of gender clues: a. Semantic clues (Does the noun refer to something animate or inanimate? If it is animate, what sex is it?) b. Morphophonological clues (What is the noun’s ending? Is it either -a or -o? Is it something else?) c. Syntactic clues (What forms do related articles, adjectives, pronouns and passive participles take? What types of empty nominals are allowed?)

The literature on L1 and L2 acquisition of gender suggests that learners do not rely on the different types of clues to the same extent, and that the weight they carry varies with developmental stage and type of learner. In the following sections an overview of this literature will be presented, with special reference to the acquisition of Spanish. .. First language acquisition of gender A number of studies have looked at how the three types of clues in (4.66) interact in the acquisition of gender in child FLA. One clear trend that emerges crosslinguistically is that children do not appear to begin by analysing the set of sexed nouns in the language and then extend their command of gender to the purely formal cases. For example, MacWhinney (1978) tested gender assignment to real and nonce nouns in German-speaking children aged 3 to 12 years, with the aim of comparing the weight of semantic and phonological cues in gender assignment. He found that the children made little use of semantic cues but relied on morphophonological ones to a great extent. Mills (1985) reports that Böhme & Levelt (1979) obtained similar results in a study of Germanspeaking children’s knowledge of the distinction between sein ‘his/its’ and ihr ‘her’. They tested children aged 3;11 to 5;5 and found that they made little use of semantic clues in establishing noun reference. For example, on a test of the

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

comprehension of noun reference by means of gender clues that involved the manipulation of toys, the children performed worse on the toys distinguished by natural gender than those where the reference was established by syntactic gender. Mills (1986) also found that the children in her experimental study of gender assignment to articles in German made more gender mistakes with animate than inanimate nouns, suggesting that semantic clues do not necessarily have a facilitatory role. For further evidence that children do not rely on semantic clues in the early stages of acquisition of German, Polish, Russian, French and Hebrew gender, see Maratsos (1988) and Levy (1983). A similar pattern was observed in a study of the acquisition of determiners in L1 French by Karmiloff-Smith (1979). She carried out five experiments with 341 children between the ages of 3;2 and 12;5 in which novel words were used to find out what type of clues the children used in assigning gender and marking agreement. Karmiloff-Smith found a predominance of morphophonological strategies in children up to the age of 9 approximately. Morphophonological strategies were gradually replaced by reliance on syntactic and semantic clues, although the former were never completely abandoned. Attention to the sex of the referent and to articles in clue conflict situations seemed to increase with age. Pérez-Pereira (1991) conducted a study on the acquisition of gender by L1Spanish-speaking children using a procedure very similar to Karmiloff-Smith’s. The 160 children who participated in his study were between the ages of 4 and 11. They were divided into the following age groups: 4;4, 5;4, 6;7, 7;6, 8;5, 9;4, 10;6 and 11;6, of 20 subjects each. Twenty-two nouns were created and coloured drawings of imaginary beings, animals and objects were used. The pictures were shown to the children individually and they were told what the invented name of the being, animal or object was. In some cases, the prompt given by the researcher contained a syntactic clue to the gender of the novel noun, as in example (4.67), and in others there were no syntactic gender clues, as in example (4.68). (4.67) Aquí hay un pifar here is a.masc pifar (4.68) Aquí hay dos aniras here are two aniras

The forms of the novel nouns could be either prototypically masculine (e.g., nepo), prototypically feminine (e.g., anira) or neither (e.g., pifar). The third parameter of variation was whether the picture had male, female or no sexual

Chapter 4. Gender 

features. Each picture was followed by another picture of the same being, animal or object but in a different colour. When presented with the second picture, the children were asked what they thought it was and the expected response was for the children to use descriptions where they mentioned the novel nouns with determiners and adjectives. Then some action was performed with the picture card (e.g., it was hidden, slid under another object, turned over, etc.) and the children were asked some questions about the object in the card. The aim was to elicit more utterances from the children that may provide the researcher with additional information about the gender assignment and agreement that they were making. Cain, Weber-Olsen and Smith (1987) also replicated Karmiloff-Smith’s study with 20 Spanish-speaking children divided into four age groups: preschoolers (3–4 year-olds), first graders (7 year-olds), fourth graders (10 yearolds) and sixth graders (12 year-olds). They used novel nouns that were almost identical to Karmiloff-Smith’s items, only slightly modified to make them sound more Spanish and to carry Spanish gender markers.22 The results of these Spanish studies were very similar to those of KarmiloffSmith’s study. The general trends are summarised below: – – –

–

–

– –

the combined effect of clues in agreement improved performance in contrast to items where only one clue was provided; syntactic and morphophonological clues carried more weight than semantic clues; morphophonological clues generally carried more weight than syntactic clues in situations of agreement between clues, but the opposite was true in cases of contradiction between clues; older children paid more attention to syntactic information than to morphophonological information in items where there was a conflict between clues; no important differences were observed in the way the children handled animate and inanimate nouns (although the agreement of the natural gender clue with another clue increases the probability of gender being determined as a response against the contrary clue); items with masculine clues were more often syntactically masculine in the responses than items with feminine clues were feminine; responses with disagreement between the gender of the adjective and the gender of the determiner were very rare (3.6% of the responses overall in Pérez-Pereira); they were found mainly in subjects in the four- and fiveyear-old groups and only in items with a contradiction between clues.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

There were, however, some small differences between the findings of the Spanish studies and Karmiloff-Smith’s, as detailed below: – – –

the Spanish children showed a stronger and earlier tendency to attribute the masculine gender to words; lesser saliency of natural gender was observed in the Spanish children; the French data show a gradual trend from age 5 towards an increasing importance of the determiner while that of the noun ending decreases; this trend starts from age 4 in the case of Spanish children.23

Karmiloff-Smith and Pérez-Pereira concluded that there is an early stage when children acquiring French and Spanish are mainly influenced by the noun’s phonology in determining its gender. Their results, and Cain, Weber-Olsen and Smith’s especially, show that the phonological strategy does not disappear completely with increased age. The strong effect of phonology at the early stages of development may be explained by assuming that there are no syntactic gender features in the early child’s grammar, and until these are activated children are almost exclusively sensitive to morphophonological patters. (A similar conclusion is reached by Koehn 1994: 48, regarding the development of a German/French bilingual child.) Some of the learning that takes place in the early stages is inductive (e.g., vocabulary learning), and the learning of language-specific gender markers must be part of this early learning. It is not clear why children do not begin by making more extensive use of semantic gender clues. A possible answer might be that these clues are not reliable enough, despite the claims of many grammarians such as those referred to in Section 4.1.4 on the Spanish gender system (also see Mills 1986: 109–115, for a discussion of how semantic rules may be more or less relevant for the acquisition of gender in different languages). Whatever the reason may be, it seems to be the case that gender is not semantically bootstrapped in Spanish. López Ornat (1997) has suggested that the acquisition of (Spanish) grammatical gender consists of a gradual improvement of morphophonological rules that finally leads to the mastery of the system, but there is no specific point at which there is a qualitatively different grammatical representation. Other researchers have argued that there is a qualitative change at one point in development at which syntactic gender features become active in the syntax. In my view there are good reasons to believe that the latter position is correct, although an account of what triggers this change is required, additionally to empirical data showing some discontinuity, in order for this to be considered a viable approach. Some such explanations can be found in the literature. For example, Carroll (1989) has suggested that det+noun units are first unanalysed,

Chapter 4. Gender

but when the learners analyse them as separate words this triggers the activation of the gender feature in their grammars (p. 572). Müller (1994, 2000) has also proposed that the acquisition of gender features is connected to the development of determiners. Her proposal is that the reanalysis of indefinite articles, initially treated as mere numerals, as determiners triggers the activation of gender. The issue of what may trigger the activation of gender features will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. Gender is not only acquired early in FLA (approximately by age 3 in Spanish) but also in a fairly error-free manner. The incidence of gender errors in child data is very low indeed, although rates are subject to some crosslinguistic variation. For example, Maratsos (1988: 41) reports that gender errors are relatively more common in L1 Russian than in L1 Polish or L1 German (see PérezPereira 1991, for other crosslinguistic comparisons). Mills (1986) observes that gender mistakes are infrequent in German children, and the same has been observed by Carroll (1989) with regard to the acquisition of L1 French. Liceras, Díaz & Mongeon (2000: 82–83) report that gender and number mismatches were very low in the Spanish-speaking children they studied: María’s gender agreement errors between determiner and noun amounted to 0.57% (9/1578) from ages 1;7 to 3;11, and 2.26% (19/840) in the case of Magín from ages 1;8 to 2;7, and they were only slightly higher for noun+adjective agreement. In Spanish FLA, children’s gender mistakes typically fall into the following categories: (4.69) Typical gender mistakes in FLA: a. overuse of the masculine or feminine determiner b. overuse of regular morphological markers c. gender agreement errors between adjective and noun

Hernández-Pina (1984) did a longitudinal study of a child named Rafael and reported that he made errors in gender assignment between the ages of 1;9 and 2;1 (21–25 months). At around 23 months, he went through a short phase during which he overused the masculine determiner and used it with feminine nouns: (4.70) *un llave a.masc key (TL form: una llave) (4.71) *un leche a.masc milk (TL form: una leche)






Shortly after this he went through a phase in which he overused the feminine determiner:24 (4.72) *una camión a.fem lorry (TL form: un camión) (4.73) *una pez a.fem fish (TL form: un pez)

There were also a few cases of overuse of regular morphological markers in adjectives (4.74) and nouns (4.75) in the Rafael corpus: (4.74) *tierra azula earth.fem blue.fem ‘blue earth’ (TL form: tierra azul) (4.75) *mota rota motorbike.fem broken.fem ‘broken motorbike’ (TL form: moto rota)

Similar gender marking errors were reported in a study by López Ornat (1993) with children aged 2;0 to 2;1 (24–25 months). For example, she reported on the morphological overregularization of the masculine indefinite determiner un, which is sometimes produced as *uno, showing the regular masculine ending. Gender agreement errors between articles and nouns are observed up to the ages of between 2;1 (25 months) and 3;3 (39 months) approximately, and agreement mistakes between adjectives and inanimate nouns have been recorded until some months later. López Ornat (1988) has argued that a distinction should be made between gender errors found in the ‘article+noun’ stage (up to the age of 30 months) and in the later ‘article+noun+adjective’ stage (from 30 months onwards). She has suggested that the errors in each stage have a different developmental significance, as in the early stages it is possible that some article+noun combinations are actually unanalysed chunks learned by rote, while this is unlikely to be the case in the ‘article+noun+adjective’ stage (pp. 681–682). Hernández-Pina (1984) observed the stages shown in Table 4.8 in the development of articles, nouns and adjectives in Rafael. Other commonly cited developmental trends involving a correlation between the acquisition of gender and other properties are the following:

Chapter 4. Gender

Table 4.8 Developmental milestones in the Rafael corpus (Hernández-Pina 1984)

1-word stage (12–18 months) 2-word stage (18–24 months)

telegraphic stage (24–36 months)

† Rafael

Development of the article

Development of the noun

Development of the adjective

the definite article and the noun function as a unit the article is independent from the noun, but shows no agreement

no gender or number

–

arbitrary gender; good (though not perfect) command of number†

first occurrence of adjective at 22 months; adjective-noun agreement in gender

article-noun agreement mastered at 31 months

article-noun agreement mastered at 31 months; mastery of plural marking on vowel final words and almost perfect marking in consonant final words by 26 months†

more extensive use of adjectives, emerging in the following order: demonstratives > possessives > exclamatives > degree > indefinite

is atypical in acquiring number before gender.

1. Gender agreement between the article and the noun is mastered before the agreement between the adjective and the noun (e.g., Dato 1975; González 1970; Hernández-Pina 1984; López Ornat 1997; Schnell de Acedo 1994; Soler 1984; Tolbert 1978). 2. Gender agreement on the definite article is acquired before agreement on the indefinite article (e.g., Koehn 1994; Müller 1990; Schnell de Acedo 1994). – Gender emerges and is mastered before number (e.g., Barreña 1997; Idiazabal 1995; Mills 1985: Chapter 4; Schnell de Acedo 1994; but see Hernández-Pina 1984, for a different pattern). – Number and gender mismatches seldom occur when N-drop is productive (Liceras, Díaz & Mongeon 2000; Snyder, Senghas & Inman 2001). .. Bilingual L1A The development of gender in bilingual language acquisition is very similar to what has been reported about monolingual acquisition. This is not surprising if one assumes, as many researchers do, that the two grammatical systems in






bilingual language acquisition develop largely independently (e.g., Padilla & Lindholm 1978; De Houwer 1991; Meisel 1989; but see Volterra & Taeschner 1978; Taeschner 1983, for different views). The independent development view has been explicitly argued for with regard to gender by Müller (2000), Barreña (1997) and Idiazabal (1995). These studies show that monolingual and bilingual acquisition of gender follow very similar paths. It is interesting to note that even in cases where one of the languages being acquired does not have gender, the language with gender develops like in monolingual children. Barreña (1997) found this to be the case in a study of a Basque-Spanish bilingual child. Basque does not have gender, and yet gender markings emerged in this child’s Spanish at a very early age (approximately 1;10 years), within the range observed in Spanish monolingual children, and development was also like that of monolinguals. For example, his corpus, which covered ages 1;10 to 3;03, contained 19 gender mistakes (19/522 contexts, i.e., 3.64% error rate; p. 68, Table 6). Idiazabal (1995) conducted another study of a Basque-Spanish bilingual child and reported that the child mastered gender agreement at 2;7 years, when his MLU was in the second stage (p. 273), which is again within the monolingual range. Given that bilinguals do not appear to be too different from monolinguals in the acquisition of gender, no further background on bilingual acquisition will be provided here. (For further details on the acquisition of gender by bilinguals, see for example Barreña 1997; Granfeldt 2000; Harley 1979; Idiazabal 1995; Koehn 1994; Möhring 2001; Müller 1990, 1994, 2000; Mueller Gathercole 2000; Taeschner 1983.) .. Second language acquisition of gender Children acquiring languages with grammatical gender as their L1 show remarkable speed and very few developmental errors compared to adult L2 learners. More importantly, normal L1 learners always achieve mastery of the gender systems of their L1, while many adult L2 learners do not. In spite of these general differences, there are some similarities between the L1 and L2 development of gender. For example, studies of child SLA (e.g., Boyd 1975; Van Naerssen 1986) and adult SLA (e.g., Bartning 2000; Bruhn de Garavito & White 2000; Chini 1995; Dewaele & Véronique 2001; Fernández-García 1999; Finnemann 1992) show that det+N agreement is overall more accurate than N+adj or adj+N agreement, as in L1 development. Similarly, gender agreement accuracy between the noun and the definite article typically emerges and is mastered before agreement between the noun and the indefinite article (e.g.,

Chapter 4. Gender

Table 4.9 Gender errors in child L1 and L2 acquisition (from Liceras, Díaz & Mongeon 2000)

María monolingual (L1 Spanish) Magín monolingual (L1 Spanish) Adil bilingual (L1 Arabic / L2 Spanish; age of first exposure to L2: 4 years) Madelin bilingual (L1 Farsi and Swedish / L2 Spanish; age of first exposure to L2: 8 years)

det+noun gender errors/contexts (%)

noun+adj gender errors/contexts (%)

4/1578 (0.25%)

1/43 (2.32%)

12/840 (1.42%)

1/27 (3.7%)

6/297 (2.02%)

(no information provided)

40/794 (5.03%)

5/20 (25%)

Bartning 2000; Chini 1995; Hawkins 1998; Müller 1994, 2000; Sabourin 2001), as in L1 development. Developmental differences between L1 and L2 learners can be observed in the use of ‘protodeterminers’.25 Liceras, Díaz & Mongeon (2000) observe that protodeterminers are used by L1 but not L2 learners. Similarly, Carroll (1989) has argued that while L1 learners go through an initial phase of treating art+noun as an indivisible syntactic unit, L2 learners acquire them as separate units from the start (pp. 572–577). She suggests that this developmental difference may explain some of the attainment differences between the two groups. One of the more striking differences between the L1 and L2 data relates to frequency of gender mistakes. Liceras, Díaz & Mongeon (2000) compared the gender error rates for child L1 and L2 learners and found that the monolingual learners were more accurate (although the bilingual child whose exposure to the L2 started early was hardly distinguishable from the monolinguals). Figures from this study are reported in Table 4.9. Carroll (1989), basing herself on data from Dumas, Swain & Selinker (1973), Harley (1979), Lapkin & Swain (1977) and Taylor-Browne (1984), also reports that even children in Canadian immersion programmes make more gender mistakes than has been reported for L1 learners. These differences are not likely to be explained as mere production problems, as the same pattern emerges when comprehension or metalinguistic tasks are used. A case in point is a study by Mueller Gathercole (2000), where child L1 (Spanish monolinguals) outperformed child L2 (L1 English / L2 Spanish) subjects on a grammaticality judgment task.






The gap between child and adult developmental error rates can also be quite dramatic. For example, in a comparative longitudinal study of Swedish/French bilingual children and adult L1 Swedish learners of L2 French, Granfeldt (2000) found that the children made between 2.1% (Jean, aged 1;10– 2;11) and 6.7% (Anne, aged 2;3–3;3) gender errors, the adults’ error rates were 27.5% (Henry, low intermediate), 21.43% (Martin, intermediate) and 25.78% (Lisa, low intermediate). A factor that is not relevant to FLA but may be so in SLA is the potential effect of formal instruction. A question that one could ask is whether instruction may have a positive effect in either the rate of development or attainment in the area of grammatical gender. The studies that have looked at this question directly do not seem to find much support for a significant role of instruction. For example, Harley (1998) investigated the effect of focus-on-form instruction in the acquisition of gender in young learners (7- to 8-year-olds, grade 2) in early French immersion programmes. She found that focus-on-form produced better results than no instruction, but the learners did not extend their knowledge to new words. She concludes: “the experiment was more successful in inducing ‘item learning’ than ‘system learning”’ (p. 168). Dewaele & Véronique (2001) looked into the question of whether the amount of formal instruction in the L2 had a significant effect on accuracy rates for gender agreement in L1 Dutch/L2 French speakers, but found no correlation. On the other hand, frequency of L2 use in ‘authentic communication in the TL outside the classroom’ did have a positive effect on accuracy levels. Finally, Granfeldt (2000) compared the development of gender in two naturalistic learners and an instructed learner of French, all of whom were adult L1 Swedish speakers, and concluded that instruction did not appear to confer an advantage to the latter in the domain of gender (p. 126). Another issue that is only relevant in an SLA context is L1 influence. One of the research questions in the present study concerns the influence of the L1 on the L2 grammar, so some background on the existing literature about L1 effects on the L2 acquisition of gender is appropriate here. Bruhn de Garavito & White (2000) investigated gender agreement accuracy in L1 French teenagers with either one or two years of classroom exposure to L2 Spanish. They used a card description game to elicit naturalistic data from the subjects, and their descriptions were recorded and transcribed. Gender agreement accuracy was fairly high, and comparable to the accuracy rates reported in Hawkins (1998) for much more advanced L2 French speakers whose L1 was English (see Table 4.10). This can be interpreted as evidence that there is an advantage in having gender in the L1, at least for rate of development, since Bruhn

Chapter 4. Gender

Table 4.10 Comparison of Bruhn de Garavito & White’s (2000) and Hawkins’ (1998) results Errors in art + noun agreement Bruhn de Garavito & White Group 1 (2000) L2 Spanish / L1 French (1 year’s classroom exposure) Group 2 (2 years’ classroom exposure) Hawkins (1998) L2 French / L1 English

164/884 (18.5%) 48/431 (11%)

Group 1 65/367 (17.5%) (exposure: secondary education in French immersion programme) Group 2 45/432 (10.5%) (average 10 years’ classroom exposure and at least 6 months’ immersion )

de Garavito & White’s subjects reached similar levels of accuracy to Hawkins’ subjects with considerably less exposure. A direct comparison of the effects of the L1 on the L2 acquisition of gender (and number) was made in a study by White et al. (2001), which investigated the interpretation of gender in L2 Spanish by L1 speakers of French and English. They used a picture identification task linked to a story. The test sentences in the story contained null nominals that were recoverable from the gender and number information of targets of gender in the context. For example, one of the characters in the story says the following: (4.76) Sí, claro. Va a hacer mucho sol. Ponlas ahí cerca de la e roja. Yes, of course. It is going to be very sunny. Put them there by the red e.

The subjects were asked to indicate what the character in the story was referring to, and they were presented with three pictures of red objects from which they had to choose one: a suitcase (una maleta, f), a book (un libro, m) and a pair of socks (unos calcetines, m). The gender and number of the ellipted noun could only be recovered by reference to the gender agreement markings on adjectives and/or determiners in the linguistic context. White et al. tested learners at three levels of proficiency: low, intermediate and advanced. An initial advantage was observed for the L1 French over L1 English speakers, but it seemed to disappear with increasing proficiency, as intermediate and advanced learners were equally accurate whether their L1 was French or English. The intermediate and advanced learners were not significantly different from the native speaker controls in their gender scores. White et al. concluded from these results that






although there might be an L1 effect in the initial stages of SLA, learners can acquire gender in the L2 regardless of whether this feature is present in the L1 or not. The task used in this study was very interesting in that it tested the interpretation rather than the production of gender, thus avoiding the difficulties typically encountered when analysing production data (cf. the discussion of mapping problems in Chapter 2). However, there were some methodological problems in its implementation that may call into question whether the authors’ interpretations of the results were warranted. Firstly, the task used pictures of objects that may have more than one name, and the different names may have different genders. For example, the test item included in their appendix showed the pictures related to example (4.76) above. The researchers intended the picture of the suitcase to bring the word maleta (f) to the subjects’ minds. However, it could have equally elicited maletín (m), which has the same meaning but different gender. The same applies to the third item ‘socks’, which could bring to mind the words calcetines (m) or medias (f). There probably were names for these and other objects in the test other than those intended by the researchers, and some of the subjects may have known them, potentially affecting the patterns of results. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to control for such variability in vocabulary in a task of this sort. The authors acknowledge this at one point, when they say: “The task crucially depends on the learners selecting the same vocabulary item as was intended by the researchers in devising the test” (p. 796). A separate vocabulary test was used to determine whether the subjects knew the target vocabulary and the gender of those nouns, and they only retained the subjects who did. However, this does not solve the problem. On the contrary, the wider the L2 vocabulary of the learner, the higher the chances are of the type of problem outlined above occurring.26 Secondly, some of the English speakers also spoke French (the study was carried out in Canada), which introduces a potentially confounding factor. Finally, the fact that the intermediate and advanced groups did not differ from the NS controls might suggest that the task was perhaps too easy and there was a ceiling effect. It is hard to determine this, however, as neither the raw scores nor percentages were provided other than what can be estimated from the graphs. In conclusion, although the results of this study might appear to contradict those in Hawkins’ (1998), the data are not clear enough to assert this with full confidence. Another study directly testing the effect of the L1 in knowledge of grammatical gender in the L2 is Sabourin’s (2001). She looked at the gender agreement accuracy in the L2 Dutch of advanced L1 German, Romance and English

Chapter 4. Gender

speakers, and found that the L1 was a good predictor of success. She tested them on two GJTs with correction, involving agreement matches and mismatches between nouns and articles, adjectives and/or relative pronouns. None of the L2 speakers performed at a level as high as the NS controls, and a decreasing order of accuracy was observed as follows: Dutch > German > Romance > English. Of two factors that may be used to classify the languages in the study, namely presence or absence of grammatical gender in the L1 and relatedness of the L1 to Dutch, both seem to have an effect on the acquisition of L2 gender. German has grammatical gender and is related to Dutch, so it was not surprising that the German subjects scored the highest amongst the NNSs. Romance and English each have one property in their favour (Romance languages have gender, and English is closer to Dutch lexically and morphophonologically). Of these two properties the one that seemed to be stronger was the presence of gender in the L1, as the Romance speakers performed better than the English speakers. It is interesting to note that the influence of the L1 has also been observed in the acquisition of typologically different grammatical systems. Orr (1987) investigated the L2 acquisition of gender (or rather noun classes) in Chichewa, a Bantu language, by uninstructed L1 speakers of Chingoni, also Bantu, and Gujarati, an Aryan language, living in Malawi. The subjects were interviewed and their general proficiency in the L2 was rated in an increasing 1-5 scale, most subjects falling in the middle ranges. The five Gujarati speakers obtained the following proficiency scores: 1+, 2, 2, 2+ and 3, and there were five Chingoni speakers with matched scores. The subjects were recorded during an interview and a picture description/object identification task, and SOC scores and overregularization details were obtained for each subject. The Chingoni speakers were highly accurate (75–100%) on noun class and agreement even at the lowest level, while the Gujarati speakers were slower to pick up noun class clues. From the data available, Orr concluded: The data strongly indicate that success in supplying noun class morphology is dependent primarily on L1 affiliation, with proficiency level being of lesser importance. (pp. 117–118)

Unfortunately it is not possible to determine from these data whether such differences also exist in ultimate attainment, as there were no advanced or nearnative subjects in the study. To conclude this section and this chapter, let us consider to what extent one could answer the research questions set out in Chapter 1 from the infor-



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

mation available in the existing literature. Let us consider each of them in turn, repeated below for convenience. (1.2)

Can adult learners acquire nativelike knowledge of grammatical gender in the L2?

There have not been any studies of L2 production explicitly claiming this. One study of comprehension where NNSs have been found to be indistinguishable from NSs is White et al. (2001). However, given the methodological concerns outlined above, this does not constitute a definite answer. More evidence is clearly needed to answer (1.2), and the study presented in Chapter 5 is intended to fill this gap. (1.3)

In adult L2 learners, is the possibility of nativelike attainment in the area of grammatical gender determined by the learner’s L1?

Some of the evidence would appear to suggest that at early stages of L2 development there is some advantage in having gender in the L1 when acquiring an L2 with grammatical gender (e.g., Bruhn de Garavito & White 2000 visà-vis Hawkins 1998; Orr 1987). The focus of this research questions is L1 influence on the L2 endstate, so data from more advanced stages of development is needed. Sabourin’s (2001) and Hawkins’ (1998) studies constitute initial evidence that the L1 grammar has an important effect on L2 attainment, but studies of nearnatives would be preferable. The empirical study presented in Chapter 5 fulfils this requirement and should therefore be able to provide relevant data. (1.4)

If it is found that even nearnatives have divergent representations of grammatical gender, what prevents them from reaching the same endstate knowledge as L1 speakers?

The answer to question (1.3) should help us to answer (1.4). If the L1 was found to be a good predictor of level of ultimate success, it would be reasonable to assume that the L1 grammar must be in some way related to the factors that prevent some learners from reaching nativelike knowledge of L2 gender. Why this should be so is another matter, of course, and providing an explanatory account of this will require the consideration of a range of issues that go beyond the empirical investigation in Chapter 5. These broader issues will be considered in Chapter 6.

Chapter 5

The empirical study

This chapter presents an empirical investigation of the research questions introduced and discussed in previous chapters. In the first section some background on the design of the study is provided, and the remainder of the chapter reports on the implementation and results of the tasks used. The chapter concludes with a summary and comparison of the results obtained in the different tasks.

. Design .. Hypotheses The main aim of this study is to find out whether L2 representations of grammatical gender can be nativelike, and if so whether the L1 plays a determining role in the acquisition of this syntactic feature. The potential influence of other linguistic factors (e.g., gender morphology, structural position, etc.) and extralinguistic factors (e.g., age of first exposure, etc.) will be considered, as well as the effects of task modality (written vs. oral) and skill type (production, comprehension or metalinguistic judgements). The variables whose effects were tested have been listed in Table 5.1, and a brief description of each follows. Presence/absence of uninterpretable gender [ugender] in the L1: In order to test whether the L1 had any determining role in the acquisition of grammatical gender in L2 Spanish, subjects were chosen from a number of L1 backgrounds, namely Arabic, English, French, German, Greek, Italian and Portuguese. The L1s were classified into +gen (Arabic, French, German, Greek, Italian and Portuguese) and –gen (English) according to whether they did or did not contain the syntactic feature [ugen] in their [F]. Gender morphology: Gender-marked words were classified into canonical (i.e., masculine words in -o and feminine words in -a) and noncanonical (i.e., all other gender/marker combinations). In Harris’ (1985, 1991) taxon-

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Table 5.1 List of variables relevant to the present study Type

Variable

Value

Linguistic

Presence/absence of [ugen] in the L1

+gen –gen canonical noncanonical +fem –fem noun adjective article pronoun

Gender morphology Gender value Category where gender is marked

Extra-linguistic

Task-related

Age at the time of testing Age of first exposure (AFE) to L2 Length of exposure (LoE) to L2 Modality Skill type

written oral production comprehension metalinguistic judgement

omy, canonical nouns are those in class A-1 and noncanonical nouns are those in classes A-2 or B. (cf. Table 4.3 in Section 4.1.4 for Harris’ classification.) Gender value [± fem]: This variable was included to test whether the two values of Spanish gender pose the same level of difficulty to L2 learners. As was mentioned in Section 4.1.4, there is an asymmetry between these values, with [–fem] being the least specified, default value. Category where gender is marked: A previous study (Franceschina 2001b) showed that difficulties with grammatical gender can vary quite markedly between different word categories. One interesting contrast is that between nouns and other words marked for gender, which could be seen as a contrast between gender triggers (or controllers) and targets. I shall also make a comparison between the different categories that are targets of gender (article, adjective, pronoun), as some theories (e.g., Processability Theory, Pienemann 1998) predict that they should pose different levels of difficulty to L2 learners. Age: The age value is the age of the subjects at the time of the interview and tests. Age of first exposure (AFE) to L2: This is the age at which the subjects first came into regular contact with Spanish. The information was obtained through a questionnaire and more details were usually provided during the informal interviews.

Chapter 5. The empirical study

Length of exposure (LoE) to L2: This is the total (in number of years and months) of naturalistic and/or instructed exposure to L2 Spanish that the subjects have received, as reported by the subjects in the background questionnaire and the interview. For example, if a subject had studied Spanish for 4 years and then spent 4 years living in a Spanish-speaking country, the value entered for LoE would be 8 years. If the subject had lived in a Spanish-speaking country for 4 years and at the same time (but not before or after) studied Spanish, the value entered for LoE would be 4 years. Modality: This refers to whether the test material or the subject/researcher interaction were in written or oral form. Skill type: This refers to whether the subjects were being assessed on their L2 production or their ability to understand or provide metalinguistic judgements on specific aspects of the L2. The null hypothesis in (5.1) will be used in the empirical study in order to make it easy to operationalize research questions (1.2) and (1.3) and hypothesis (1.5). (5.1) There is no significant difference between Spanish NSs, advanced L2 Spanish speakers of +gen L1s and advanced L2 Spanish speakers of –gen L1s in the production/interpretation of Spanish grammatical gender.

This hypothesis will be tested against data from L2 Spanish speakers from various L1 backgrounds and NS controls who completed a series of tests and participated in an informal interview. .. Population and sample In order to check the full range of predictions of hypothesis (1.5), subjects with child and adult AFE from different L1 backgrounds should be studied. The present study investigates adult learners only and it concentrates on the role of the L1 in attainment. Table 5.2 shows the full set of predictions of hypothesis (1.5) and it makes a demarcation of the scope of the present study. In order to find subjects with enough exposure to the L2 to guarantee that they had acquired full functionality in the L2 it was necessary to find an appropriate selection procedure. LoE could have been used to establish a baseline for subject selection, but there were two reasons why this approach was not adopted. The first was merely practical: it would have been very difficult to establish with a high enough degree of accuracy the quantity and quality of exposure to the L2 that each subject had had. LoR in an L2-speaking environment was not a fully satisfactory yardstick because the subjects may have



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Table 5.2 Predictions of hypothesis (1.5)

= targetlike L2 representations of the areas of the grammar related to these features will in principle be possible; × = targetlike L2 representations of the areas of the grammar related to these features will not be possible; circled area = contrast investigated in the present study.

lived in more or less complete L2 immersion and this may have had an effect on the type and amount of L2 input that they encountered. Similarly, amount of classroom exposure might have been misleading in that, for example, 2 years of L2 instruction at university level would probably not be the same as 2 years of evening classes once a week. The second reason was that there would have been serious difficulties in trying to determine a priori at what point an L2 learner should have received enough L2 input to enable them to have targetlike grammars. In order to overcome the drawbacks of LoE- or LoR-based selection methods, the criteria used in this study were based on the attainment of a high level of general L2 proficiency and the requirement that the subjects have had naturalistic exposure to the L2. A further selection criterion was that the subjects had to have started acquiring the L2 after puberty (defined in relatively loose terms, as indicated in Section 2.1). The selection criteria are summarized in (5.2) (5.2) Subject selection criteria: a. no childhood exposure to the L2 b. naturalistic exposure to the L2 c. UWPT1 score within the NS range

I was able to find a total of 68 experimental subjects (53 +gen L1 speakers and 15 –gen L1 speakers) using the selection method outlined above.2 I also tested a group of 42 native controls roughly matched for age and level of education with the NNS subjects. This yielded a total of 110 subjects. However, not all subjects participated in all tasks, so fewer participants are reported for some of the tasks. Appendix 2 shows details of how the subjects were distributed across the different tasks. The size and composition of the experimental groups were determined by limitations on the type and number of subjects that could be found as much as


Table 5.3 Subjects’ age at the time of the interview and tests L1

n

age range

age mean

s.d.

NS +gen –gen

42 53 15

20–81 20–89 21–62

45.56 53.69 40.33

16.53 20.94 18.20

by design. I originally set out to test L1 speakers of a variety of +gen and –gen languages. It was very difficult to find many subjects with –gen L1 backgrounds that fulfilled selection criterion (5.2c), and this is why this experimental group is smaller and less varied than the +gen L1 group. The age of the subjects in the –gen L1 group is lower on average than that of the +gen L1 group. This is so because I could not find sufficient numbers of –gen L1 speakers living in Latin America, where I conducted the field work, who performed at the high level of proficiency required by the design, and so I further recruited subjects at the University of Essex who had resided in Spanish-speaking countries. These were generally younger than the other subjects and their ages bring the group average down. Information related to the age of the subjects is presented in Table 5.3. The reader may wonder whether the differences in age means between the groups may have had an effect on their performance. In order to test this, the relationship between age and UWPT scores was tested for each group, but it was found that there were no significant correlations (L1 Spanish: r = –0.188, p = 0.266; L1 +gen: r = –0.152, p = 0.548; L1 –gen: r = 0.139, p = 0.666). If all the subjects are taken as a single group, there is no significant correlation either (r = –0.099; p = 0.427). I shall therefore assume that the differences in age did not have an effect on the subjects’ performance. (The same was found by DeKeyser 2000: 514, for a group of 57 L1 Hungarian / L2 English subjects.) Some of the existing literature indicates that AFE is not a good predictor of attainment in adult L2 learners (e.g., Johnson & Newport 1989: 96), but there is at least one study (Birdsong 1992) where a negative correlation was found between AFE and accuracy in late arrivals. In order to check whether AFE should be treated as a variable in the study, the correlation between AFE and UWPT scores was checked, but it was found not to be significant (L1 +gen: r = –0.116, p = 0.656; L1 –gen: r = 0.055, p = 0.879; both NNS groups together: r = –0.052, p = 0.796). I also checked whether LoE might be a good predictor of attainment in this group and found that no significant correlation holds here either (L1 +gen: r = 0.27, p = 0.919; L1 –gen: r = 0.464, p = 0.177; both NNS groups together:



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

r = 0.039, p = 0.848). Again, this is compatible with what has been reported in the literature: for example, Flege & Liu (2001) tested whether LoR was a good predictor of proficiency and found that it is not in the case of naturalistic learners beyond the initial period of immersion. Similar findings are reported in Birdsong (1992: 735) and DeKeyser (2000: 514). .. Proficiency measure: University of Wisconsin Spanish Placement Test The Spanish Placement Test developed by the University of Wisconsin Press (1998) was used to test the subjects’ general proficiency in Spanish. More specifically, the Spanish Grammar Test Form 96M was used, which consists of 43 multiple choice items. The raw scores obtained for each subject were converted into standard scores using the Examiner’s Handbook conversion table (UWPT 1998: 49). The purpose of using standard scales is to allow comparison between different tests and to obtain scores within specific ranges. The standard score range for the University of Wisconsin language placement tests is 150 to 850. In accordance with the guidelines in the Examiner’s Handbook, test scores are interpreted as an estimate of performance under a given set of circumstances and not as an absolute characteristic of the examinees. Standards are arbitrary cut-off scores but they are set based on judgments made about underlying linguistic ability. This particular placement test was designed to measure proficiency levels up to native standards, as stated in the instructions that are read out to subjects before they take the test: This test is difficult because it tests knowledge of the language up to the level that a native speaker would have. Please do not be discouraged if you cannot answer many of the questions correctly [. . .] (UWPT 1998: 7)

The native and nonnative speakers who participated in the study took the UWPT. The NNSs that were retained were those who performed in the same range of proficiency scores as the natives (i.e., with standard scores of between 615 and 850). It must be noted, however, that the distribution of scores within this range was not the same for natives and nonnatives, with a higher group mean in the NS group. Details of UWPT scores are provided in the introductory sections of the individual tasks.

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

Table 5.4 Interviews – Subject information L1

n

age range

age mean

prof. score range

prof. score mean

Spanish +gen –gen Total

5 5 5 15

46–75 45–73 47–62

54 58.2 52.8

675–850 675–850 695–850

804 767 777.6

. Naturalistic data All the subjects who participated in the study were recorded during an informal interview with the researcher. The aim of the interviews was to obtain biographical information about the subjects with regard to the variables in Table 5.1 (e.g., age, LoE, etc.). Some of the subjects spoke profusely about their personal history so some of the recordings were quite long. The first 25–30 minutes of 15 interviews were orthographically transcribed and analysed. Table 5.4 provides information about the subjects’ L1, age and proficiency scores. The –gen subjects’ L1 was English and the +gen subjects were L1 speakers of Italian and Portuguese. The analysis consisted of identifying the noun, adjective, pronoun and determiner contexts in the speech of each subject, and determining whether the forms produced were correct or incorrect in terms of the TL norm. Any errors were classified as gender, number, case or other type of mistakes. Example (5.3) shows the different forms that gender mistakes may take. (5.3)

(5.3b) to (5.3d) are examples of gender mistakes on determiners and/or adjectives, and (5.3e) is an example of a gender mistake on the noun. Number mistakes can take similar forms, as (5.4) illustrates.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

(5.4)

Finally, pronouns were contexts vulnerable to case, number and gender mistakes, and examples of possible pronoun errors are shown in (5.5). (5.5)

b. c. d. e.

Speaker B: Sí, tóma*lo → gender mistake Speaker B: Sí, tóma*las → number mistake Speaker B: Sí, toma*ella → case mistake Speaker B: Sí, tóma*les → case mistake

Results The results of the analysis of spontaneous speech production are shown in Figures (5.1)–(5.4). The occurrence of number and case mistakes in the corpus was negligible. The few mistakes found are listed in Appendix 3. Excluded from the analysis were 11 sentences uttered by +gen L1 subjects (listed in Appendix 4) which were not targetlike but did not fit into the gender/number/case mistake classification. The mistakes listed in Appendix 4 would at first sight appear to be due to L1 phonological interference and/or codemixing, but a more de120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100

100

100

NS

L1 +gen

L1 –gen

Figure 5.1 Nouns: gender accuracy

Chapter 5. The empirical study  105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70

100

100 90.35

NS

L1 +gen

L1 –gen

Figure 5.2 Adjectives: gender accuracy 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70

100

100 86.99

NS

L1 +gen

L1 –gen

Figure 5.3 Pronouns: gender accuracy 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70

100

100 92.71

NS

L1 +gen

L1 –gen

Figure 5.4 Determiners: gender accuracy

tailed analysis should be undertaken before this can be established with more certainty. Spontaneous speech data seem to indicate that gender is more difficult than either number or case marking for the –gen L1 group. By contrast, the +gen group and the NS controls are fully targetlike regarding gender, number and case. I further analysed the contexts where the –gen subjects made mistakes using a sample of these data and found that there was no correlation between the form of nouns and the likelihood of gender mistakes being made

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

(see Franceschina 2001d, for details). This suggests that neither the nature of Spanish morphophonology, nor being an L2 speaker are by themselves determinants of non-targetlike performance. The asymmetric error patter in the L2 groups (with one group having problems but not the other) and the asymmetry within the –gen group (making gender errors but not number or case errors) is compatible with the prediction that the absence of uninterpretable features in the L1 gives rise to persistent difficulty in areas related to these features in adult L2 acquisition.3 In order to investigate whether these asymmetries are found in learner language elicited under different conditions, a test battery was designed. The individual tests and results are reported in the following sections.

. Experimental tasks Given that the aim of the study was to find out about nearnative competence and this can only be measured indirectly, a battery of tests was devised with the aim of tapping the same area of the grammar through different performance measures. The benefits of triangulation of this kind have been recognised by many L2 researchers. For example, Duffield and White (1999) have suggested that “converging evidence from different performance measures will allow one to make reasonable inferences about linguistic competence in a particular domain” (p. 134). Murphy (1997) takes a similar view and suggests that “researchers can take advantage of modality differences, and methodology in general, by conducting research in a variety of contexts (i.e., using different tasks, etc.)” (p. 58). A test battery approach can be more efficient than single task studies because the potential shortcomings of individual experimental techniques can be offset by the use of a combination of tasks. In view of this, six tests were designed and administered to the subjects. A summary and comparison of the general features of each task are presented in Tables 5.5 and 5.6. The tasks were designed to include a range of experimental techniques. To give an indication of how varied the tasks were, they have been plotted against a classification of elicitation techniques proposed by Hawkins (2001a) in Table 5.6. The variation in modality of presentation (Table 5.5, second column) was also a deliberate feature of the research design – it was intended as a way of offsetting the disadvantages of each modality (see Cowart 1997: 64, for a list of advantages and disadvantages of different presentation modalities). Murphy (1997) has shown that modality of presentation has some effect on task performance, and she therefore suggests that researchers should make use of different


Table 5.5 Comparative chart of experimental tasks used in this study Task

Modality† Word categories tested

Similar designs

1. Guessing game 2. Missing word task 3. Cloze/multiple choice 4. GJT

W/O W W W/O

White et al. (2000)

5. Novel word task

O

6. Gender assignment check

W

†

nouns, adjectives, pronouns clitic pronouns nouns, adjectives all categories marked for gender adjectives (and pronouns) nouns, articles

Sabourin (2003), Shelton (1997) Karmiloff-Smith (1979), Pérez-Pereira (1991), Cain et al. (1987) Guillelmon and Grosjean (2000), Sabourin (2003)

W = written; O = oral.

Table 5.6 Experimental tasks plotted against Hawkins’ (2001a: 22–24) classification of elicitation techniques Hawkins’ classification

Techniques used in the present study

A. Production data + ↑ naturalistic ↓ –

Unguided spontaneous production Guided production Manipulation of sentences Imitation of sentences Elicitation of specific items Translation

B. Metalinguistic data

GJT

Test 4

C. Comprehension data

Selection Manipulation of objects

Tests 1 and 3

D. Online data

Response Latencies

Interviews Test 4 Tests 2, 5 and 6

modalities in order to obtain richer and more informative data sets. As can be observed from Table 5.6, the techniques used in the study span three of the four classes proposed by Hawkins. It would have been interesting also to obtain online data, but it was not feasible in this case. In the absence of this type of data from my own subjects, I shall rely on the work of other researchers for a description of the online performance of subjects with comparable profiles (cf. Section 4.2). Some of the sentences used in the construction of the tests were based on mistakes observed in NNS production, as recorded in interviews at an early stage of the research project, or collected from written work submitted by Es-



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

sex University undergraduates as part of their Advanced Spanish coursework. Other sentences were constructed by the researcher and checked for idiomaticity by two NSs. Test items were controlled for a number of variables (e.g., gender value, gender marker, word category, etc.). Summary tables with details of how lexical items were constructed regarding the different variables and their levels can be found in the sections describing each of the tasks.

Justifying the use of GJTs Probably no experimental technique is without fault, but some are more controversial than others. Given that a number of criticisms have been levelled against the use of GJTs in SLA research, I would like to say a few words about the reasons for choosing this technique for one of my tests. GJTs have a number of advantages over production tasks in investigations of linguistic competence. An example of how grammatical judgement data can help to reveal information about IL grammars that would otherwise remain undetected is a study by Coppieters (1987). He found that a group of very advanced L2 French speakers who were virtually indistinguishable from L1 French speakers in production were nevertheless significantly different from the natives in their judgements of the grammaticality of a number of areas of French grammar. And yet, GJTs are not necessarily more taxing than production tasks: it has been suggested that GJTs may require less processing time than production tasks, and this may allow learners to access knowledge that is otherwise difficult to retrieve from memory in normal production situations (Ayoun 2000: 95). Another feature of GJTs that makes their use in the present study acceptable – perhaps desirable – is their tendency to yield better results when the subjects have had formal language instruction, as shown in a methodological study by Ortega (2001). Because the –gen L1 group have received slightly more formal L2 instruction on average than the +gen L1 group, the GJT used here is likely to be a generous measure of L2 competence in the –gen L1 group compared to the +gen L1 group. Despite the various benefits of GJTs, some researchers believe that they lack validity and/or reliability as testing instruments in SLA research. A case in point is Ellis (1991), who used speak-aloud protocols and oral group work to compare the strategies that NSs and NNSs use in making decisions about grammaticality, and found that these differed markedly. He suggests that the observed differences make data elicited in this way questionable for the purposes of NS/NNS comparison. A similar point has been made by Cook (1992), who has suggested that multilingual individuals have metalinguistic sensitivities different from monolinguals, raising the question about the comparability


of grammaticality judgements made by each type of speaker. While this may indeed be the case for certain aspects of grammatical knowledge, it does not follow that it will be true for all areas of L2 competence. If at least some NNS groups can consistently produce the same judgements as NSs on a given grammatical property, it seems reasonable to assume that they can acquire a similar type of metalinguistic sensitivity or interpretation strategy for the grammatical property in question. And indeed there is evidence that NNSs can be indistinguishable from NSs in some cases (e.g., the Dutch speakers in Schachter 1989, 1990, or the French speakers in White & Genesee 1996). On a different but related note, Gass and Selinker (2001: 43) warn against the dangers of drawing conclusions about L2 competence from the results of GJTs in view of the fact that NNS grammars are known to be more variable or indeterminate4 than NS grammars. However, I do not think that this is a problem, because if NNS grammars are in fact indeterminate, it is desirable to see this reflected in the results. Another caveat that Gass and Selinker mention is that if subjects are asked about things that are beyond their current level of development, the responses will be as good as guesses. This is a genuine concern shared by many others, but I do not think it is a problem in the context of this study, as all the subjects are very advanced L2 speakers. Davies and Kaplan (1998) have shown that the more advanced the learners are, the more reliable GJTs become, and I will therefore assume that the reliability of judgements is not a problem for the present study. Flynn and Manuel (1991) mention another potential drawback of this technique, namely that GJT results can be difficult to interpret, as it is difficult to know whether grammatical or other types of factors provide the basis for the judgements. Sorace (1996: 377–378) mentions several extralinguistic factors that may influence grammaticality judgements: parsing strategies, context and mode of presentation, pragmatic considerations, mental states, linguistic training. Moreover, the judgements may be based on purely grammatical considerations and still not tap into the area of grammatical knowledge in which the researcher is interested. For example, one could imagine the case of a study of Tense and Aspect where a subject rejects a sentence after judging the use of articles as ungrammatical. The influence of such factors would yield what Botha (1973) refers to as ‘spurious’ judgements, that is, judgements that do not tell us anything about the area of the subjects’ L2 competence in which we are interested. GJTs with correction, such as the one employed in this study, are less susceptible to this problem, because respondents are required to indicate what makes the sentence ungrammatical, thus allowing the researcher the possibility



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

of discarding any cases of spurious judgements. Furthermore, grammaticality judgements related to gender should be impervious to interpretation problems since gender is not subject to ‘fuzzy grammaticality’.5 In other words, speakers can only provide absolute, dichotomous ratings (e.g., ‘correct’ vs. ‘incorrect’) for the grammaticality of gender. This is in contrast with other areas of the grammar that allow for graded judgements. For example, given a number of sentences with topicalized elements, speakers could be asked to rank them in order of acceptability from more to less acceptable, or vice versa. Even if all the subjects produced the same relative rankings, individuals may disagree as to what absolute level of grammaticality they assigned to individual sentences. This would not arise in judgements of grammatical gender, because the gender value of a lexical item can only be classified as correct or incorrect, with no scope for intermediate grammaticality and/or appropriacy nuances. This is reflected in the clear-cut NS judgements in this study. (For further discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of GJTs in SLA research, see for example Ayoun 2000; Bard, Robertson, & Sorace 1996; Birdsong 1989; Chaudron 1983; Cook 1992; Cowan & Hatasa 1994; Ellis 1991, 2004; Gass 1994; Goss, Ying-Hua, & Lantolf 1994; Hiramatsu 2001; Hu 2002; Mandell 1999; Munnich, Flynn, & Martohardjono 1994; Nagata 1988; Paolillo 2000.) In summary, I am assuming that the use of a GJT is justified in the context of the present study in view of the following: a. It is used in combination with other experimental tasks. b. It requires the subjects to indicate what causes the ungrammaticality in the sentences flagged as wrong. c. The subjects are very proficient in the L2. d. The group expected to be weak with regards to Spanish gender by hypothesis have received relatively more formal L2 instruction than the other experimental group. e. The areas of the grammar that are the focus of the investigation are not subject to fuzzy grammaticality. .. Test 1: Guessing game The main aim of this test was to find out whether the NNS subjects could make use of gender agreement clues in sentence comprehension in the way that NSs do. The task was also designed to test whether the type of gender marker (canonical vs. non-canonical) and the syntactic environment in which


the gender clues were presented had any effect on the subjects’ interpretation of the sentences.

Design and piloting The test was designed in the form of a guessing game. (See Appendix 5 for a copy of the test in the format in which it was presented to the subjects.) The subjects simultaneously read and heard sentences which referred to objects or concepts not explicitly mentioned in the sentences, and the aim of the game was for them to ‘guess’ what the sentences were about by choosing one out of the three options provided. The following was a practice sentence in the test (bold typeface was not used in the test). (5.6) Los trajo Martín y dijo que son para usted them.masc brought Martín and said that are for you ‘Martín brought them and said that they were for you’

The subjects had to say which of the following the sentence was about: (5.7) a.

flores flowers (f) b. joyas jewels (f) c. chocolates chocolates (m)

The correct option was (5.7c), since the object clitic los in (5.6) was masculine and (5.7a) and (5.7b) were feminine. In every case the sentences could logically refer to any of the three nouns provided. This can be checked by looking at the English translations of (5.6) and (5.7), which circumvent the syntactic restrictions on the choice of referent set by gender in the Spanish counterparts. The only clue that could help the subjects work out which of the options was correct was the gender of the nouns provided. The gender clues were marked on either of two word classes in the sentences: – –

object pronouns (8 sentences) adjectives (8 sentences)

No biological gender clues were used in any of the items. There were equal numbers of feminine, masculine, singular and plural examples in the sentences with clues on pronouns or adjectives. The test sentences were also equally divided into those referring to nouns with canonical gender markers and those



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

with non-canonical gender markers. Appendix 6 shows a list of the test sentences and how they are equally divided according to gender and number values and the nouns’ canonical and non-canonical gender markers. There was the same number of distractors as test sentences (16 of each). The distractors consisted of sentences where only one option made sense. Example (5.8) below was a practice sentence of this type: (5.8) Sólo te pican si las molestas mucho only you bite if them.fem you.bother much ‘They only bite you if you bother them a lot’

The subjects had to decide which of the following options sentence (5.8) referred to: (5.9) a.

hormigas ants (f) b. mariposas butterflies (f) c. caracoles snails (m)

The correct option was (5.9a), as only ants bite. The gender clue is superfluous in the distractors because only one option makes sense. Moreover, more than one noun matches the gender of the object pronoun in the stimulus. Like the test sentences, the distractors were controlled for gender and number values. Distractors are listed according to their design features in Appendix 7. The test was originally designed using pictures instead of words as the options from which the subjects had to choose (similar to the test design used by White et al. 2000). However, it became clear after several pilot trials that it would be very difficult to find items that have only one possible name. For example, the subjects in the pilot trials provided the following alternative names for the nouns in test item 16 (examples (5.10) and (5.11) below): (5.10) ¡Te queda preciosa! Vas a ser la envidia de la fiesta you.dat looks beautiful.fem! you-are-going to be the envy of the party ‘It looks beautiful on you! You’ll be the envy of the party’

Items (5.11a), (5.11b) and (5.11c) were those intended by the researcher when selecting pictures for the task. Items (5.11a’) and (5.11c’) were alternative names produced by subjects during piloting.


(5.11)

a. collar necklace (m) b. pulsera bracelet (f) c. anillo ring (m)

a’. gargantilla necklace (f)

c’. sortija ring (f)

The stimulus in this test item was intended to provide one feminine clue to gender in (5.11b). However, because the subjects came up with alternative names for the objects, there were several potential correct answers. In the case of item 16, the subjects came up with options that made all the pictures possible correct answers: (5.11a’), (5.11b) and (5.11c’) are all feminine and match the gender value of the adjective preciosa in (5.10). The test was modified three times to eliminate items that had multiple names, but it became clear that new options would keep on being suggested by the subjects. It was deemed safer to provide the nouns instead of using pictures, to make sure that all subjects were using the intended noun and not any near synonym of possibly different gender.

Subjects 73 subjects were tested. The subject information is summarised in Table 5.7 Hypotheses The hypotheses considered in the analysis of the test results focused on the effects of the following variables in Table 5.8. The three null hypotheses tested are listed in Table 5.9. Results The first null hypothesis was about the effects of the presence of [ugen] in the subjects’ L1. Figure 5.5 and Table 5.10 show the distribution of Test 1 scores in the three L1 groups. A 1-way between subjects ANOVA was carried out to find out whether the differences in the means of the three groups were significant, and the calculaTable 5.7 Test 1 – Subject information L1

n

age range

age mean

prof. score range

prof. score mean


29 29 15 73

20–76 20–89 21–62

44.79 55.10 40.53

615–850 615–850 615–850

823.41 780.06 779.58



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Table 5.8 Variables in Test 1 Variables

Values

A. presence of [ugen] in the L1

A1: Spanish L1 (controls) A2: +gen L1 A3: –gen L1

B. canonicity of gender marking on nouns

B1: canonical gender marking B2: non-canonical gender marking

C. word class where the clue to gender was marked

C1: object pronoun C2: adjective

Table 5.9 Test 1 null hypotheses

H0 1

H0 2

H0 3

Description

Effects/contrasts tested

There is no significant difference between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers in the way in which they respond to test items when grammatical gender is the only clue There is no significant difference between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers in the way they respond to items where the correct responses are nouns canonically marked for gender and items where the correct responses have non-canonical marking There is no significant difference between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers in the way that they respond to items with gender clues in object pronouns and those with gender clues in adjectives

main effects of variable A

interaction AxB

interaction AxC

tions showed that they were (F(2,70) = 5.413; p < 0.01). This led us to reject hypothesis 1, as the subjects’ grouping according to the presence or absence of [ugen] in the L1 did have a significant effect on Test 1 results. Post-hoc tests (Tukey HSD and Scheffé) revealed that there was a significant difference between the L1 Spanish and the L1 –gen groups. The difference between the L1 Spanish group and the +gen group was not significant (p = 0.311), while the difference between the –gen and the +gen groups approached significance (p = 0.063).

Chapter 5. The empirical study  16

14.69

13.83

14

12.2

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

NS (n = 29)

L1 +gen (n = 29)

L1 –gen (n = 15)

Figure 5.5 Test 1 score means Table 5.10 Test 1 scores – Descriptives L1

n

mean

standard deviation


29 29 15 73

14.69 13.86 12.20 13.84

2.16 1.71 3.12 2.39

The second hypothesis was about the interaction between L1 group and the canonicity of gender markers. Figure 5.6 and Table 5.11 show the distributions of Test 1 scores per group and per gender marker type. A mixed design ANOVA was carried out to test the interaction between these two factors, and the results showed that while the main effects of both factors were significant, the interaction between them was not. For the main effects of Factor A (L1), see the discussion of hypothesis 1 above. The main effects of Factor B (type of gender marker) were significant (F(1,70) = 22.794; p < 0.0001): the three groups were significantly more accurate when responding to items with canonical gender marking than to those where the nouns had noncanonical gender markers. Lastly, there was no significant interaction between Factors A and B (F(2,70) = 0.231, p = 0.911). The second null hypothesis was therefore retained, as no significant difference was found in the way in which the groups responded to items involving nouns with canonical gender marking and items with non-canonical gender marking. Finally, hypothesis 3 on the interaction between L1 group and word class where the gender clue was provided was tested. Figure 5.7 and Table 5.12 show

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars 8 7 6

NS L1 +gen L1 –gen

5 4 3

canonical

non-canonical

Figure 5.6 Test 1 scores per L1 group (Factor A) and gender marker type (Factor B) Table 5.11 Test 1 scores per L1 group and gender marker type – Descriptives Gender marker type (Factor B)

L1 group (Factor A)

n

mean

standard deviation

Canonical


29 29 15 73

7.69 7.31 6.53 7.34

0.93 0.93 1.93 1.2

Non-canonical


29 29 15 73

7 6.52 5.67 6.56

1.49 1.21 1.78 1.50

the distributions of scores per group and per word class where the gender clue was marked in the stimuli. A mixed design ANOVA was used to test the interaction between Factors A and C. The results showed that while the main effects of Factor A (L1 group) were significant, the main effects of Factor C (Word class where the gender clue resides) were not (F(1,70) = 1.184, p = 0.281), and neither was the interaction between the two factors (F(2,70) = 0.850, p = 0.432). Hypothesis 3 was retained, since none of the groups showed significant differences when responding to items where the gender clue was on pronouns or on adjectives. The rejection of hypothesis 1 lends support to our prediction that the L1 feature inventory will have a determining effect in the acquisition of the L2. The results of this test showed that speakers of an L1 without [ugen] were worse at identifying nominal referents using grammatical agreement clues than L1

Chapter 5. The empirical study 8 7 6


5 4 3

adj

pron

Figure 5.7 Test 1 scores per L1 group (Factor A) and word class where gender clues were marked (Factor C) Table 5.12 Test 1 scores per L1 group and word class where gender clues were marked – Descriptives Word class where gender clue resided (Factor C)

L1 group (Factor A)

n

mean

standard deviation

Adjective


29 29 15 73

7.31 6.72 6.08 6.86

1.17 1.25 1.62 1.34

Pronoun


29 29 15 73

7.38 7.10 6.08 7.04

1.12 0.90 1.83 1.26

speakers of +gen languages and Spanish NSs. On the other hand, speakers of +gen languages were not significantly different from NSs. The failure to reject hypothesis 2 would seem to be problematic for a proposal of syntax-morphology mapping problems in the L2 as an explanation for NNS divergence. If this proposal was correct we would expect to find an interaction between L1 group and marker type, with both NNS groups performing significantly worse than NSs on non-canonical items given that the syntax-morphology mapping is not transparent. However, all groups were found to perform in a very similar way: all of them made more mistakes on non-canonically marked items. It would therefore seem that the handling of



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

different types of forms per se cannot account for the differences between the three groups investigated here. Finally, the failure to reject null hypothesis 3 indicates that the structural position where the [ugen] feature is located does not have a differential effect in the groups under investigation, and is therefore not a variable that is likely to help explain the differences between the groups. .. Test 2: Missing word task This test investigated the degree to which the subjects were sensitive to clitic pronoun omissions and how accurately they could indicate the position where they should have occurred and the form they should have taken. The test measured the subjects’ accuracy with respect to the following variables: gender, number, case, animacy, position (before or after the verb) and phonetic context (applicable only to the subset of proclitic pronouns, distinguishing between those followed by a vowel-initial or consonant-initial verb).

Design The test consisted of 24 sentences with one word missing each (a copy of the test can be found in Appendix 8). The subjects were told that a word had been omitted in each sentence and the aim of the test was to see if they could provide the missing words in each case. There were 18 test sentences and 6 distractors. Missing from the test sentences were obligatory object pronouns, some of which were feminine (la, las), some masculine (lo, los) and some not differentiated for gender (le, les). The missing words in the distractor sentences were also monosyllabic, but in this case they were prepositions and the complementizer que ‘that’. (5.12) and (5.13) below are practice items that were provided at the beginning of the test. The words in brackets were not provided in the test – they were the expected answers. (5.12) Anoche María me prestó su abrigo porque hacía mucho frío cuando terminó la fiesta. Ahora tengo que ir (a) devolvérselo. ‘Last night María lent me her coat because it was very cold after the party. Now I must go (to)6 give it back to her’ (5.13) Los dos enchufes que compré estaban fallados. ¿Será posible cambiar(los) por unos nuevos? ‘The two plugs I bought were faulty. Could I change (them) for new ones?’

Each sentence could score a maximum of 5 points and a minimum of 1. A point was deducted for each of the following types of mistakes:

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

– – – – –

incorrect gender incorrect number incorrect case incorrect placement omission (i.e., failing to provide a pronoun)

A score of 0 could never occur because it was not possible to make gender, number, case and placement mistakes at the same time as omitting the pronoun. The mistake patterns will be analysed both globally and separately as mistakes of commission (the first four types) and mistakes of omission.

Subjects 65 subjects were tested. The subject information is summarised in Table 5.13 below. Hypotheses The variables investigated in this test are listed in Table 5.14, and the null hypotheses of interest to the study are presented in Table 5.15. Variables A-F are the independent (or explanatory) variables on which I shall focus attention. The scoring system was designed to allow for a first analysis based on interval scores. The second part of the analysis was based on transformed scores. The interval scores were converted into nominal data and the effects of the independent variables A-F reassessed in this light. One transformed scoring system (cf. Variable G in Table 5.14) consisted of classifying the responses according to whether the subjects identified the missing pronouns (G1) or not (G2). This scoring system ignores all mistakes other than omissions, so even where the form of the pronoun provided was incorrect it was classified as an ‘omission identified’ context. The second nominal scoring system (cf. Variable H in Table 5.14) looked at incorrect responses only and classified them according to the type of mistake they represented. Each sentence was assigned a maximum of 5 points in an interval scoring system, and this allowed for conversion into this nominal system without overlaps of Table 5.13 Test 2 – Subject information L1

n

age range

age mean

prof. score range

prof. score mean


25 25 15 65

20–76 20–82 21–62

45.32 49.24 40.33

615–850 615–850 615–850

830.55 770.38 779.58

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Table 5.14 Variables in Test 2 Values Independent variables A. presence of [ugen] in the L1

B. pronoun gender

C. pronoun number D. pronoun case E. position of the pronoun in relation to the verb F. phonological context following proclitic pronouns Dependent variables G. identification of omissions H. error type (I)

I. error type (II) J. error type (III)

A1: Spanish L1 (controls) A2: +gen L1 A3: –gen L1 B1: masculine B2: feminine B3: gender neutral C1: singular C2: plural D1: accusative D2: dative E1: proclitic E2: enclitic F1: vowel-initial verb F2: consonant-initial verb G1: omission identified G2: omission not identified H1: gender H2: number H3: case H4: placement H5: omission I1: commission I2: omission J1: gender J2: number J3: case J4: placement

mistake type. Each sentence counted as five contexts simultaneously, and the scoring of different types of mistakes was kept on a separate grid. The mistakes that a subject produced were categorised into five classes: gender mistakes (H1), number mistakes (H2), case mistakes (H3), placement mistakes (H4) or omissions (H5). Categorising mistakes in this way made it possible to draw a comparison between different areas of difficulty in the L1 groups. Finally, the mistakes were classified into errors of commission or omission (Variable I). Errors of commission were further classified according to their type (i.e., gender, number, case or placement), as indicated by the levels of Variable J. It may seem excessive to have classification systems that are so close, but they are nec-

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

Table 5.15 Test 2 null hypotheses Description H0 1

There is no significant difference in the levels of accuracy with which L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers supply the missing pronouns, as indicated by interval scores H0 2 There is no significant difference in the levels of accuracy with which L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers supply the missing pronouns in masculine and feminine contexts H0 3 There is no significant difference in the levels of accuracy with which L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers supply the missing pronouns in singular and plural contexts H0 4 There is no significant difference in the levels of accuracy with which L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers supply missing accusative and dative pronouns H0 5 There is no significant difference in the levels of accuracy with which L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers supply missing proclitic and enclitic pronouns H0 6 There is no significant difference in the levels of accuracy with which L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers supply missing proclitic pronouns when they are followed by either vowel-initial or consonant-initial verbs H0 7 There is no significant difference in ability to identify and provide missing pronouns (regardless of the accuracy of the form provided) between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers H0 8 When the subjects make mistakes, there is no significant difference in the distribution of mistakes among the five possible types, namely gender, number, case, placement and omission, between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers H0 9 When the subjects make mistakes, there is no significant difference in the distribution of errors of commission and errors of omission between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers H0 10 When the subjects make errors of commission, there is no significant difference in the distribution of mistakes among the four possible types, namely gender, number, case and placement, between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers

Effects/contrasts tested main effects of A, interval DV

interaction AxB

interaction AxC

interaction AxD

interaction AxE

interaction AxF

main effects of A, nominal DV: G

main effects of A, nominal DV: H

main effects of A, nominal DV: I

main effects of A, nominal DV: J

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

essary if they are to be analysed through statistical measures, as these require that categorial data are exhaustively classified.

Results The first null hypothesis was tested by calculating the main effects of L1 group (variable A) on the overall accuracy with which the subjects performed Test 2. Figure 5.8 and Table 5.16 show the general scores of each L1 group. A 1-way between subjects ANOVA was done to find out whether the differences in score means between the three groups were significant, and the calculations showed that they were (F(2,62) = 15.081; p < 0.0001). Hypothesis 1 was thus rejected, as the subjects’ L1 did have a significant effect on the subjects’ overall scores. Post-hoc tests (Tukey HSD and Scheffé) revealed that there were significant differences between each pair of means. Hypotheses 2–6 are about the subjects’ accuracy in the different contexts investigated here, but they do not say anything about the type of errors that the subjects make. To find out about the latter it is necessary to test hypotheses 7– 10. In other words, it is necessary to consider the results from all the statistical 90

89 87.24 84.83

85

80

75

70

L1 Spanish (n = 25)

L1 +gen (n = 25)

L1 –gen (n = 15)

Figure 5.8 Test 2 scores (Factor A) Table 5.16 Test 2 scores – Descriptives L1

n

mean

standard deviation


25 25 15 65

89 87.24 84.53 87.29

1.22 2.31 3.04 2.74

Chapter 5. The empirical study  30 29.5 29

L1 Sp L1 +gen L1 –gen

28.5 28 27.5 27

masc

fem

neu

Figure 5.9 Test 2 – Interaction plot AxB (L1 x gender)

analyses in order to get a complete view of the performance of the different groups in this task. Hypothesis 2 was about the interaction between variable A (L1) and variable B (gender of the pronoun to be supplied). A mixed design ANOVA was carried out to test the interaction between these two factors, and the results showed that while the main effects of both factors were significant, the interaction between them was not. The group means are plotted in Figure 5.9 and detailed scores can be found in Table A9.1 in Appendix 9. The main findings can be summarized as follows: – – –

Significant main effects of Factor A (see details in the discussion of null hypothesis 1 above) Significant main effects of Factor B (F(1,62) = 4.515; p < 0.05) Non-significant interaction between Factor A and Factor B (F(2,62) = 1.551; p = 0.221)

The second null hypothesis was thus retained as no significant difference was found in the way in which the groups supplied pronouns in masculine, feminine and gender neuter contexts, as indicated by the non-significant interaction. The significant main effects of Factor B were further investigated by follow-up tests. Post-hoc tests showed that the following contrasts were significant: NS vs. –gen: p = 0.003; +gen vs. –gen: p = 0.05. The third null hypothesis was about the interaction between variable A (L1) and variable C (number). Table A9.2 in Appendix 9 shows each L1 group scores for singular and plural contexts. A mixed design ANOVA was carried out to test the interaction between these two factors, and the results showed that the main effects of Factor A were significant, as was the interaction between

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars 45

44 L1 Sp L1 +gen L1 –gen

43

42

41

sing

pl

Figure 5.10 Test 2 – Interaction plot AxC (L1 x number)

Factors A and C. However, the main effects of Factor C were not significant. The group means are shown in Figure 5.10. The main findings regarding hypothesis 2 can be summarized as follows: – – –

Significant main effects of Factor A (see details in the discussion of null hypothesis 1 above) Non-significant main effects of Factor C (p = 0.403) Significant interaction between Factors A and C (F(2,62) = 3.221; p < 0.05)

The third null hypothesis was thus rejected, since a significant difference was found in the accuracy of suppliance of pronouns in singular and plural contexts between the L1 groups, the –gen group being less accurate in singular contexts. The fourth null hypothesis was about the interaction between variable A (L1) and variable D (case of the pronoun to be supplied). Table A9.3 in Appendix 9 shows the distribution of scores between singular and plural contexts in each L1 group. A mixed design ANOVA was carried out to test the interaction between these two factors, and the results showed that the main effects of Factors A and D were significant, but the interaction between them was not. The group means are shown in Figure 5.11. The main findings regarding hypothesis 3 can be summarized as follows: – – –

Significant main effects of Factor A (see details in the discussion of null hypothesis 1 above) Significant main effects of Factor D (F(1,62) = 5.823; p < 0.025) Non-significant interaction between Factors A and D (F(2,62) = 1.909; p = 0.157)

Chapter 5. The empirical study  45 44


43 42 41 40

acc

dat

Figure 5.11 Test 2 – Interaction plot AxD (L1 x case) 45 44


43 42 41 40

proclitic

enclitic

Figure 5.12 Test 2 – Interaction plot AxE (L1 x pronoun position)

The fourth null hypothesis was thus retained, since there was no significant difference in the accuracy of suppliance of pronouns in accusative and dative contexts between the L1 groups. The three groups were worse in dative contexts. The fifth null hypothesis was about the interaction between variable A (L1) and variable E (position of the pronoun to be supplied). Table A9.4 in Appendix 9 shows the distribution of scores between pre- and post-verbal contexts in each L1 group. A mixed design ANOVA was carried out to test the interaction between these two factors, and the results showed that the main effects of Factor A were significant, as was the interaction between Factors A and E. The main effects of Factor E were not significant, though. The group means are shown in Figure 5.12. The main findings regarding hypothesis 4 can be summarized as follows: – – –

Significant main effects of Factor A (see details in the discussion of hypothesis 1 above) Non-significant main effects of Factor E (F(1,62) = 0.218; p = 0.642) Significant interaction between Factor A and Factor E (F(2,62) = 4.560; p < 0.025)

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars 30 29


28 27 26

V-initial

V-final

Figure 5.13 Test 2 – Interaction plot AxF (L1 x phonetic context)

The fifth null hypothesis was rejected, since a significant difference was found in the accuracy of suppliance of pronouns in pre- and post-verbal contexts between the L1 groups, the –gen group scoring lower in proclitic contexts. The sixth null hypothesis was about the interaction between variable A (L1) and variable F (phonetic context of proclitic pronouns). Table A9.5 in Appendix 9 shows the distribution of scores between V-initial and V-final contexts in each L1 group. A mixed design ANOVA was carried out to test the interaction between these two factors, and the results showed that the main effects of Factor A were significant, but the main effects of Factor F and the interaction between Factors A and F were not. The group means are shown in Figure 5.13. The main findings regarding hypothesis 6 can be summarized as follows: – – –

Significant main effects of Factor A (see details in the discussion of Hypothesis 1 above) Non-significant main effects of Factor F (F(1,62) = 1.631; p = 0.207) Non-significant interaction between Factor A and Factor F (F(2,62) = 2.355; p = 0.104)

The sixth null hypothesis was thus retained, since there was no significant difference in the accuracy of suppliance of proclitic pronouns in vowel- or consonant-initial contexts between the L1 groups. The seventh null hypothesis was about the likelihood of some of the groups being better at spotting the omitted pronouns than the others. I tested this by transforming the interval scores into nominal data and classifying all contexts where a pronoun was provided as ‘omission identified’, regardless of the accuracy of the response, and the contexts where no pronoun was provided as ‘omission not identified’. The frequencies of responses in each category are summarised in Table A9.6 in Appendix 9. Sign tests were performed for each


combination of pairs of levels of Variable A, and the results showed that there is a significant difference between the groups. Hypothesis 7 was thus rejected. The eighth null hypothesis was again about the main effects of L1 (Variable A) but in this case as reflected in the distribution of mistakes into the five possible categories here, namely gender, number, case, placement mistakes or omissions. Figures 5.14–5.16 illustrate the distribution of mistakes per type in each group. (Table A9.7 in Appendix 9 contains more details of these comparisons.) Signed tests were also performed to test the effects of Variable A (L1 group) using nominal DV H and again all groups were significantly different. Hypothesis 8 was thus rejected. The ninth null hypothesis was about the distribution of mistakes into errors of commission and omission. This can already be grasped by looking at Figures 5.14–5.16, where it can be seen that the majority are mistakes of omission in the L1 Spanish and L1 +gen groups, but they are mistakes of comGen 9%

Num 22% Omi 57% Pos 6%

Case 6%

Figure 5.14 Test 2 – Composition of L1 Spanish group mistakes Gen Num 1% 7% Case 16%

Omi 67%

Pos 9%

Figure 5.15 Test 2 – Composition of L1 +gen group mistakes





Fossilized Second Language Grammars Gen 12% Num 10%

Omi 37%

Case 14%

Pos 27%

Figure 5.16 Test 2 – Composition of L1 –gen group mistakes

mission in the L1 –gen group. Table 5.17 is a re-arrangement of the same basic information, but it contrasts errors of commission and omission. Signed Tests were performed for all combinations of Variable A levels, and it was found that the three groups were different, so this hypothesis was also rejected. Finally, the tenth null hypothesis was about the composition of errors of commission in each L1 group. Table 5.18 (which rearranges part of the information presented above) and Figure 5.17 summarise the distribution of these errors. Again, Sign tests were performed and the results showed that all the groups were significantly different, so hypothesis 10 was also rejected. Table 5.17 Test 2 – Errors of commission and omission per L1 group

L1 Spanish L1 +gen L1 –gen

Errors of commission (freq)

Errors of commission (%)

Errors of omission (freq)

Errors of omission (%)

Total

14 23 38

43.75 33.33 63.26

18 46 22

56.25 66.66 36.73

32 69 60

Table 5.18 Test 2 – Distribution of mistakes of commission in the L1 groups Group

Gen freq

Num freq

Case freq

Pos freq

Overall freq

L1 Spanish L1 +gen L1 –gen

3 (0.67 %) 1 (0.22 %) 7 (2.59 %)

7 (1.56 %) 5 (1.11 %) 6 (2.22 %)

2 (0.44 %) 11 (2.44 %) 9 (3.33 %)

2 (0.44 %) 6 (1.33 %) 16 (5.93 %)

14 23 38


Summary and interpretation of results The statistical tests showed that hypotheses 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 could be rejected, but hypotheses 2, 4 and 6 could not. The statistical significance of the all the contrasts investigated is summarized in Table A9.8 in Appendix 9. It is clear that the L1 group to which a speaker belongs makes an important difference with regards to their performance in gender production in a task such as Test 2, with the +gen L1 speakers outperforming the –gen L1 speakers. The statistical analyses in this section also investigated the possible influence of other factors that may affect the subjects’ performance in this task. For example, different phonological contexts (Variable F) and the position of pronouns relative to the verb (Variable E) were assessed, but no significant differences were found in the performances of the groups. Gender value (Variable B) did have an effect, but it was the same in all groups, so this cannot account for the overall differences between them. It was also found that the groups differed in their performance in singular and plural contexts (as seen by the significant interaction between Factors A and C). However, on further investigation of the types of mistakes made by the groups, it is clear that number mistakes occur at a similar level in all three groups, as shown in Figure 5.17. Omissions and position errors account for some of the between-group variation, but I shall leave them aside here as they do not directly address the questions at the centre of the study. Case errors also account for some of the variation, but I shall also leave them aside here because I did not control for structural and inherent Case contexts in the design of the test – I only realised that there was a potentially interesting variable in this when the data collection was finished and I was processing the results. A cursory inspection of the data suggests that case mistakes are mainly inherent Case errors, but a more 2.22% 1.56% 1.11%


Figure 5.17 Test 2 – Percentages of number mistakes in the three L1 groups



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars 2.59%

NS L1 +gen L1 –gen 0.67% 0.22% gen

Figure 5.18 Test 2 – Percentages of gender mistakes in the three L1 groups

careful investigation would be needed before this can be asserted with more confidence. Finally, and most relevant to the present study, gender mistakes also account for part of the between-group variation in the way predicted by hypothesis (1.5): while +gen L1 speakers can perform at nativelike levels, the –gen L1 group makes significantly more errors. Figure 5.18 shows the percentages of gender error in each group. .. Test 3: Cloze/multiple choice task The main aim of this test was to compare how the subjects made use of gender clues in an exercise which required them to choose one of two equally possible options differing in gender specification to fill in gaps in sentences. The task was also set to test whether the noun’s semantics (reference to males or females) and the type of gender marker (canonical vs. non-canonical) had any effects on the subjects’ choice of lexical item.

Design The test was designed in the form of a cloze exercise (see Appendix 10 for a copy of the test in the format in which it was presented to the subjects). For every gap, the subjects had a choice among 12 words provided, but only two words in each pool of words was possible in each context according to meaning. Once the subjects spotted the two possible words, they had to decide which of the two words was the correct one, and the only way to do so was on the basis of gender agreement with other words in the sentence.


The target words were nouns (n = 12) and adjectives (n = 12). The first 12 contexts presented to the subjects were sentences with missing nouns, and the second group of 12 contexts were sentences with missing adjectives. The nouns in the 24 test sentences are listed in column 2 of Table 5.19 (Table 5.20 clarifies the notation used in Table 5.19). The items in this task were chosen to mirror the gender clue information in the novel words designed by Pérez-Pereira (1991) (cf. Section 4.3.1). The items, in this case existing Spanish nouns, carry Table 5.19 Gender clues in Test 3 items T3 T3 item item no.

FF’s code Description (SemMorph-Sx)

PP’s PP’s item item no. (1991: 578)

PP’s code (Sx-Sem-) Morph)

7 15 11 21 10 16 9 14 2 17 4 24 5 19 6 13 3 c23 8 22 1 18 12 20

M-1-m

1. Fully canonical

–

–

(MMM)

F-2-f

1. Fully canonical

–

–

(FFF)

0-1-m

2. Partly canonical 1 (morph=sx)

10

Un nepo

MOM

0-2-f

2. Partly canonical 1 (morph=sx)

9

Una lodena FOF

M-0-m

3. Partly canonical 2 (sem=sx)

7

Un cater

MMO

F-0-f

3. Partly canonical 2 (sem=sx)

8

Una talaz

FFO

0-0-m

4. Not canonical but not conflictive

1

Un tanten

MOO

0-0-f


2

Una pilin

FOO

M-2-m

5. Anticanonical 1 (morph vs. sx/sem)

20

Un tiba

MMF

F-1-f


19

Una rebo

FFM

0-2-m

6. Anticanonical 2 (morph vs. sx)

16

Un satila

MOF

0-1-f


15

Una linolo

FOM

M-0-f F-0-m M-2-f F-1-m M-1-f F-2-m

7. Anticanonical 3 (sem vs. sx) 7. Anticanonical 3 (sem vs. sx) 8. Fully anticanonical 1 (sem vs. morph/sx) 8. Fully anticanonical 1 (sem vs. morph/sx) 9. Fully anticanonical 2 (sem/morph vs. sx) 9. Fully anticanonical 2 (sem/morph vs. sx)

14 13 – – 22 21 3 4 5 6 11 12 17 18

Una liben Un pifar – – Una lampo Un capola Dos palires Dos borales Dos carepos Dos aninas Dos milipos Dos ticas Dos lacatos Dos danitas

FMO MFO (FMF) (MFM) FMM MFF OMO OFO OOM OOF OMM OFF OFM OMF

Un novio Un crítico Una profesora Una diseñadora Un libro Un pescado Una escuela Una pintura Un profesor Un aviador Una actriz Una joven Un salón Un aire Una liquidación Una exposición Un poeta Un flautista Una soprano Una modelo Un tema Un emblema Una mano Una moto Una . . . . . . . . ..? Un . . . . . . . . ..? Una . . . . . . . . ..a? Un . . . . . . . . ..o? Una . . . . . . . . ..o? Un . . . . . . . . ..a?



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Table 5.20 Key to gender clue notation in Table 5.19, column 3 Semantic values

Morphological values

Syntactic values

M = male referent F = female referent 0 = neither female nor male referent

1 = -o (unstressed only) 2 = -a (unstressed only) 0 = any other marker

m = masculine agreement f = feminine agreement (NB: Pérez-Pereira also had a 0 value, for lack of syntactic information through lack of gender-marked determiner)

Example: Fully canonical items are Masculine: M-1-m (un niño ‘a boy’), Feminine: F-2-f (una niña ‘a girl’).

different semantic, syntactic and morphological gender clues. Table 5.19 shows how the different combinations of clues are encoded in each item. The numbers in the first column indicate the order of presentation of the items in the test. The second column lists the test items (un/una are used for expository purposes only, to indicate the gender of each noun on the table, but they were not necessarily used in the test). The first noun in each cell is the word that had to be selected from one of the pools of 12 nouns on the basis of meaning and gender agreement clues provided by determiners and adjectives in the context provided. The second noun in each cell was present in the context provided to the subjects and it was on the basis of these nouns that they had to select an appropriate adjective from one of the adjective pools. The third column in Table 5.19 indicates the type of clue combination on each test item. (The key to the notation system is given in Table 5.20.) Each gender clue combination has been given a label in the fourth column. The nine categories of gender clue combinations devised are a continuum from ‘fully canonical’ to ‘fully anticanonical’. The ordering of some of the intermediate categories is arbitrary (e.g., partly canonical 1 and partly canonical 2). They could also be reduced to five less arbitrary categories, namely ‘fully canonical’, ‘partly canonical’, ‘not canonical but not conflictive’, ‘partly anticanonical’ and ‘fully anticanonical’. Of the nine categories, only the six realised in present-day Spanish are tested here (cf. the levels of Variable B below). The remaining three columns on the right hand side of the table show how the Test 3 items correspond to those in Pérez-Pereira’s (1991) study. He did not produce novel words to test fully canonical items, therefore items 7, 11, 15 and 21 in Test 3 do not have correlates in his test. Conversely, Pérez-Pereira tested the interaction of semantic and morphological clues in the absence of syntactic clues, but Test 3 did not, therefore the bottom 8 items in Table 5.19 will not be discussed here.7


Table 5.21 Test 3 – Subject information L1

n

age range

age mean

prof. score range

prof. score mean


30 30 15 75

20–81 20–89 21–62

49.57 55.15 40.53

615–850 615–850 615–850

823.32 780.15 779.58


Values


A1: Spanish L1 (controls) A2: +gen L1 A3: –gen L1 B1: fully canonical (M1m, F2f) B2: partly canonical 1 – morph=sx (01m, 02f) B3: partly canonical 2 – sem=sx (M0m, F0f) B4: not canonical but not conflictive (00m, 00f) B5: anticanonical 1 – morph=sx/sem (M2m, F1f) B6: anticanonical 2 – morph=sx (02m, 01f) C1: contexts with adjectives and/or determiners (missing nouns) C2: contexts with nouns (missing adjectives)

B. gender clue combination

C. word class present in context


H0 1

H0 2

H0 3

Description


There is no significant difference between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 -gen speakers in the way in which they spot missing nouns or adjectives from the gender information available in the linguistic context There is no significant difference between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers in the way they respond to items with different combinations of gender clues There is no significant difference between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers in the way they recover missing sentence information based on gender clues marked on adjectives and determiners (contexts 1–12) or nouns (contexts 13–24).


interaction AxB

interaction AxC



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Appendices 11, 12 and 13 contain the same information as Table 5.19, but information is arranged differently to facilitate the identification of the different variables.

Subjects 75 subjects were tested. The subject information is summarised in Table 5.21. Hypotheses Table 5.22 lists the variables tested in this task, and Table 5.23 lists the null hypotheses of interest to the study. Results The first null hypothesis was about the effects of the variable A (L1) on the subjects’ overall performance in Test 3. Figure 5.19 and Table 5.24 show the distribution of scores in the three L1 groups. A Levene Test of Homogeneity of Variances indicated that a non-parametric statistical test should be used with 24

23.6

23.53

23 22

21.58

21 20 19 18

NS (n = 30)

L1 +gen (n = 30)

L1 –gen (n = 15)

Figure 5.19 Test 3 – Overall group means Table 5.24 Overall Test 3 scores – Descriptives L1

n

mean

standard deviation


30 30 15 75

23.53 23.60 21.58 23.24

0.63 0.56 1.38 1.07

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

these data, and so a Kruskal-Wallis test was used instead of a between subjects ANOVA to find out whether the differences between the means of the three groups were significant. The calculations showed that these differences were indeed significant (χ2 (2) = 25.531; p < 0.0001). Hypothesis 1 was thus rejected, as the subjects’ L1 group had a significant effect on Test 3 overall scores. Post-hoc tests (Tukey HSD and Scheffé) revealed that there were significant differences between the L1 Spanish group and the L1 –gen group (p < 0.0001), and between the L1 +gen group and the L1 –gen group (p < 0.0001), but the scores of the L1 Spanish group and the L1 +gen group were not significantly different (p = 0.941). The second null hypothesis was about the interaction between L1 group and the combination of gender clues on the test items. Figure 5.20 and Table 5.25 show the distributions of scores per group and per gender clue combination. The data failed the Mauchly Test of Sphericity, so the ANOVA was done using the more conservative Greenhouse-Geisser test. The results showed that the effects of Factor A (L1 group), Factor B (clue combination) and the interaction between the two were all significant. The finings regarding null hypothesis 2 can be summarized as follows: – – –

Significant main effects of Factor A (see details in the discussion of null hypothesis 1 above) Significant main effects of Factor B (F(1,72) = 53.850; p < 0.0001) Significant interaction between Factors A and B (F(2,72) = 12.383; p < 0.0001)

Hypothesis 2 was therefore rejected. With regard to the main effects of Factor B, post hoc tests (pairwise comparisons) indicate that B5 (Anticanonical 1) and B6 (Anticanonical 2) are significantly different from all the other levels of this variable at the level of between 0.012 and < 0.001. The third and last null hypothesis was about the interaction between L1 and the word categories where the gender clues were provided in the linguistic context. Figure 5.21 and Table 5.26 show the distributions of scores per group and word class where the gender clue was marked in the contexts. The data failed the Mauchly Test of Sphericity, so the ANOVA was done using the more conservative Greenhouse-Geisser test. The results showed that the effects of Factor A (L1), Factor C (word class where gender clues reside) and the interaction between the two were all significant. Below is a summary of the results:

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars 4 B1: Fully Canonical 3

B2: Partly-canonical 1

2

B3: Partly-canonical 2

1

B4: Non-canonical but not conflictive B5: Anticanonical 1 B6: Anticanonical 2

0 L1 Spanish (n = 30)

L1 +gen (n = 30)

Li –gen (n = 15)

Figure 5.20 Test 3 scores per L1 group (Factor A) and gender clue combination (Factor B) Table 5.25 Test 3 scores per L1 group and gender clue combination – Descriptives Gender marker type (Factor B)

L1 (Factor A)

n

mean

standard deviation

Fully Canonical

Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen -gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total

30 30 15 75 30 30 15 75 30 30 15 75 30 30 15 75 30 30 15 75 30 30 15 75

4 4 3.92 3.99 3.97 4 3.83 3.96 3.97 4 4 3.99 3.97 4 4 3.99 3.73 3.77 2.25 3.5 3.9 3.83 3.58 3.82

0 0 0.29 0.12 0.18 0 0.39 0.20 0.18 0 0 0.12 0.18 0 0 0.12 0.45 0.43 0.87 0.77 0.31 0.38 0.67 0.42

Part-canonical 1 (morph=sx)

Part-canonical 2 (sem=sx)

Not canonical but not conflictive

Anticanonical 1 (morph=sx/sem)

Anticanonical 2 (morph=sx)

Chapter 5. The empirical study 13 12 missing nouns

11

missing adj 10 9 8

L1 Spanish (n = 30)

L1 +gen (n = 30)

L1 –gen (n = 15)

Figure 5.21 Test 3 score means per L1 group (Factor A) and word class where gender clues resided (Factor C) Table 5.26 Test 3 scores per L1 group and word class where gender clues resided – Descriptives Word class where gender clue resided (Factor C)

L1 (Factor A)

n

mean

standard deviation

Adjective/Determiner (missing noun)


30 30 15 75

11.93 11.87 11.5 11.83

0.25 0.35 0.9 0.47

Noun (missing adjective)


30 30 15 75

11.6 11.73 10.08 11.4

0.56 0.52 1 0.87

– – –

Significant main effects of Factor A (see details in the discussion of null hypothesis 1 above) Significant main effects of Factor C (F(1,72) = 37.900; p < 0.0001) Significant interaction between Factors A and C (F(2,72) = 11.703; p < 0.0001)

Hypothesis 3 was therefore rejected. Post-hoc tests (Tukey HSD and Scheffé) showed that there were significant differences between the L1 Spanish group and the L1 –gen group (p < 0.0001), and between the L1 +gen group and the L1 –gen group (p < 0.0001), but the scores of the L1 Spanish group and the L1 +gen group were not significantly different (p = 0.740).



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Summary and interpretation of results The statistical tests showed that the three hypotheses were should be rejected. The results of this task are similar to those of the previous tests in that they also indicates that the L1 group to which a speaker belongs makes a clear difference with regard to their performance in gender agreement contexts. Again, the +gen L1 speakers outperformed the –gen L1 speakers and were virtually the same as the NSs, and in this case the differences were even more clear-cut than in the previous tests. This last point would seem to suggest that it is not production factors (e.g., processing or communicative pressures) that account for the differences between these groups. It is not surprising to find that the mistakes made by the participants were mainly found in items with clue conflicts (i.e., the anticanonical B5 and B6 conditions). However, it is somewhat unexpected to find that the subjects were less accurate in anticanonical-1 conditions (B5) than anticanonical-2 (B6) conditions, and not the other way round, as in B5 they were presented with an extra semantic clue as well as with a syntactic gender clue, while in B6 they only had a gender clue to counteract morphological irregularity. It would seem that the semantic clues did not only fail to facilitate accuracy but they actually made it more difficult. Finally, the significant interaction between Factors A (L1) and C (word class of missing word) indicates that while recovering gender information from items with interpretable or uninterpretable gender features (i.e., nouns and adjectives respectively) does not make a difference for NSs and +gen L1 speakers, it does for the –gen L1 group. It is not immediately obvious why this should be so, as syntactically the same agreement operation needs to be computed to check the grammaticality of different candidates in both missing adjective and missing noun contexts. Perhaps this difference is indicative of other mechanisms that are called upon in the computation of gender agreement in the case of the –gen L1 group but not the NS or the +gen L1 groups. This possibility would be compatible with Hypothesis (1.5) and will be explored further in Chapter 6. .. Test 4: Grammaticality judgement task In this test ungrammatical sentences with gender mistakes were presented to the subjects, mixed with other types of ungrammatical sentences and grammatical ones. The main aim was to investigate whether the subjects were able to distinguish the grammatical sentences from the ungrammatical ones and to correct the gender mistakes where necessary. The task was also designed to test

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

whether the type of gender marker (canonical vs. non-canonical) present on the noun and the structural context where they appeared had any effect on the subjects’ ability to spot the ungrammaticality of the test sentences.

Design The test was designed in the form of a grammaticality judgement task with correction (see Appendix 14 for a copy of the test in the format in which it was presented to the subjects). The subjects simultaneously read and heard 80 sentences and had to indicate whether they were grammatical or not, and in the case of ungrammatical sentences they had to correct the mistakes. Half the sentences were grammatical and the other half were ungrammatical. The grammatical and ungrammatical sets of sentences had equal numbers of masculine, feminine, singular, plural, canonical and non-canonical items. The following structural contexts were also distributed in equal numbers among the two sets of sentences:8 (5.14) det+N+adj . . . la cultura catalana . . . the.fem culture.fem Catalan.fem ‘the Catalan culture’ (5.15) det+adj+N . . . un nuevo esquema . . . a.masc new.masc scheme.masc ‘a new scheme’ (5.16) det+N/pron A medida que aprendo la materia disfruto más de estudiarla as I-learn the.fem subject.fem I-enjoy more of studying-it.fem ‘As I learn the subject, I enjoy it more’ (5.17) det+N/adj La mayoría de las casas del pueblo están hechas de barro the majority of the.fem houses.fem of the village are made.fem of mud ‘Most houses in the village are made of mud’ (5.18) pron/adj Me lo dieron abierto . . . to-me it.masc they-gave open.masc ‘It was given to me open’

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

(5.19) pron/pron A ella la nombraron líder del partido . . . to-her her they-appointed leader of-the party ‘She was appointed leader of the party’

The full list of test sentences arranged according to grammatical context can be found in Appendix 15, and the lists of target lexical items used in the sentences is shown separately in Appendix 16.

Subjects 69 subjects were tested. The subject information is summarised in Table 5.27. Hypotheses Table 5.28 lists the variables tested through this task, and Table 5.29 lists the null hypotheses on interest here. Results The first null hypothesis was about the effects of Variable A (L1) on the subjects’ performance in Test 4. Figure 5.22 and Table 5.30 show the distribution of Table 5.27 Test 4 – Subject information L1

n

age range

age mean

prof. score range

prof. score mean


27 27 15 69

20–76 22–82 21–62

46.22 49.59 40.33

615–850 615–850 615–850

830.68 780.73 779.58


Values


A1: Spanish L1 (controls) A2: +gen L1 A3: –gen L1 B1: canonical gender marking B2: non-canonical gender marking C1: det+N+adj C2: det+adj+N C3: det+N/pron C4: det+N/adj C5: pron/adj C6: pron/pron

B. canonicity of gender marking on nouns C. structural context

Chapter 5. The empirical study 


H0 1

H0 2

H0 3

Description


There is no significant difference between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers in the way in which they (a) rate the sentences as grammatical or ungrammatical; (b) correct the ungrammatical sentences. There is no significant difference between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers in their accuracy on items with canonical and non-canonical nouns There is no significant difference between L1 Spanish speakers, L1 +gen speakers and L1 –gen speakers in the way they respond to items in the six different grammatical contexts


interaction AxB

interaction AxC

Table 5.30 Test 4 – Overall score means – Descriptives L1

n

mean

s.d.


27 27 15 69

76.33 76.22 68.8 74.65

2.43 2.22 8.14 5.24

78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64

76.33

76.22

68.8

L1 Spanish (n = 27)

L1 +gen (n = 27)

L1 –gen (n = 15)

Figure 5.22 Test 4 – Overall group means

the scores in the three L1 groups. These scores are a measure of both the accuracy with which the subjects rated sentences as grammatical or ungrammatical and the accuracy of the corrections in the ungrammatical cases.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

A one-way between subjects ANOVA was done to find out whether the differences in score means between the three groups were significant, and the calculations showed that they were (F(2,68) = 17.891; p < 0.0001). Post-hoc tests (Tukey HSD and Scheffé) revealed that there were significant differences between the L1 Spanish group and the –gen L1 group on the one hand, and between the +gen L1 and –gen L1 groups on the other. The differences between the natives and the +gen L1 group were not significant. Null hypothesis 1 was thus rejected, since the L1 had an effect on the overall scores. The second null hypothesis was about the interaction between Variable A (L1) and Variable B (canonicity of gender markers on nouns). Figure 5.23 and Table 5.31 show the distribution of scores per group and per gender marker type. These scores exclude contexts of the type exemplified in (5.18) and (5.19) 31 30 29 Canonical 28 Non-canonical 27 26 25 24 L1 Spanish

L1 +gen

L1 –gen

Figure 5.23 Test 4 scores per L1 group (Factor A) and gender marker type (Factor B) Table 5.31 Test 4 scores per L1 group and gender marker type – Descriptives Gender marker type (Factor B)

L1 (Factor A)

n

mean

standard deviation

Canonical

Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total

27 27 15 69 27 27 15 69

30.15 30.15 28.93 29.88 30.37 30.59 26.67 29.65

1.46 1.23 3.22 1.93 1.27 1.31 3.09 2.38

Non-canonical

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

as they did not contain controller nouns that could be used to classify the context as canonical/noncanical. The scores are for contexts of the type exemplified in (5.14)–(5.17). A mixed design ANOVA was carried out to test the interaction between these two factors, and the results showed that the main effects of both factors as well as the interaction between them were significant. Below is a summary of the results: – – –

Significant main effects of Factor A (see details in the discussion of null hypothesis 1 above) Significant main effects of Factor B (F(1,66) = 6.445; p < 0.025) Significant interaction between Factors A and B (F(2,66) = 14.177; p < 0.0001)

The second null hypothesis was therefore rejected, as a significant difference was found in the way in which the groups responded to items involving nouns with canonical gender marking and items with non-canonical gender marking: the –gen L1 group performed less well in non-canonical contexts than in 100 90 NS 80

L1 +gen

70

L1 –gen

60

pron/pron

pron/adj

det+N/adj

det+N/pro

det+adj+N

det+N+adj

50

† This

graph shows the same information as Table 5.32, but the raw scores in the table were converted into percentages for the graphic presentation to allow a comparison of contexts with different numbers of items. The statistical tests were carried out using the raw scores shown in the table and not the percentages used to make the graph.

Figure 5.24 Test 4 scores per L1 group (Factor A) and gender agreement context (Factor C)†

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Table 5.32 Test 4 scores per L1 group and gender agreement context – Descriptives Gender agreement context (Factor C)

L1 (Factor A)

n

mean

standard deviation

det+N+adj

Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total

27 27 15 69 27 27 15 69 27 27 15 69 27 27 15 69 27 27 15 69 27 27 15 69

14.96 15.19 14.4 14.93 14.7 15 14.33 14.74 15.14 15.48 13 14.91 15.44 15.07 13.87 14.96 7.96 7.85 6.6 7.62 7.85 7.78 6.8 7.59

0.81 0.74 1.59 1.03 0.99 1.11 1.72 1.22 1.25 0.64 1.89 1.58 0.8 1.14 1.99 1.38 0.19 0.46 1.59 0.95 0.36 0.51 1.32 0.82

det+adj+N

det+N/pron

det+N/adj

pron/adj

pron/pron

canonical ones, while the other two groups were not significantly different in the two types of contexts. The third and final null hypothesis was about the interaction between Variable A (L1) and Variable C (structural context). Figure 5.24 and Table 5.32 show the distribution of scores per group and per gender agreement context. A mixed design ANOVA was carried out to test the interaction between these factors, and the results showed that the main effects of both factors as well as the interaction between them were significant. Below is a summary of the results: – –

Significant main effects of Factor A (see details in the discussion of null hypothesis 1 above) Significant main effects of Factor C (F(1,66) = 1034.551; p < 0.0001)

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

–

Significant interaction between Factors A and C (F(2,66) = 9.503; p < 0.0001)

The third null hypothesis was thus rejected, as a significant difference was found in the way in which the groups responded in the different contexts. Post hoc tests on the main effects of Factor C showed that the –gen L1 group was significantly different from the other two, which were not significantly different from each other. Further tests showed that while the differences between the groups were not significant in det+adj+N contexts, they were significantly different in all other contexts at levels of between 0.05 and 0.0001, with the –gen L1 group performing worse than the other two.

Summary and interpretation of results Test 4 was probably the most demanding of all the tasks, as it elicited the highest number of mistakes in the three groups compared to the other tasks. Some clear contrasts emerged from the groups’ performance: the NSs and the +gen L1 speakers were similar both in the overall scores and in the distribution of errors across different contexts, and the –gen L1 group were significantly less accurate overall as well as in almost every context investigated. The –gen L1 group was significantly less accurate on non-canonical than on canonical items, while this variable did not have an effect on the other groups. There were also marked differences in the –gen L1 group’s performance in different syntactic contexts as compared with the other two groups. This would seem to suggest that the differences between the –gen L1 group and the NSs and +gen L1 speakers were both quantitative and qualitative. .. Test 5: Novel word task The aim of this test was to find out how adult L1 and L2 speakers of Spanish use different types of gender clues (syntactic, morphological and semantic) in gender assignment and agreement with novel words. The test replicates a study of L1 Spanish children by Pérez-Pereira (1991) introduced in Section 4.3.1, which was itself a replication of Karmiloff-Smith’s (1979) study of L1 French-speaking children. Below is a summary of the findings in these studies which are relevant to this test. (For other studies investigating the comparative weight of different gender clues see for example Finneman 1992, on L2 Spanish; Hardison 1992; Harley 1979; Stevens 1984; Surridge & Lessard 1984, on L2 French; Oliphant 1997, 1998, on L2 Italian; Delisle 1985, on L2 German; Zekhini & Hulstijn 1995, on L2 Dutch).

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

As part of a study of the acquisition of determiners in L1 French, KarmiloffSmith (1979) carried out five experiments with 341 children between the ages of 3 and 12 years in which novel words were used to find out what type of clues the children used to assign gender and mark agreement. She found a predominance of phonological procedures in children up to the age of approximately 9. Phonological procedures were gradually supplemented and partially replaced by semantic and syntactic ones (i.e., attention to the sex of the referent and to articles in situations of clue conflict seemed to increase with age) but the former were never completely abandoned. Cain, Weber-Olsen and Smith (1987) first replicated Karmiloff-Smith’s study in an investigation of 20 Spanish-speaking children between 3 and 12 years of age, and then Pérez-Pereira (1991) carried out a similar study on 160 L1 Spanish children between the ages of 4 and 11 using the same procedure. Their results were very similar to those of the Karmiloff-Smith study, except for some small differences (see Section 4.3.1 for details). Cain, Weber-Olsen and Smith (1987) also tested 4 groups of adult L1 English speakers studying L2 Spanish at university at 4 proficiency levels from beginners to advanced. In the analysis of the results of Test 5, a comparison will be made between the children’s and adults’ use of gender clues by comparing the results of Test 5 and those of Pérez-Pereira (1991), Cain, Weber-Olsen, and Smith (1987), and Karmiloff-Smith (1979). A second comparison will be made between adult L1 and L2 speakers in this study.

Procedure The procedure was the same as that used by Pérez-Pereira (1991), which in turn was very similar to that used by Karmiloff-Smith (1979). Pictures were presented to each subject individually and instructions were played on tape. The subjects were asked to talk about the colour of imaginary objects, animals and human-like figures which had novel names, and the subjects’ responses were recorded on a second tape recorder. The pattern of questions and answers was as shown below. Step 1: A picture is shown to the subject. Tape:

Aquí tenemos un pifar. ¿De qué color es? Here we have a.masc ‘pifar’. What colour is it? Subject: Blanco. White.masc


Step 2: Another picture with the same drawing but in a different colour is shown to the subject. Tape:

¿Y aquí qué ves? And what do you see here? Subject: Un pifar negro. A.masc black.masc ‘pifar’. Step 3 (where necessary): If the subject did not produce a clear answer, or did not use an article and the expected colour adjective, the experimenter hid the picture and asked: Experimenter: ¿Qué acabo de hacer? What have I just done? Subject: Has escondido el pifar negro. You hid the.masc black.masc ‘pifar’

Test items The 22 novel nouns created by Pérez-Pereira (1991) were used in Test 5, and coloured pictures were made to go with each of them according to the specifications of ±sexed as indicated in Table 5.33.9,10 For information about the colours used with each item and the script of the recording, see Appendices 18 and 19. Subjects 61 subjects were tested. The subject information is summarised in Table 5.35. Results The results of Test 5 are presented below together with information about the results reported in Pérez-Pereira (1991), Cain, Weber-Olsen and Smith (1987) and Karmiloff-Smith (1979).11 The main results are summarised below. 1. Morphophonological clues have more influence than syntactic clues in situations of agreement between clues in feminine items. PP: He found that 0F2>fF0.12 Results on masculine items were not reported (PP 91: 583). FF: 0F2>fF0 but 0M1=mM0 (cf. Tables 5.36 and 5.37). 2. More attention is paid to syntactic than to morphophonological information where there is conflict between clues. PP: fM1>mM2, especially in older children (PP 91: 582–583). A comparison between mF2↔fF1 was not reported. FF: fM1>mM2 and mF2>fF1 (cf. Tables 5.38 and 5.39).



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Table 5.33 Test 5 – Novel nouns and their syntactic, semantic and morphological clues Novel noun

Clues

1. un tanten 2. una lodena 3. una linolo 4. dos palires 5. un cater 6. dos lacatos 7. un tiba 8. dos carepos 9. un nepo 10. una pilin 11. un capola 12. un pifar 13. una talaz 14. dos danitas 15. dos milipos 16. dos borales 17. una liben 18. dos ticas 19. una rebo 20. una lampo 21. dos aniras 22. un satila

m00 f02 f01 0M0 mM0 0F1 mM2 001 m01 f00 mF2 mF0 fF0 0M2 0M1 0F0 fM0 0F2 fF1 fM1 002 m02

Table 5.34 Explanation of codes in Table 5.33 Syntactic clues (articles)

Semantic clues (sex)

Morphophonological clues (noun ending)

m = masculine f = feminine 0 = no syntactic clue

M = male referent F = female referent 0 = no information on sex

1 = -o 2 = -a 0 = any other noun ending

Table 5.35 Test 5 – Subject information L1

n

age range

age mean

prof. score range

prof. score mean


23 23 15 61

20–76 20–82 21–62

45.15 49.56 40.53

615–850 615–850 615–850

828.87 772.65 779.58


Table 5.36 Masculine agreement responses 0M1 dos milipos negros NS +gen –gen

100% 100% 100%

mM0 un cater negro = = =

100% 100% 100%

Table 5.37 Feminine agreement responses 0F2 dos ticas negras NS +gen –gen

100% 100% 100%

fF0 una talaz negra > > >

70.15% 59.45% 86.79%

Table 5.38 Masculine agreement responses mF2 un capola blanco NS +gen –gen

60% 62.5% 43.7%

fF1 una rebo blanco > > >

40% 60.5% 0%

Table 5.39 Feminine agreement responses fM1 una lampo blanca NS +gen –gen

100% 60% 100%

mM2 un tiba blanca > > >

0% 0% 14.43%

3. No clear difference was found in the way speakers handled sexed and nonsexed nouns. PP: He found that m00=mM0, f00=fF0 and 001 = 0M1. There were reliable differences in 0F2>002 however (PP 91: 583). FF: No differences were found in any of these contexts for natives; only one context with an added semantic clue (0M1>001) led to improvement in the case of the –gen group, and one context (0F2>002) led to improvement in the +gen group (cf. Table 5.40).



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Table 5.40 Comparison of responses to items with and without semantic clues mM0 un cater negro

m00 un tanten negro

NS 100% +gen 100% –gen 100%

= 100% = 100% = 100%

0M1 dos milipos negros NS 100% +gen 100% –gen 100%

fF0 una talaz negra 70.15% 59.45% 82.79%

001 0F2 dos carepos negros dos ticas negras = 100% = 100% > 75%

100% 100% 100

f00 una pilin negra < 93.5% < 66.67% = 85.71% 002 dos aniras negras = 100% > 87.50% = 100

Table 5.41 Masculine agreement responses mM2 un tiba negro NS +gen –gen

100% 100% 83.21%

m02 un satila negro = = >

100% 100% 70%

Table 5.42 Feminine agreement responses fF1 una rebo negra NS +gen –gen

60% 37.50% 100%

f01 una linolo negra = > >

60% 34.34% 85.71%

4. There is a contribution of natural gender in items in which there is disagreement between the article and the suffix such that the agreement of the natural gender clue with another clue increases the probability of gender being determined as a response against the contrary clue. PP: fF1>f01 and mM2>m02 (PP 91: 583). FF: There seems to be a slight contribution of semantic clues in the –gen group, less clearly in the +gen group, and no contribution in the NS group (cf. Tables 5.41 and 5.42). 5. Masculine clues are more easily recognized than feminine clues. PP: m00>f00; 0M0>0F0 and 001>002 (PP 91: 582). KS: She found that when no article was provided (and children had to decide on the basis of the


word endings alone) they were more accurate on masculine than feminine items (KS 79: 160, Table 30). FF: This is observed in the L1 Spanish and L1 +gen groups (cf. Figures 5.25–5.28), but the opposite is true of the L1 –gen group (cf. Figures 5.29–5.30). The –gen group seems to rely more on feminine clues, although this asymmetry is not as categorical as the opposite asymmetry in the NS and +gen groups. A similar type of contrast between 120 100 100 100 100 100 80 60 40 20 0 5 7 1 9

100 100 60

11

12

22

Test items

Figure 5.25 % masc agreement in contexts with masc syntactic clues (NS) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100

93.5 80

70.15

60

2

3

10

13

80 60

17

19

20

Test items

Figure 5.26 % fem agreement in contexts with fem syntactic clues (NS) 120 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 62.5 60 40 20 0 5 7 1 9 11 12 22 Test items

Figure 5.27 % masc agreement in contexts with masc syntactic clues (+gen L1)



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars 120 100 88.89 80 66.67 59.45 60 60 37.5 34.34 40 28.57 20 0 3 10 13 17 19 20 2 Test items

Figure 5.28 % fem agreement in contexts with fem syntactic clues (+gen L1) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100 100

100 85.57

83.21

70 43.7

1

5

7

9

11

12

22

Test items

Figure 5.29 % masc agreement in contexts with masc syntactic clues (–gen L1) 120 100 100 86.79 78.57 85.71 85.71 80 60 40 20 0 3 10 13 17 2

100 100

19

20

Test items

Figure 5.30 % fem agreement in contexts with fem syntactic clues (–gen L1)

the NS and +gen groups on the one hand and the –gen group on the other regarding the weight of masculine and feminine clues was found in the contexts without syntactic clues. The former showed a clear bias towards masculine agreement in these contexts, while this tendency was not so clear in the latter (cf. Figures 5.31–5.36). A similar pattern emerges for contexts with semantic clues, as shown in Figures 5.37–5.42.

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

6. The combined effect of clues in agreement can in some cases improve performance relative to items where only one clue is provided. PP: f02>f00, f02>002 and 0F2>002 (but fF0=f00, as reported above). Results on masculine items were not reported (PP 91: 582–583). FF: It is not clear that this is the case in adult speakers, although there is a very slight trend in this direction for some items (cf. the masculine items in Figures 5.43–5.48 and the feminine items in Figures 5.49–5.54). 120 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 60 40 25 20 0 0 4 8 14 15 16 18 6

0 21

Test items

Figure 5.31 % masc agreement in contexts with no syntactic clues (NS) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100 100 75

0 4

0

0

6

8

14

0

0

15

16

18

21

Test items

Figure 5.32 % fem agreement in contexts with no syntactic clues (NS) 120 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 60 40 28.57 12.5 20 0 0 4 8 14 15 16 18 21 6 Test items

Figure 5.33 % masc agreement in contexts with no syntactic clues (+gen L1)

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100

87.5

71.43

0 4

0

0

6

8

0 14

0

15 16

18

21

Test items

Figure 5.34 % fem agreement in contexts with no syntactic clues (+gen L1)

120 100 78.57 75 80 69.5 60 40 20 0 4 8 6

100 75

0 14

15 16

0 18

0 21

Test items

Figure 5.35 % masc agreement in contexts with no syntactic clues (–gen L1)

120 100 100 80 60 40 30.5 21.43 25 20 0 4 8 14 6

100 100

25 0 15 16

18

21

Test items

Figure 5.36 % fem agreement in contexts with no syntactic clues (–gen L1)

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100 100 100

100

34.82 20 4

5

7

14

15

17

0 20

Test items

Figure 5.37 % masc agreement in contexts with MASC semantic clues (NS)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100 70 55.7 40 0 6

11

0 12

0 16

13

18

19

Test items

Figure 5.38 % fem agreement in contexts with FEM semantic cues (NS)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100 100 100

100 71.43 40

28.57 4

5

7

14

15

17

20

Test items

Figure 5.39 % masc agreement in contexts with MASC semantic cues (+gen L1)

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100 57.14 37.5

37.5 0 6

11

0 12

0 16

13

18

19

Test items

Figure 5.40 % fem agreement in contexts with FEM semantic cues (+gen L1)

120 100 100 83.21 80 71.43 60 40 20 0 0 5 7 4 14

100

15

0 17

0 20

Test items

Figure 5.41 % masc agreement in contexts with MASC semantic cues (–gen L1)

120 100 85.71 80 57.14 60 40 25 21.43 14.28 20 0 11 12 13 16 6

100 100

18

19

Test items

Figure 5.42 % fem agreement in contexts with FEM semantic cues (–gen L1)


2 agreeing cues

Masculine items un nepo (syn+morph)

dos milipos (morph+syn)

un cater (syn+sem)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100

100

100

NS

+gen

–gen

100

100

NS

+gen

–gen

Figure 5.44

Figure 5.43

1 clue

100

100

100

100

NS

+gen

–gen

Figure 5.45

un tanten (syn)

dos carepos (morph)

dos palires (sem)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100

NS

100

+gen

100

–gen

100

100 69.5

NS

+gen

–gen

Figure 5.47

Figure 5.46

100

100 75

NS

+gen

–gen

Figure 5.48

1 clue

2 agreeing cues

Feminine items una lodena (syn+morph)

dos ticas (morph+syn)

una talaz (syn+sem)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

80

NS

88.89

+gen

78.57

–gen

100

NS

100

+gen

100

–gen

86.79 70.15

59.45

NS

+gen

Figure 5.49

Figure 5.50

Figure 5.51

una pilin (syn)

dos aniras (morph)

dos borales (sem)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

93.5 66.67

NS

Figure 5.52

+gen

85.71

–gen

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100

NS

Figure 5.53

87.5

+gen

100

–gen

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

100

–gen

100 71.43

NS

Figure 5.54

+gen

–gen



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Summary and interpretation of results The results seem to indicate that adult NSs and NNSs make similar use of gender clues in some respects. For example, in cases of conflicts syntactic clues tend to be prevalent. Morphological clues are also quite strong, only appearing as weaker than syntactic clues in contexts where there is conflict between different types of clues. Semantic clues appear to be the weakest, and their main effect is seemingly to strengthen the bias of a syntactic or morphological feature when they are in agreement rather than to effect influence on their own. It might be concluded from this that the three adult groups have set the relative strength of gender clues in the following order: syntax>morphology>semantics. In this respect, they behave similarly to the older children in PP, CWOS and KS. CWOS report on a contrast between the NS children and –gen L1 adults: Although distinctions in L1 and L2 performance here are not clear-cut, it would appear that adults relied heavily on a semantic strategy, as a majority made correct responses [where there was competition between semantic and morphological clues], whereas the least linguistically proficient children showed reliance on the phonological strategy from Spanish [. . .]. (p. 350)

There was no clear evidence for the use of a strong semantic strategy in any of the groups investigated here. The modest effect of semantic clues can be observed by comparing the results in Figures 5.31–5.36, which contain items with no semantic clues, and those in Figures 5.37–5.42, which contain items with semantic clues. The clearest difference between the groups in this study was the fact that the adult NS and +gen L1 groups relied on masculine clues more strongly than on feminine clues, while the opposite was true of the –gen L1 group. This was particularly clear in the comparison of feminine and masculine syntactic clues (Figures 5.25–5.30). These results may suggest that a different underlying mechanism of gender assignment and/or agreement marking are in place in the –gen L1 speakers’ grammars. It is also interesting to note that this difference is particularly evident when syntactic clues are involved. .. Test 6: Gender assignment check This test was the last task I asked my subjects to perform, and it required them to indicate the gender of the 112 nouns that were used in the test items of the other experimental tasks. This test is different from the others in that it simply works as a control for the assignment of gender values to the nouns used in the other tasks. It is also different in that the target items are presented in

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

isolation, without any linguistic or situational context. This makes it the most artificial of all the tasks, and therefore more likely to tap conscious grammatical knowledge. The test’s main aims were: a. to provide information that would allow one to compare the subjects’ level of accuracy in a task that required conscious manipulation of information about the gender of nouns and their performance in tasks where their knowledge of gender was measured without explicit reference to the linguistic properties that were the object of investigation (i.e., all the other tests); and b. to check whether the lower performance of the –gen L1 groups in the other tasks might be due to difficulties with gender assignment, which could then be conceived as a lexical problem, rather than difficulties with gender agreement, which would be a morphological and/or syntactic issue.

Items and presentation The test consisted of a list of 112 nouns presented in alphabetical order (with five exceptions, which I discuss below). The subjects were asked to indicate whether the nouns on the list took the masculine definite article el, its feminine counterpart la, or either of the two, and they were provided with three sample answers. There was a dotted line to the left of each noun, where the subjects were asked to write down the article(s) they would use with these nouns. A copy of the test sheet is provided in Appendix 20, and Appendices 21–25 have a breakdown of Test 6 items according to the other tasks where they were used. There was no time limit on this task, but the subjects did not take more than two or three minutes to complete it in most cases. The lexical items were all presented in the singular form, except for five cases. One was anteojos ‘glasses’, which is not used in the singular. The other four cases were the plural forms of the following nouns: ave ‘bird’, aire ‘air’, año ‘year’ and azúcar ‘sugar’. The first three begin in stressed /a/ and, given that there is a phonological rule in Spanish which requires feminine nouns beginning in stressed /a/ to take a masculine article in the singular but a feminine one in the plural (cf. Section 4.1.4), the test asked subjects to provide the article of both the singular and plural forms. Only the first of the three nouns in stressed initial /a/ is feminine, so the phonological rule is expected to apply in this case alone. The correct answers were as follows: (5.20) el ave – las aves ↔ the phonological rule applies only here (5.21) el aire – los aires

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

(5.22) el año – los años

The fourth item, azúcar, is a special case. In some Spanish varieties it is feminine and in others it is masculine (as seen, for example, in adjectival and pronominal agreement), so the two logical sets of responses would be expected to be as follows: (5.23) el azúcar – los azúcares ↔ in the masculine variety (5.24) la azúcar – las azúcares ↔ in the feminine variety

However, the standard forms in those countries where the feminine variety is spoken are instead: (5.25) el azúcar – las azúcares

This set cannot be the result of the application of the phonological rule that applies to nouns with initial stressed /a/ because azúcar has word stress in the second syllable, not the first. It is not clear then how this has come to be, but whatever its historical reasons, it is the attested set in Latin America, where most of the subjects live.13 To avoid getting mechanistic answers from the subjects, the forms of ave, aves, aire, aires, año, años, azúcar and azúcares were not presented in alphabetical order but interspersed among the other items in the test.

Gender discrimination method In the first version of the test that I piloted, I asked subjects to use m or f to indicate whether the nouns were masculine or feminine. I then partly re-designed the test and asked the subjects to write the definite article they would use with the nouns instead. I re-tested some of the subjects who had done the first version using the new gender discrimination method, and found no difference in the responses. I decided to keep the version with the articles because I knew that, unlike the university students who participated in the piloting, most of my subjects would have little or no formal L2 instruction, and I thought that writing the articles would be more intuitive for them than deciding whether the nouns were masculine or feminine. A further disadvantage of using m or f is the confusion that may arise between these terms and those referring to biological sex. My final decision was also due to the fact that I went through all the tasks with the subjects after the pilots to check what they had found easy or difficult, whether the instructions had been clear, etc., and it emerged from many of the interviews that, in order to decide whether the items in Test


6 were masculine or feminine, the subjects thought about whether they would use them with el or la.

Subjects 110 subjects were tested. The high number of subjects in this task is due to the fact that everyone who did at least one of the other experimental tasks was asked to do this one as well (i.e., not all subjects did all of Tests 1 to 5, but everybody did Test 6 and the UWPT). Research questions This task was designed with the aim of answering the following questions: (5.26) Is there any difference in gender assignment accuracy between the groups? (5.27) Are there any differences between the subjects’ accuracy on this task and the other tasks?

An answer to (5.26) can provide information about the subjects’ knowledge of interpretable gender features. Assuming that gender assignment is determined by interpretable gender features of the noun and that this is knowledge stored in the mental lexicon, accuracy level differences between the groups could be interpreted as a difference in their success at acquiring interpretable features of nouns. An answer to (5.27) would help to discriminate between the subjects’ knowledge of interpretable gender features, which are responsible for deciding whether a particular noun belongs to the default [–f] class or the [+f] class, and their knowledge of uninterpretable gender features, which are responsible for gender agreement. There are at least three possible outcomes, as follows: a. The subjects may be equally (in-)accurate in all tasks, including Test 6. Assuming that the other tasks are mainly testing knowledge of uninterpretable gender features and Test 6 is testing their knowledge of the interpretable counterpart, if the subjects performed at the same level of accuracy in all of them, this would indicate that gender features of both kinds pose the same level of difficulty to learners. b. The subjects may be worse at Test 6 than at the other tasks. If this were the case, we could conclude that the main barrier to mastering gender is learning to classify nouns correctly into feminine and/or masculine. It could also mean that it is more difficult to access knowledge of gender when the items are presented out of context, and that there must be clues in the linguistic or situational context that aid in accessing gender information.



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

c. If the subjects were better at Test 6 than the other tasks (in which they were very good), we could conclude that learning the gender values of individual nouns is not an insurmountable task, and therefore accounts of persistent divergence must lie elsewhere.

Results Table 5.43 shows the distribution of the scores in the three L1 groups. A nonparametric test was required in this case, as the scores were not normally distributed. A Kruskal-Wallis test was carried out and the results indicated that there were no significant differences between the groups (χ2 (2) = 6.755; p = 0.054). Summary and interpretation of results The answer to question (5.26) is straightforward: there were no significant differences between the three groups in their ability to say what gender nouns were. This also confirms the anecdotal reports from several subjects who commented that this task was quite easy compared to the others. The first thing to note in relation to question (5.27) is that the accuracy rates for all groups in relation to the scores in other tasks were extremely high, and although the subjects also performed very well in the other tasks, the accuracy rates for Test 6 are the highest. The second interesting observation is that the –gen L1 group did comparatively much better in this task than in the others. The conclusion with respect to the three possible outcomes outlined above would appear to be close to the third one, especially in the case of the –gen L1 group, where the improvement was the greatest. Assuming that this task tested knowledge of interpretable gender features, one can conclude that these features are not what is at the root of the differences observed in the other tasks. Table 5.43 Test 6 – Overall score means – Descriptives L1

n

accuracy mean

accuracy %


42 53 15 110

111.58 111.21 110.89

99.62 99.29 99.01

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

. Overall summary and interpretation of results A comparison of the subjects’ performance across all tasks is presented in Table 5.44. Although there is some variation in the results of the tasks reported here, a number of clear patterns have also emerged from them. The most important finding in view of the aims of the study is that the overall results seem to support hypothesis (1.5), as they show that +gen L1 speakers can perform at NS levels in a range of tasks designed to test knowledge of grammatical gender, whereas –gen L1 speakers are generally successful and yet consistently less targetlike than the +gen L1 group. Modality (i.e., whether the task was presented in written or oral form) did not seem to have a significant effect on the subjects’ performance: results from the interviews and Tests 3, 4 and 5, which were (fully or partly) oral, did not yield different result patterns from the other tasks, which were written. The same general patterns also hold whether production, comprehension or metalinguistic judgements are measured. Researchers arguing that NNS divergence can be explained as a result of performance errors in production may have predicted that the NNS groups would be better at comprehension and/or metalinguistic tasks than production tasks, but there is no clear evidence in the results that this is the case. It has also been proposed that the syntax-to-PF mapping is more problematic for NNSs than for NSs and that this can account for the attainment differences between the two. If we take noncanonical gender marking as potentially involving more complex syntax-PF mapping mechanisms than canonical gender marking, one would expect to find poorer NNS performance in the noncanonical contexts. The form of gender markers was controlled for in most of the tests so a comparison between performance on canonical vs. noncanonical markers can be done. The results suggest that canonicity can have an effect on performance, but there are indications that this cannot be the full account of NNS divergence. For example, in Test 1 the three groups were less accurate on noncanonical than in canonical items, so the idea that noncanonical markers can lead learners into difficulty due to the complexity of the syntax-PF mapping finds some support. However, the predicted NS vs. NNS contrast does not obtain. Test 3 allows a more detailed view of the subjects’ performance on different types of items, and here the results suggest that while the NSs and the +gen L1 speakers are slightly less accurate on anticanonical items, this factor affects the –gen L1 group to a much higher degree, and this is confirmed by the statistically significant interaction between L1 and canonicity. In Test 4 the canonicity of gender markers did not have an effect on the NS or the +gen L1

no

no

NS: 97.93 +gen: 92.4 –gen: 81.33 NS = +gen > –gen

yes

yes: number and Case

NS: 100 +gen: 100 –gen: 91 NS = +gen > –gen

Accuracy order

yes

yes

Does it allow comparison of performance on canonical vs. noncanonical items? Does it allow comparison of performance on different syntactic contexts? Does it allow direct comparison of performance on other nominal features? Overall accuracy rates (in %)

written/oral comprehension

oral production

Test 1 Guessing game task

Modality Data type

Interviews


yes: number and Case

no

written comprehension/ production no

Test 2 Missing word choice task

Table 5.44 Comparison of the subjects’ performance across all tasks


no

yes

yes

written comprehension

Test 3 Cloze/Multiple correction

NS: 95.41 +gen: 95.27 –gen: 86 NS = +gen > –gen

no

yes

written/oral metalinguistic/ production yes

Test 4 GJT with task

n/a

n/a

no

no

yes

oral production

Test 5 Novel word

NS: 99.62 +gen: 99.29 –gen: 99.01 NS = +gen = –gen

no

no

yes

written production

Test 6 Assignment check

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Chapter 5. The empirical study 

group, but it had a significant effect on the –gen L1 speakers. Again, although for different reasons, NS vs. NNS contrasts are not as predicted. Finally, no evidence of canonical/noncanical asymmetry was found in the interview data for any of the groups. In conclusion, syntax-PF mapping complexities in the domain of gender do not appear to have the effects predicted by those suggesting that difficulties in this mapping can account for NNS divergence. Test 5 shows that the three groups have set the strength of morphological gender cues at the same relative value (i.e., intermediate between syntactic and semantic cues). This suggests that it is not the case that –gen L1 speakers disregard the information about gender provided by the forms of nominals. This is intreaguing in the face of fairly consistent differences in the performances of this and the other two groups across the different tasks. There appear to be at least two effects of the structural contexts where gender features appear. The first is related to whether the target feature is marked on nouns or on categories that are targets of gender agreement. This lends empirical support to the theoretical distinction between interpretable and uninterpretable gender features, as the former are marked on nouns and the latter on gender targets. The –gen L1 group’s performance in the interviews and in Test 3 suggests that interpretable and uninterpretable gender features pose a different degree of difficulty for them (the former greater than the latter). This is further confirmed by a comparison of their performance on the interview and Tests 1–4 (aimed to assess knowledge of uninterpretable gender) on the one hand, and Test 6 (aimed to assess knowledge of interpretable gender) on the other. Interestingly, however, the NS and +gen L1 groups do not show marked differences along the ±interpretable distinction. The second sense in which the structural context of gender marking was found to have an effect on the subjects’ performance relates to gender agreement accuracy in different configurations. Test 4 investigated the effects of this variable and the results show that while there is some effect of context in all groups, the trends are different for the NS and +gen L1 group on the one hand and the –gen L1 group on the other (see Table 5.32 and Figure 5.24 for details). The NS and +gen L1 group are slightly more accurate in contexts involving pronouns than in other contexts, while the –gen L1 group are less accurate in pronoun contexts than in those with nouns. Also, the differences in performance in different contexts is small in the NS and +gen L1 groups, but more marked in the –gen L1 group, suggesting that the latter are more sensitive to the configuration where gender agreement takes place than the former. Another interesting contrast emerges from the comparison of performance on gender and number. NSs and +gen L1 speakers make more number than

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

gender agreement mistakes, in a way that is parallel to what has been found in error inducing experiments in NSs (e.g., Antón-Méndez 1996, 1999; Igoa, García-Albea & Sánchez-Casas 1999; see Section 4.2 for more details). However, and regardless of the exact accuracy rates, the opposite is true of –gen L1 speakers, who make more gender than number mistakes in the tasks that allowed the comparison (i.e., the interview and Test 2). This suggests that the differences between the NS and +gen L1 group vs. the –gen L1 group are not merely quantitative but also qualitative. The aim of this empirical investigation was to try to find answers for research questions (1.2) and (1.3), repeated below for convenience. (1.2)

Can adult learners acquire nativelike knowledge of grammatical gender in the L2?

The answer to this question seems to be yes, for at least some adult L2 learners (in this case the +gen L1 speakers) perform in a way that is indistinguishable from NSs in a range of tasks designed to measure their accuracy in production, comprehension and metalinguistic judgements of grammatical gender in the L2. (1.3)

In adult L2 learners, is the possibility of nativelike attainment in the area of grammatical gender in determined by the learner’s L1?

The clear contrast between the performance of the +gen L1 and –gen L1 groups suggests that the answer to this question should also be yes. Moreover, the +gen L1 vs. –gen L1 asymmetries related to uninterpretable gender features responsible for agreement and not the interpretable features responsible for gender assignment, as predicted by hypothesis (1.5). Having established that adult L2 learners can acquire targetlike knowledge of L2 grammatical gender (and other features, such as number and Case), and that the learners’ L1 has a visible effect on the shape of the L2 endstate grammar, we are now is a good position to reconsider the accounts of L2 attainment presented in previous chapters. This will be discussed in the next and final chapter.

Chapter 6

Discussion

. Revisiting research questions and hypotheses The review of the literature and the study reported in Chapter 5 suggest the following as answers to research questions (1.2) and (1.3): (6.1) a.

adult L2 learners can acquire nativelike knowledge of grammatical gender; b. the learner’s L1 plays a crucial role in determining whether nativelike attainment is possible in the area of grammatical gender; c. extralinguistic factors such as age, LoE, task modality and language skill tested may account for some of the variability but cannot explain away the L1 effects on attainment in these adult learners

Assuming that these empirical observations are correct, it is now possible to move on to a deeper level of analysis. Given my assumption that UG and the computational procedures of FL are fully available in SLA, successful acquisition of a property of the L2 such as grammatical gender should not need much explanation beyond what is necessary to account for the L1 acquisition of these properties. However, gender has been shown to be a persistent problem for some adult L2 learners. Failure to acquire a property of the L2 for which there is unambiguous positive evidence in the input is intriguing. Given that some L2 learners (in this case the +gen group) are indistinguishable from NSs in their production, comprehension and metalinguistic judgements of grammatical gender, we can rule out the possibility that the mere fact that these speakers already have knowledge of a previous language prevents them from fully acquiring the relevant properties of the L2. This suggests that the concerns expressed by Cook (1992) and Ellis (1991) about L2 speakers being intrinsically different from NSs, and therefore not directly comparable to them, may not be fully justified. Research question (1.4) was proposed as a way of focusing the enquiry on the causes of persistent failure to become targetlike. This question is now

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

reformulated in (6.2) to take into account the findings of the study reported in Chapter 5. (6.2) What prevents the subset of nearnatives who have persistent divergent representations of grammatical gender from becoming fully targetlike in the way that NSs and other L2 learners do?

The fact that the nearnatives whose L1 has grammatical gender have proven to be indistinguishable from NSs in the tests reported in Chapter 5, while those whose L1 does not have gender performed significantly worse, suggests that the functional feature makeup of the L1 has a crucial impact on L2 attainment. These facts are compatible with the predictions of hypothesis (1.5). Although quite suggestive in itself, evidence from the SLA of grammatical gender alone cannot be taken as conclusive evidence in favour of hypothesis (1.5). The acquisition of other PFFs by adult L2 learners should also be investigated before a definite conclusion can be reached. Moreover, a comparison with child L2 learners would also be necessary if all the predictions were to be tested (see Table 5.2 in Section 5.1.2 for the full set of predictions). I shall summarise some of the evidence about other areas of the grammar that is already available in the next section. .. Second language acquisition of other PFFs There are a number of studies of advanced or nearnative L2 speakers that indicate that the predictions of hypothesis (1.5) are largely correct beyond the acquisition of grammatical gender. Initial reference to some of these studies was made in Table 3.2, Section 3.2.4. Uninterpretable number would appear to be a PFF, like [ugen]. Some languages show evidence of having it in [F] while others do not, Chinese being one of the languages that does not appear to have [unum] in its FF inventory.1 Chinese marks plural lexically on personal pronouns and [+human] vocatives, but it has no number agreement between Num heads and nominals or verbs. When number is not marked lexically it must be inferred from the discourse or situational context (see for example Yip & Rimmington 1997; or Li & Thompson 1981, for descriptions of Chinese grammar). Young (1989) carried out a study of the acquisition of plural marking in 12 adult Chinese speakers of L2 English. Six of the informants were classified as low proficiency speakers (with TOEFL scores from 270 to 407) and six were classified as high proficiency speakers (with TOEFL scores from 477 to 573). The subjects were interviewed twice, once by a native English speaker and once by a Chinese speaker of L2 English.

Chapter 6. Discussion 

The interviews were transcribed and the data were coded for number of obligatory plural contexts. The aim of the study was to test how the following factors influenced the degree to which the subjects marked the plural: – – – –

the situational context the subject’s level of proficiency in the L2 semantic, syntactic and phonological features of the linguistic context the degree of redundancy of plural marking in the same clause

The results indicate that the semantic factors investigated (definiteness and animacy) did not have a significant effect on the combined data. The phonological environment had a significant effect in the low proficiency group only, such that -s marking was promoted when the final segment of the stem was a vowel, stop or nasal sound and it was inhibited when the final segment of the stem was a sibilant or lateral. None of the phonological environments investigated had any significant effects in the high proficiency group, however. The results for redundant marking were somewhat surprising: the presence of numerals or these/those favoured redundant marking of plural on the head noun, while nouns were least likely to be marked for number in cases where number was not marked anywhere else in the NP. Young summarized his findings on the advanced subjects as follows: [. . .] although highly proficient speakers of English as a second language exhibit a higher rate of -s plural marking than less proficient learners, the acquisition of a categorical target rule is by no means complete in even the most proficient informant in the study. (p. 74)

It may be possible to interpret Young’s findings as showing that Chinese speakers misanalyse English plural -s as a kind of affixal classifier. Another case where uninterpretable number features seem to be persistently problematic is in the longitudinal study conducted by Long (2003) of a Japanese woman living in Hawaii who marks number agreement quite inconsistently in English, despite the fact that she has been immersed in an English-speaking environment for 52 years, is motivated to learn and is a sociable and well-educated person. The persistent problems with number that Chinese learners of English appear to have is in contrast with the success of other groups of learners. A case in point are the English speakers of L2 Spanish reported in Franceschina (1999, 2001b). These learners had persistent problems with the marking of gender but were fully targetlike on number. These findings are interesting because although both English and Spanish have uninterpretable number features, they are marked on a partially different set of lexical items in each language. For example, adjectives

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

and passive participles are marked for number in Spanish, but not in English. Nevertheless, the L2 speaker in this study seemed to have acquired fully nativelike competence for number marking in the L2, despite these differences. This provides empirical support for the assumptions about transfer outlined in Section 2.7, where it was suggested that it is [F]L1 , not LEXL1 , that ultimately constrains LEXL2 building. The contrast between the L1 Chinese/L2 English and L1 English/L2 Spanish studies on the acquisition of number marking is compatible with the predictions of hypothesis (1.5). A similar contrast is observed in the results of two studies of the acquisition of Past Tense marking in L2 English already mentioned in Section 3.2. Lardiere (1998a, b, 2000) investigated the accuracy of Past Tense marking in an L1 Chinese speaker (Patty) who had almost 19 years of naturalistic exposure to English and was highly functional in it, and Liszka (2001) investigated a group of advanced L1 German and L1 Chinese speakers of L2 English. The results of these studies showed that while the Chinese speakers had persistent problems with the production and interpretation of Past Tense in English, the Germans were fully nativelike. Assuming that Chinese does not have [upast] in its FF inventory and that German does, these results are again correctly predicted by hypothesis (1.5). Lardiere (1998a, b) reports that her L1 Chinese informant was fully targetlike on the marking of pronoun case in L2 English. This is remarkable considering that she was so inaccurate on Past Tense morphology. This finding is also interesting because Chinese does not mark Case morphologically. If hypothesis (1.5) is correct, along with my assumption that structural Case is a universal feature, then all L2 learners should in principle be able to acquire targetlike marking of structural Case in the L2, regardless of what the L1/L2 pairing may be and whether or not structural Case is morphologically realized in the L1 or the L2.2 I am not aware of any study showing that structural Case is persistently problematic in nearnatives, and this, together with evidence such as Patty’s, suggests that the L2 acquisition of Case is compatible with the predictions of hypothesis (1.5). It would be interesting to conduct a comprehensive meta-study of the existing literature to find out to what degree the predictions of hypothesis (1.5) may be confirmed. .. Could other theories account for the data at hand? A further issue that needs to be explored before hypothesis (1.5) can be considered as a serious candidate to answer research question (6.2) is whether

Chapter 6. Discussion 

the results of the present study and other evidence reviewed so far may be equally accounted for by competing theories of NNS divergence. Three alternative accounts were considered in Section 3.2 – the no access to UG, peripheral problems, and L1 influence accounts – and I shall now discuss how far they can go towards explaining the empirical data in this study. It would be difficult to account for the results under the assumption that L2 grammars are not constrained by UG, as at least some of the subjects were indistinguishable from the NS controls in the full range of tasks. Even if one allowed the possibility that they might have achieved this not through UGguided knowledge but through the use of general cognitive skills, it would be difficult to explain the differential results of the –gen and +gen L1 groups on the basis of cognitive skill differences. The account suggesting that NNS divergence should be explained as a result of problems in the periphery of CHL , like the previous account, makes predictions that should in principle apply across the board. These accounts do not accommodate persistent selective L1 differences except in an ad hoc manner, because they propose generalized computational3 deficiencies in the functioning of FL, the first assuming that UG does not operate in adult SLA and the second that the interface of syntax with other modules (PF in particular) is defective in adult learners. The following example highlights how problematic some of the data can be for generalized computational deficiencies accounts. One of the observations made about spontaneous spoken data from the interviews discussed early in Chapter 5 was that there was a marked asymmetry in the occurrence of gender errors, such that they occurred in one NNS group but not the other, and when they occurred they were only found in word categories that were targets of gender (e.g., determiners, adjectives) but not on gender triggers (i.e., nouns). The studies cited in the previous section also show that persistent divergence can be found in certain clearly defined areas of the grammar and not in others, and in some clearly defined groups of learners but not in others. It is not immediately obvious how the non-UG and peripheral problems accounts could account for such patterns of divergence in a principled way. In other words, their predictions seem to be too unconstrained. An aspect of the findings that would be difficult to account for if NNS divergence was to be explained exclusively as the result of faulty syntax-PF mappings or processing errors in the retrieval of forms from the lexicon is the fact that basically the same results hold whether the subjects are assessed through tests of production, comprehension or metalinguistic judgements. The prediction here would be that production should be more negatively affected than comprehension or metalinguistic intuitions, but this was not the case here.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Also, in the absence of independent evidence to suggest that L2 learners have difficulty with morphology per se (cf. Beck 1998, and the results of Test 5 here) or an account of why the morphological module would misread the output of the syntax in adult learners, too many questions remain unanswered. The last competing theory of NNS divergence considered in Section 3.2 was Full Transfer/Full Access. This theory is conceptually attractive, as it can provide a principled account of the performance of the +gen group: uninterpretable gender features are present in the L1 so they should also be in the L2, as they are assumed to be transferred from the L1 into the L2 initial state. The learnability task that these learners face consists only of mapping new morphological material onto these transferred features. Accounting for the behaviour of the –gen L1 group is more problematic. In the case of the –gen L1 speakers uninterpretable gender features cannot be transferred from the L1, as the [F]L1 does not have them, but given that there is positive, unambiguous evidence for their presence in the L2 input and that L2 learners are assumed to have access to the full range of UG resources, FT/FA would predict that these learners should eventually be able to acquire them. However the results reported in Chapter 5 suggest that they are not. It would be difficult to argue that the L2 input is ambiguous in this case. Unlike the clear cases of ambiguous input investigated by Hulk (1991) and Müller (1998) discussed in Section 3.2, it is hard to see what alternative interpretation these learners could have for gender morphology. The evidence for the presence of gender is quite salient in Spanish, as gender marking is ubiquitous and it is not morphologically fused with other categories as it is in some other languages (e.g., Italian fuses gender and number in single morphological realizations). The results from this study indicate that the L1 exerts its influence in shaping the L2 endstate not only in areas of the grammar where the input available may be ambiguous, but also where there is unambiguous positive evidence in the L2 for the presence of particular features. It is difficult to see how FT/FA would account for why L2 learners fail to pick up the clues in the input in the latter case. In summary, a drawback of the first two proposals is that their predictions are very general and they do not seem to be able to determine in a precise enough way the specific areas that will be persistently divergent in specific groups of learners. FT/FT does not have this problem, and it makes concrete, principled and testable predictions about what is and what is not achievable in the L2 endstate. However, it has been shown that the FT/FA prediction regarding the acquisition of grammatical gender, namely that it should be fully acquirable given that it is not subject to ambiguity problems and there is clear

Chapter 6. Discussion 

positive evidence for it in the input, is not supported by the facts, as shown by the study in Chapter 5.

. A representational account of divergence in the L2 endstate The motivation for the study was the desire to find out what might explain the selective and persistent divergence typical of the L2 endstate. A number of assumptions were made about the nature of language and language acquisition generally, and the idea of a critical period for the acquisition of parameterized aspects of the grammar was adopted from earlier proposals by Hawkins and Chan (1997), Smith and Tsimpli (1995) and Tsimpli and Roussou (1991). Below is a summary of the key ideas in the resulting representational account of divergence in the L2 endstate. (6.3) Summary of the proposal a. The computational resources for human language CHL are innate and fully available throughout a person’s life. All natural language acquisition, including adult SLA, is UG constrained.4 b. Representational resources F are fully available at birth, and a subset [F] of these features is selected in early childhood for L1 grammar building. Parametric variation in the syntax of specific languages is restricted to the selection of optional functional features (PFFs) from F. PFFs are acquirable in early life and become inaccessible in adult language acquisition unless they are present in the learner’s [F]L1 . c. The PFFs present in a speaker’s [F]L1 are not language specific in their application. Features from [F]L1 can be used in the construction of L2 lexical items (LEXL2 ).

An important issue that this proposal addresses directly is the pattern of variation in L2 outcomes. It does so in a principled way and makes testeable predictions about what can be maximally achieved by different groups of L1 speakers in specific L2s. The proposal says nothing about the lower bound of achievement, however. It is beyond the scope of this proposal to try to establish how much exposure to input is necessary for the presence of PFFs to be recognized and incorporated into the L2 grammar. I shall assume that there must be some minimum requirement on the quantity of input that a learner must be exposed to and also that the learner needs to be at the right developmental stage in order to be able to acquire a given property, but I shall remain open

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

about the exact details. I shall therefore add caveat (6.4) to the proposal, to avoid possible misinterpretations of the ideas in (6.3). (6.4) Having a given PFF in [F]L1 is a necessary condition for achieving a fully targetlike L2 ultimate attainment, but it is not a sufficient one.

Remaining agnostic about what constitutes the minimum amount of input necessary for language to be acquired can be problematic if one wishes to investigate endstate grammars. One pragmatic way of getting round this problem is to work with very advanced speakers with many years of (preferably naturalistic) exposure to the L2. This was the strategy adopted here. As mentioned earlier, research has shown that after a certain period of exposure to the L2 continued exposure does not seem to make a clear difference in terms of increased proficiency (e.g. Flege & Liu 2001; Birdsong 1992: 735; DeKeyser 2000: 524), so this strategy finds some justification. Longitudinal studies of this type of learners would of course be preferable where possible. .. Compensatory strategies Although the –gen L1 group behaved in a way that was systematically different from the +gen group and the NS controls, it was nevertheless fairly accurate overall. One may ask how this was possible in the absence of syntactic (uninterpretable) gender features. This is unlikely to be a case of misanalysis, as there does not seem to be anything in the L1 (or other natural languages) that gender phenomena could be mistaken for. One possibility is that these speakers may have used compensatory strategies to help them to produce language in ways that closely resemble the TL. Nevertheless, this knowledge would not have had the same status as knowledge of language based on the UG representational primitives that NSs use, and that is why it approximated the target norm but when examined closely it exhibited some systematic differences from nativelike knowledge. This idea is not new – other researchers have suggested it previously for the acquisition of gender (e.g., Carroll 1989: 578–579; Guillelmon & Grosjean 2000: 25; Shelton 1997: 243ff.) and other areas of the grammar (e.g., Hawkins & Chan 1997; Hawkins, Towell, & Bazergui 1993; Liszka 2004; Meisel 1991; Smith & Tsimpli 1995; Tsimpli & Roussou 1991). Different individuals, or the same individuals at different times, may resort to more or less effective compensatory strategies in their efforts to make their language use match the TL. The various degrees of success with which this is done may account, at least partly, for the variability commonly observed

Chapter 6. Discussion 

in the L2 endstate. Successful emulation of the TL input by learners lacking appropriate categorical knowledge may be susceptible to factors such as the learner’s verbal ability, the structure of the L2, the complexity of the target area, and instruction or training. Learners’ verbal ability has been found to correlate positively with levels of L2 attainment in older learners (though not in young children) and a weaker but also positive correlation has been found with general intelligence (Carroll 1981, 1990; DeKeyser 2000; Harley & Hart 1997; Sasaki 1993, 1999; Skehan 1989; Wesche, Edwards, & Wells 1982). There is also abundant evidence that training can help learners give the impression of being nativelike with regard to L2 accent (e.g., Flege 1989; Jamieson & Morosan 1989; Logan, Lively & Pisoni 1991; Pisoni, Aslin, Perey & Hennesy 1982). It is less clear how dramatic the influence of instruction or training may be in the area of morphosyntax, but there is some evidence to suggest that performance can also be improved through instruction in this area, at least in experimental tasks (e.g., Ortega 2001). Some support for the proposal that learners can resort to compensatory strategies comes from the documented use of such strategies in at least one other language learning context in which the outcomes are also highly variable, namely impaired language acquisition. For example, a number of preventive and corrective strategies deployed by agrammatics have been uncovered. In this population the reliance on specific strategies is partly determined by the severity of the impairment, but it also depends on the individual patient. Some appear to prioritize fluency at the cost of accuracy, and the opposite is true in other cases. Other agrammatics choose to restrict their speech to specific types of structures that they can handle well, as a preventive measure. Still others use what has been called ‘corrective adaptation’ and repair their sentences as they go along, resulting in nonfluent speech. Deviant output can be a reflection of the specific language impairment affecting the patient, but it is also partly due to the repair strategies applied. Thus agrammatic syndromes are believed to originate both in the impairment and the compensatory strategies adopted by individual patients. (Gandour, Marshall & Windsor 1989; Goad 1998; Gopnik, Dalalakis, Fukuda & Fukuda 1997; Kolk & Hofstede 1994; Kolk & Van Grunsven 1985; Mitchum, Haendiges & Berndt 2004; Paradis & Gopnik 1997, among others.) Preventive strategies have also been documented in the SLA literature, if not under this name. A well-documented case is avoidance of difficult structures. For example, Schachter (1974) compared the production of English relative clauses by L1 speakers of Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and Persian. She pointed out that by simply looking at the number of errors made by these

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

learners one would think that the Arabic and Persian learners had considerable difficulties with English relatives, but the Chinese and Japanese learners had relatively fewer problems. This was intriguing, considering the parametric differences between Chinese/Japanese and English. However, after closer inspection it emerged that the relative facility that Chinese and Japanese learners were showing was only illusory. Schachter found that the Chinese and Japanese learners had used relative clauses much less frequently than the Arabic and Persian learners, so the lower number of errors was at least partly due to their avoidance strategy. Yip & Matthews (1991) confirmed Schachter’s findings regarding avoidance of English relatives with a different group of Chinese learners. Hinkel (2004) reports a similar phenomenon regarding English passives. A different type of compensatory strategy can be gleaned from a study of the processing of grammatical gender in L2 Russian by Taraban & Kempe (1999). They found that the transparency of gender markers did not affect processing speed or accuracy in Rusian NSs, but it did affect processing in NNSs. The following is their interpretation of what the learners were trying to do: L1 participants failed to show difficulty with opaque nouns because of definitive morphosyntactic lexical coding of nouns. L2 participants relied on heuristic strategies based in part on sublexical properties of nouns and therefore showed standard frequency by regularity interactions associated with learning. (p. 143, my emphasis)

Misanalysis of the input in a way that fits in with some aspect of the L1 grammar is another strategy for absorbing problematic input data that has been reported in the SLA literature. Two examples have been mentioned in earlier chapters, namely the case of L1 Greek speakers treating English subject pronouns as a sort of subject-verb agreement marker (Tsimpli & Roussou 1991), and the case of L1 Chinese speakers treating English wh-questions as if they were not the result of moved wh-phrases but of agreement between a whphrase base-generated at the front of the clause and a null pronoun in object position (White 1992; Martohardjono & Gair 1993). It is thus conceivable that idiosyncratic strategies may be at work in adult SLA to compensate for the lack of representational resources required by the L2 grammar that cannot be transferred from the L1 feature inventory. It is difficult to assess the merits of such a proposal on the basis of the existing literature on L2 learner strategies, as these studies do not easily allow for a detailed analysis of syntactic variables in relation to the proposed strategies (see for example Towell & Hawkins 1994: Chapter 13, for a critical review of the literature in this respect). This is an area where linguistically-informed research

Chapter 6. Discussion 

is clearly needed. I would suggest that strategies developed for the learning of areas of parametric differences between the L1 and the L2 would be an excellent place to start. It is not immediately clear what strategies the –gen L1 group in the present study may have adopted. There are some indications that in some cases they were tapping on information that the other learner group and the NS group were seemingly ignoring. For example, in Test 2, recovering gender information from the agreement between nouns and adjectives seemed to be of equal difficulty for NSs and +gen L1 speakers whether it was done starting from a missing noun or a missing adjective. By contrast, the –gen L1 group found one of the conditions easier than the other. Another example of different behaviour that may be underpinned by different learning strategies can be found in the results of Test 5. The –gen L1 group relied more heavily on feminine than masculine clues to solve this task, whereas the NS and +gen L1 groups relied more heavily on masculine clues. Whether this type of differences are meaningful remains to be seen. .. Why a critical period for the acquisition of parameters? I have been working under the assumption that parametric variation in language is restricted to functional elements. More specifically, I have assumed, following recent proposals by Chomsky, that languages select functional features from a set F made available by UG. Following Tsimpli and Roussou (1991), Smith and Tsimpli (1995) and Hawkins and Chan (1997), I have also hypothesised that the acquisition of those functional features which are optionally selected by languages (PFFs) is subject to a critical period and so these features cannot be acquired after childhood. One might ask whether the fact that language is subject to parameterization entails the need for a critical period for the acquisition of language, or the other way round. The answer seems to be no in both cases, as either is perfectly conceivable without the other. Nevertheless, there are some arguments and empirical evidence suggesting that the link between the two may be more than just coincidental, and I shall now briefly mention some of these ideas. In principle, the simplest solution to language design in terms of learnability advantages would be to be born with full knowledge of language. But this does not correspond to the facts: humans need exposure to linguistic input if they are to develop language, as the cases of feral children demonstrate (e.g., Newton 2002). Other cognitive systems requiring ambient exposure for reaching complete functionality are visual and auditory perception. Interest-

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

ingly, these systems too seem to be subject to critical period effects, not only in humans but also in animals (see references in Section 2.6). There are similarities between the effects that the putative critical period has on the acquisition of language and imprinting in auditory perception, which results in categorical perception (see for example the contributions in Harnad 1987, for an overview of categorical perception in different domains in humans and animals). In speech perception imprinting results in persistent difficulty or impossibility of resetting perceptual boundaries in adulthood; in the case of morphosyntax the parallel effect may be that parametric resetting is impossible. One of the consequences of imprinting is that no matter how rich the input to the adult may be, he or she will not be able to modify the basic units that his or her systems use for discrimination and identification of relevant information in the input, resulting in a kind of blindness to parts of the input. This is not dissimilar to what I have previously described as Orwell’s problem. The study the evolutionary advantages of adaptation to the environment after birth may provide some useful insights on these issues. Even if one does not have an answer for why some organisms have cognitive/perceptual faculties whose development is completed after birth and through some form of interaction with the environment, it is possible to see why it may be desirable that there should be a time after which such organisms stopped learning: it would be terribly costly and ineffective for them to be constantly learning to adapt to the ambient language, visual stimuli, etc. Furthermore, it appears that the shorter and the earlier the time for learning is, the better, so that the organism can profit from the benefits of the mature, fully functional and stable system for as long as possible (see for example Hurford 1991, for a demonstration that in evolutionary terms short, early critical periods are favoured). So a rationale can be envisaged for the existence of a CP affecting cognitive systems that complete their development after birth, one of these being the language faculty. But why should the CP for language affect parameters and not other areas of the grammar that need to be learned? Perhaps the learning involved in learning parameter settings is in some sense different from the learning of other aspects of language. Some evidence for this comes from other contexts of language acquisition. For example, given the assumption that the locus of parametric variation in language is found in functional features, it is quite suggestive that L1 child learners appear to start to acquire lexical, nonfunctional, properties before functional (parameterized) ones (e.g., Platzack 1990; Radford 1990; Tsimpli 1992). Also some types of language impairment show selective effects on either lexical or functional areas of the grammar (for an overview of this field see for example Caramazza 1990; Grodzinsky, Shapiro

Chapter 6. Discussion 

& Swinney 2000; Paradis 2001; Rice & Warren 2004; Verhoeven & Van Balkom 2004). The seemingly arbitrary assumption that there may be a CP for the acquisition of PFFs but not other areas of the grammar then becomes less so, as PFFs appear to have a somewhat different status from other properties of language that also need to be learned by exposure to linguistic input. A reasonable question to ask next is: What advantages may be conferred to an individual/species by a limited the time window within which learning the features that determine parameters is possible? I do not have an answer to this question, but there are two interesting considerations that may provide some initial insights. The first is the fact that learning through parameter setting is a very efficient way of dealing with complex, noisy and variable input. If the learner has a limited range of options to choose from then she can select the appropriate option with a minimum amount of input. This reduces the time and effort needed for learning without taking away the possibility of adapting to the environment. The second consideration relates to the advantages conferred by critical periods on other biological systems. It seems that there is a trade-off between flexibility to adapt to the environment and efficiency, and systems subject to a critical period for adapting to the environment (i.e., learning) have a good balance between flexibility and efficiency. Perhaps then a critical period on parametric learning provides a good balance between the flexibility needed to adapt to the environment where an individual is born and the efficiency of mature, stable systems. This is highly speculative, but not unreasonable.

. Concluding remarks – A case for focusing on Orwell’s problem The results of the present study and the account proposed here suggest that NNS variability in ultimate attainment is not as random as is sometimes implied in the SLA literature. The proposals made here provide a set of testable predictions, and the study in Chapter 5 and other data reviewed here constitute an initial test of these predictions with encouraging results. The results also suggest that it is worth exploring Orwell’s problem (i.e., the question of why learners fail to modify their current state of knowledge in the face of positive evidence, regardless of how clear and ubiquitous this evidence may be) in the context of SLA. The following excerpt from Williams (1987) emphasizes what an amazing feat language acquisition is:

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Somehow, the child selects a unique grammar [. . .] compatible with a random, partially unreliable sample of some language. (p. vii)

Research work trying to explain how this is possible has benefited from the focus provided by the articulation of Plato’s problem. In the same way, the failure to learn in the presence of unambiguous positive evidence should also be cause for some amazement. Orwell’s problem phenomena are interesting for the the same reason that PoS phenomena are interesting, namely that they give us an insight into how internal knowledge interacts (or fails to interact) with external stimuli in the development of mental grammars. While FLA provides a privileged position from which to investigate Plato’s problem, a perspective on the on Orwell’s problem is particularly acute in adult SLA, given that failure to become targetlike in certain areas of the L2 is the norm. This is not to say that Orwell’s problem does not have the potential for focusing useful research efforts in other areas. The following passage from Guasti (2002) points to one such example: Infants are sensitive to language immediately after birth, if not already in the womb. At 4 days they display amazing capacities; for example, they can discriminate their native language from a foreign language. They can do so even if they are not familiar with the speaker’s voice, showing that they are indeed discriminating between languages and not between voices. This result hints that newborns can disregard irrelevant variations such as voice quality, speech rate, and accent. (p. 24, my emphasis)

Another poignant example of Orwell’s problem phenomena can be found in the work of Henry (1995, 1997) on the changes currently taking place in Belfast English imperatives. She documented the variation in the use of subject-verb inversion in imperatives across different generations of Belfast English speakers and found that individuals spoke one of three possible dialects as shown in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 Belfast English imperatives in different dialects (Henry 1995, 1997) Dialect name

Example

Characteristics

Speakers

1. No inversion You come here.

inversion is not allowed (=Standard English)

mainly used by the youngest generation

2. Restricted inversion

Come you here.

mainly spoken by young and middle-aged adults

3. Unrestricted inversion

Bring you that with you.

inversion is only allowed with unaccusative and passive verbs inversion is allowed with all types of verbs

mainly restricted to older speakers

Chapter 6. Discussion 

Henry documented the cases of several families where the grandmother was a speaker of dialect 3, her daughter was a speaker of dialect 2 and the grandchildren spoke dialect 1. The children (aged 3;6 to 9) have undoubtedly had exposure to inversion in the input addressed to them by parents and grandparents, but they have nevertheless opted for a dialect that does not allow inversion in imperatives. Inverted imperatives were absent from their spoken production and they also rejected them in grammaticality judgement tasks. The middle generation must have gone through a similar process as their children, but in their case they opted for a grammar that was more restrictive than their parents’ grammar in terms of the type of verb that could be used in inverted imperatives. The conclusion that Henry draws from this case is that [language learners] do no have to adopt a grammar which covers all the input data, but rather consider the limited range of possible grammars made available by UG, and select one which can accommodate the majority of the data in the input. [. . .] Language learning appears to be more strongly driven by UG than the need to cover all the data; thus children can adopt grammars different from their parents, and be major contributors to language change. (Henry 1997: 295; my emphasis)

This suggests that Orwell’s problem is relevant to language acquisition and has ramifications for other areas of inquiries, such as language change. Before I conclude, I would like to make some suggestions as to where I think future efforts should be directed for a better understanding of the issues investigated in this book. I would suggest that future work should include the following: – – – –

the L2 acquisition of other PFFs other L1/L2 combinations the incorporation of age of first exposure as a variable (not a constant) in the design consideration of the potential effects of varying degrees of ambiguity in the L2 input

I have tried to make all my assumptions and reasoning explicit throughout the book so that if my predictions were not to be fully supported by future research it would at least be easy to identify where I have gone wrong. For the time being, I remain optimistic that what I have outlined here can serve as the basis for a fruitful research programme that may have something to contribute to the ambitious aim of learning more about the design of the language faculty.

Notes

Chapter 1 . I use ‘computational resources’ in the sense of Chomsky (1998: n. 24, 2000), and not as synonymous with the processing capacity for the online parsing and production of sentences, memory resources, etc. The following is an example of the term used in the meaning intended here: “. . . brain states have computational properties: a language is a system of discrete infinity, a procedure that enumerates an infinite class of expressions, each of them a structured complex of properties of sound and meaning. The recursive procedure is somehow implemented at a cellular level, how no one knows” (Chomsky 2000: 19). . All the NNSs selected for the study performed within the NS range of scores in the Wisconsin University Spanish Placement Test. Further details are provided in Chapter 5. . Following proposals by Chomsky (1998: 12–14, 2000: 25, 1999: 7, 2001: 3). See more details in Chapter 2.

Chapter 2 . As already mentioned in Chapter 1, Chomsky himself makes explicit mention of this distinction. . Although the terminology used here is fairly standard, not all researchers will make use of it in exactly the same way as me. See for example Tang (1998) for a classification of grammatical features using slightly different terminology from the one used here. . See Harley & Ritter (2002) for a proposal of a morphological feature geometry for person, number and gender, where the values of these features are organized in a hierarchical structure that predicts possible patterns of crosslinguistic variation and order of acquisition. . Reference to this distinction can be found in Chomsky (1995: 231, 237, 277). As we shall see in Section 2.4, this view of the lexicon may be problematic if Distributed Morphology is adopted as the theory of PF. I shall leave this problem aside for the time being. . For arguments about the universality of [uCase] see for example the discussion in Martin (1999), where it is shown that this feature is irreducible for DPs, T and v. . For the time being, I am overlooking the fact that even adult NS grammars seem to override some positive evidence in the linguistic input and should therefore not be labeled as fully targetlike either. I shall come back to this point in Chapter 6.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars . There has been some renewed interest in the correlations between the phenomena associated with the ±prodrop parameter since the ‘Null subjects and structure of parametric theory’ research project was launched in 2002. The principal investigators are A. Holmberg (University of Durham/Newcastle), I. Roberts and D. Willis (both from University of Cambridge). . For discussion of these two concepts see Hara & Ma (2004), Papp (2000), Sorace (1993, 2000, 2003). . The adoption of stabilization as the criterion for acquisition in language development is not new – it goes back at least to work by Gold (1967). For a detailed discussion of the relevance of Gold’s work for (first) language acquisition theory, see Atkinson (1992) or Saleemi (1992). . Also see some relevant discussion in Section 3.2.1, where criticisms of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis are considered. . This technique consists of applying the following formula to calculate a SOC score: (number of correct supplicances x2 + number of misformations) / total obligatory contexts x2. For a detailed discussion of this and other scoring techniques, see, for example, Chapter 2 in Gass & Selinker (2001), or Chapter 4 in Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005). . The basic architecture described here is discussed in depth in Atkinson (2002). . Given that these assumptions are interpreted as applicable to all types of natural language acquisition, one could ask whether the third assumption about the features in [F]L1 not being language specific in their application means that the two L1 grammars in bilingual language acquisition might become confused. This is not necessarily the case. One must remember that features come in bundles, as part of lexical items, and as long as the child can assemble features into LIs correctly in each language he or she is learning, then there should not be any problems. This said, there is some evidence for a small degree of ‘cross contamination’ of features between the LIs of the two languages spoken by young bilinguals, resulting in some delay in language development. This, however, seems to be temporary and not to have detrimental long-term effects, as bilingual children appear to ‘unlearn’ such target-deviant patterns at an early age. For discussion of such cases see, for example, Hulk & Müller (2000), Müller (1998) and Müller & Hulk (2001). For discussion of more enduring transfer effects in bilinguals in language contact environments, see Sanchez (2004). . They would not be unlikely if one took the view that languages are actually uniform with regards to FF composition. In such a case, Figure 2.3 would be a representation of what all language pairs are like. Despite the conceptual attractiveness of this position (e.g., because it may reduce the learnability burden considerably), I shall not adopt such a position as this would probably require the introduction of extra complexity in other parts of the system (e.g., in the assembly of LEX and/or the mapping to PF). I shall instead assume that syntactic parameters stem from optional feature selection from F, as discussed in Section 2.3.

Notes 

Chapter 3 . For evidence supporting (3.1a), see Section 2.6. Evidence for the claim in (3.1b) comes, for example, from Johnson & Newport (1989), who say on the basis of their cross-sectional study that “while early learners are uniformly successful in acquiring their language to a high degree of proficiency, later learners show much greater individual variation (see also Patkowski 1980, for related comments)” (1989: 96–97). For overviews of individual and group variation in SLA see for example Bayley & Langman (2004), Dornyei & Skehan (2003), Skehan (1989). . For details and discussion on children’s overregularizations of Past Tense -ed, see for example Kuczaj (1977), Bybee & Slobin (1982), Maratsos (2000) and Marcus (1995, 2000), Marcus Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen & Xu (1992). . I have expressed some reservations about this criticism in Section 2.2. . These assumptions about the processing of regular and irregular forms are compatible with the Dual Access Model (Pinker & Prince 1988; Clahsen 1992; Marcus et al. 1992). . This last result was unexpected, especially because NNS tend to be more accurate on irregular Past Tense marking than regular Past Tense marking (Patty is a case in point), so it is natural to expect similar NS and NNS performance on irregulars. This may be another case where the default hypothesis that similar behaviour (in this case Past Tense marking of irregulars) in NS and NNS has the same origin has to be rejected (cf. discussion in Section 2.1.2). Beck examines some possible interpretations of this finding on pp. 105–106. . A connectionist explanation could also account for NNS divergence exclusively based on the existence of a previous grammar, but not for the same reasons as FT/FA. Given that basic connectionist assumptions about language and language learning are largely incompatible with the assumptions made in this study, I shall not discuss these explanations here. See Marchman (1993) for some discussion. . The term ‘entrenchment’ has been used by Pienemann (1998) to describe this scenario, and was originally borrowed from Wimsatt (1986, 1991). . This argument requires assuming that there is an early stage of development where all learners have are lexical projections, as proposed for example by Minimal Trees (Vainikka & Young-Scholten 1994, 1996).

Chapter 4 . The three elements on the second axis may be marked on one or separate morphological elements. Lucy illustrates this with the following examples: a. b.

the one woman she

Both constructions characterise the referent as female, individuate it as singular, and index it as presupposable in the discourse, but while (a) separates the three components out separately, (b) fuses them in a single form.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars . Australian language. . African language. . Typologists classify languages according to whether they are head marking or dependent marking. Spencer (2000) illustrates the meaning of these concepts in the following passage: In many languages subjects and objects are marked by special inflections (cases), such a Nominative or Accusative, while in other languages the verb itself bears inflections, agreement markers, which cross-reference the subject or the object for properties such as person, number or gender. The verb is frequently treated as the head of the clause, and its subject and objects (more generally, its arguments) are regarded as its dependents. Thus, case inflections constitute dependent marking (DM) while agreement markers on the verb are instances of head marking (HM). (pp. 186–187) . Corbett says that the distinction between the two proposed formal systems is not always clear-cut and proposes a rule of thumb to distinguish them: [. . .] phonological rules refer to a single form of a noun, for example, ‘nouns ending in a vowel in the singular are feminine’ [. . .] Morphological rules, on the other hand, require more information; they need to refer to more than one form [for example:] ‘nouns of declension II are feminine’; establishing that a noun is of declension II might require information about, say, the nominative singular and the genitive singular. (p. 33) . Moreover, the number of homophones in a language seems to be independent from whether the language has gender or not. Instead, it appears to correlate with typical word-length and word-structure. According to Ullmann (1966: 235–236), there are more homonyms in languages where short words abound and where a few types of word structure are very productive as compared with languages where long words are the norm and which show lower productivity per individual word structure type. He cites English and French as examples of languages, where homonyms are very common, and German and Italian as examples of languages with fewer homonyms. . Grosjean and colleagues also suggest that gender may have beneficial effects for syntactic processing, in that gender information may help to regroup words into phrases or achieve adequate anaphoric and deictic referencing. As already mentioned, I assume that if the second type of benefit exists, it must derive from gender agreement rather than the gender classification itself. . For arguments against the view that gender helps to reduce search space in the lexicon, see Friederici & Jacobsen (1999). . The semantics of gender seem to be linked to a number of concepts, such as animacy, sex, size, affect, etc., with varied interpretations in different languages. For discussion of the interpretations of gender values crosslinguistically see Corbett (1991); for the semantics of gender in Romance see for example Posner (1996), and Roca (2000) for the semantics of gender in Spanish. . Concord is used here to refer to agreement within the DP. The term agreement will be used to include concord and predicate-argument agreement phenomena, and it may be used instead of concord when the difference between the two terms is not relevant to the discus-

Notes

sion. For discussion of the differences between concord and predicate-argument agreement, see for example Kester (1996: Chapter 2). . Intransitive adjectives are those which are not followed by a complement. Those which are followed by complements are called transitive adjectives, and they are more akin to relative clauses, generated post-nominally. See Ronat (1977) for the original proposal of a distinction between the two types of adjectives, and Sleeman (1993) for a more recent formulation of these ideas. . There have been several different proposals about the base-position and status of adjectives/APs. For some views that differ from the one adopted here, see for example Giorgi & Longobardi (1991), Kayne (1994), Lamarche (1991), Radford (1993) and Valois (1991). . I shall use the following conventions for tree structures: bold will be used to indicate a strong or affixal head; outline typeface will be used to show that an invisible copy has been left behind after movement; strikethrough will be used to indicate that a feature has been marked for deletion. The category labels and orthographic representations of terminal nodes are for exposition only. . I shall remain uncommitted about the exact implementation of this operation. I have indicated the fact that the noun and adjective will eventually get marked with the same number value by including an α variable. Objections may be raised against introducing this device in the derivation, for the same reasons that objections may be raised against the introduction of indices. The theory does not seem to provide a mechanism for marking this dependency as yet, so I shall assume it is an acceptable solution for the time being. . Panagiotidis does not provide concrete examples of this in this passage, but one such example from Spanish/Italian would be the following pair, where there is no correlation between the choice of gender and noun’s meaning: a. b.

libro(m) ‘book’ libra(f) ‘pound’

. See Schütze (2001) for a similar position regarding case-spreading (i.e., concord). . Kester (1996) observes that Mainland Scandinavian, Frisian and Afrikaans require oneinsertion in contexts where adjective inflection is absent, but allow N-drop with inflected adjectives (pp. 266–267). This would seem to indicate that this parameter of variation can be found between and within languages. . According to Harris A-1 outnumbers A-2 by more than two to one. Antón-Méndez, Nicol & Garrett (2002: 2) estimate that masculine nouns in -o and feminine nouns in -a (i.e., class A-1) constitute 68.15% of nouns in the language. . This does not apply to the small group of nouns referring to humans that are unmated (marido ‘husband’, criatura ‘small child or animal’, persona ‘person’, víctima ‘victim’, ángel ‘angel’, vástago ‘offspring’). . I have indicated the gender of the adjective joli(e) in all the examples, but the marking is inaudible, so in effect there is no gender clue from this adjective in speech. . This refers to the class of Russian nouns whose nominative forms end in palatalized consonants and which are evenly divided between feminine and masculine nouns.



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars . In my view, Pérez-Pereira’s novel items sounded more natural in Spanish than those used in this study. This is why I use his materials and not Cain, Weber-Olsen & Smith’s in my own replication of Karmiloff-Smith’s study, reported in Chapter 5. . The earlier adoption of the syntactic strategy in Spanish children may be at least partially related to the fact that Spanish determiners provide a more reliable clue to the gender of the noun than their French counterparts, which have the ambiguous variant l’ preceding masculine and feminine nouns beginning in a vowel sound and undifferentiated plural les. . Pérez-Pereira (1991: 573) reports that similar patterns have been observed in the acquisition of case by Russian children, who have been observed to use one stereotyped case ending and then shift to the opposite. . The term ‘protodeterminers’ refers to non-tonic clitic vowels, mainly [a] and [e], used before nouns previous to the acquisition of articles. For example, a-casa instead of la casa ‘the house’, or e-nene instead of el nene ‘the boy’. . Despite these problems, this is an interesting task. I decided to use it in my study, but introduced some modifications to avoid this problem with synonyms. See Section 5.3.1 for details.

Chapter 5 . UWPT = University of Wisconsin Spanish Placement Test. See next section for details. . I was able to find a few other subjects that fulfilled the requirements in (5.2) but I did not include them because there was either only one subject with a particular L1, or there were more but they had not completed all the tests. I considered these data too fragmentary and therefore excluded them. The L1s were Chinese, Finnish, Icelandic, Japanese, Korean and Serbian. . There is further indirect evidence from the analysis of code-switched expressions from one of the English-speaking subjects and a NS control which suggests that the –gen speakers’ divergence regarding gender is deep-seated. The L1 English speaker whose code-switched expressions were analysed invariably used masculine gender agreement in phrases such as el car ‘the.masc car’, whereas the NS used both masculine and feminine agreement, depending on the noun. That is, the English speaker conducted codeswitching as if there was no gender system in place in the matrix language (Spanish), while the NS observed gender agreement rules in all code-switched expressions. This incidental finding is discussed in Franceschina (2001b), where it is analysed using Myers-Scotton’s (1995) Matrix Language Frame (MLF) Model. . Sorace (1996) defines indeterminacy as “indefiniteness of status in the speaker’s grammatical competence. Operationally, indeterminacy may be defined as variability in the speaker’s acceptability judgements” (p. 381). Also see the discussion of optionality in Section 2.1. . The concept of ‘fuzzy grammaticality’ is discussed in Sorace (1996: 381–382). . It may not be clear from the English translation, but this word cannot be left out in the Spanish version.

Notes

. These clue combinations will be considered again later in the discussion of Test 5, where they are used in the test. . ‘+’ is used here to refer to immediately adjacent items, and ‘/’ is used to indicate that the items are not necessarily adjacent but they are in the same context. . Neither Pérez-Pereira (1991) nor Cain, Weber-Olsen & Smith (1987) provide any examples of the pictures they used. Karmiloff-Smith (1979) has a few examples (pp. 151–152), and I copied them for my own test. I invented the rest myself, and a sample of these can be found in Appendix 17. . This list of novel nouns is the same as what was shown in Section 5.3.3 in connection with the design of Test 3. . PP, CWOS and KS will be used to refer to these studies respectively; FF will be used to indicate that the results reported are from Test 5 here. . The underlined features are the ones being compared, and the >, = and < signs indicate how a set of features exerts more/less/the same influence than another set of features with regard to gender assignment and agreement. For example, 0F2>fF0 should be read as follows: items with no syntactic clues (0--), female referents (-F-) and -a word markers (--2) elicited more feminine answers than items with feminine syntactic clues (f--), female referents (-F-) and non-canonical word markers (--0). Given that the semantic clue remains constant, the comparison is between the presence of morphological clues vs. syntactic clues. . Iggy Roca (p.c.) has suggested that this must be a consciously learned rule, as it does not follow naturally from the phonology of Spanish. If this was the case, we might expect native speakers of the feminine variety to have some slips in which this is evidenced. And we do indeed find such evidence: 3 of the 42 native speakers tested (7.14%) answered la azúcar in Test 6.

Chapter 6 . I shall make the assumption that the classifier system of Chinese, which is a type of nominal agreement required when numerals are present, has a different syntactic status from the number system of the Indo-European languages. (See Cheng & Sybesma 1999, and Section 4.1.1 here for some discussion.) . The assumption about universality is restricted to structural Case, but a practical difficulty for the investigation of this prediction is that it is not always easy to determine what is structurally or inherently Case-marked in some languages. Moreover, the morphological realisation of Case can be bound up with other properties; for example, in some languages the realisation of Case and other features (e.g., gender, number) are fused in the same morphemes, so where L2 speakers have difficulty with such morphemes, it may be difficult to decide whether this is a difficulty with Case per se, or the property with which it is fused. Another important distinction that must be remembered is that between structural Case and case agreement or spreading, as these are largely independent phenomena.



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars . See (1.1) in Chapter 1, and Section 2.1 in the following chapter for discussion of computational vs. representational resources and the idea that accounts of NNS divergence could be based on one or the other. . Excluding pathological cases.

References

Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics]. Cambridge, MA: Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax. A minimalist approach. Oxford: OUP. Aguirre, C. (1995). La adquisicion de categorias funcionales en espanol. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid. Al-Hamad, M. (2002). The role of input in SLA of syntax. Paper presented at Looking at Language Acquisition II, RCEAL, University of Cambridge, 7 May 2002. Anderson, S. R. (1982). Where’s morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 571–612. Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. Antón-Méndez, I. (1996). Clitics and attraction errors: An experimental study of language production. Ms., University of Arizona, Tuscon. Antón-Méndez, I. (1999). Gender and Number Agreement Processing in Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. Antón-Méndez, I., Nicol, J. L., & Garrett, M. F. (2002). The relation between gender and number agreement processing [April 2002]. Syntax, 5 (1), 1–25. Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Atkinson, M. (1992). Children’s Syntax: An introduction to principles and parameters. Oxford: Blackwell. Atkinson, M. (2002). The nature of minimalism. Ms. [LG614 class notes (Term 2, 2001– 2002)]. Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex. Ayoun, D. (2000). Web-based elicitation tasks in SLA research. Language Learning and Technology, 3 (2), 77–98. Badecker, W., Miozzo, M., & Zanuttini, R. (1995). The two stage model of lexical retrieval: Evidence from a case of anomia with selective preservation of grammatical gender. Cognition, 57, 193–213. Baker, M. C. (1985). The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 373–416. Baker, M. C. (1988). Morphology and syntax: An interlocking dependence. In M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts, & M. Trommelen (Eds.), Morphology and Modularity (pp. 9– 32). Dordrecht: Foris. Bard, E., Robertson, B., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68. Barlow, M. & Ferguson, C. A. (Eds.). (1988). Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, theories, descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Barreña, A. (1997). Desarrollo diferenciado de sistemas gramaticales en un niño vascoespanol bilingue. In A. T. Perez-Leroux & W. R. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish, Vol. 1 (pp. 55–74). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Bartning, I. (2000). Gender agreement in L2 French: Pre-advanced vs advanced learners. Studia Linguistica, 54 (2). Special Issue: A selection of papers from EUROSLA 9, Lund, Sweden, June 10–12, 1999 (pp. 225–237). Bates, E., Devescovi, A., Pizzamiglio, L., D’Amico, S., & Hernandez, A. (1995). Gender and lexical access in Italian. Perception and Psychophysics, 57 (6), 847–862. Bates, E., Devescovi, A., Hernandez, A., & Pizzamiglio, L. (1996). Gender priming in Italian. Perception and Psychophysics, 58, 992–1004. Bates, E. & Liu, H. (1997). Cue shadowing. In F. Grosjean & U. Frauenfelder (Eds.), A Guide to Spoken Word Recognition Paradigms (pp. 577–583). Hove: Psychology Press. Baugh, A. C. & Cable, T. (1993). A History of the English Language. London: Routledge. Bayley, R. & Langman, J. (2004). Variation in the group and the individual: Evidence from SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 42, 4. Beck, M.-L. (1997). Regular verbs, past tense and frequency: Tracking down a potential source of NS/NNS competence differences. Second Language Research, 13 (2), 93–115. Beck, M.-L. (1998). SLA and obligatory head movement: English-speaking learners of German and the local impairment hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 311–348. Berent, G. P. (1994). The subset principle in SLA. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research Methodology in SLA (pp. 17–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bergen, J. J. (1978). A simplified approach for teaching the gender of Spanish nouns. Hispania, 61, 865–876. Bernstein, J. B. (1991a). DPs in French and Walloon: Evidence for parametric variation in nominal head movement. Probus, 3 (2), 101–126. Bernstein, J. B. (1991b). Nominal enclitics in Romance. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 51–66. Bernstein, J. B. (1993). The syntactic role of word markers in null nominal constructions. Probus, 5, 5–38. Bever, T. G. (1981). Normal acquisition processes explain the critical period for language learning. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude (pp. 176–198). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Bialystok, E. (1997). The structure of age: In search of barriers to SLA. Second Language Research, 13 (2), 116–137. Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors in age differences for SLA. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 161–182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. Berlin: Springer. Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in SLA. Language, 68 (4), 706–747. Birdsong, D. (1994). Decision making in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 169–182. Birdsong, D. (Ed.). (1999). Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

References 

Birdsong, D. & Molis, M. (2000). On the evidence for maturational constraints in SLA. Ms. University of Texas at Austin. Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in IL studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33 (1), 1–17. Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on SLA (pp. 41–68). Cambridge: CUP. Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20 (1/2), 3–49. Bobaljik, J. D. (2000). The rich agreement hypothesis in review. Ms. McGill University. Böhme, K. & Levelt, W. J. M. (1979). Children’s use and awareness of natural and syntactic gender in possessive pronouns. Paper presented at the International Reading Seminar on Linguistic Awareness and Learning to Read, Victoria Canada. Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 133–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Borer, H. (1984). Parametric Syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris. Botha, R. P. (1973). The Justification of Linguistic Hypotheses. The Hague: Mouton. Boyd, P. A. (1975). The development of grammatical categories in Spanish by Anglo children learning a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 125–135. Broschart, J. (2000). Isolation of units and uinification of isolates: The gestalt-functions of classifiers. In G. Senft (Ed.), Systems of nominal classification (pp. 239–269). Cambridge: CUP. Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brown, C. A. (2000). The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant to adult. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory (pp. 4–63). Oxford: Blackwell. Bruhn de Garavito, J. & White, L. (2000). Second language acquisition of Spanish DPs: The status of grammatical features. In S. C. Howell, S. Fish, & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), BUCLD 24: Proceedings from the 24th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (1999) (pp. 164–175). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Bull, W. E. (1965). Spanish for Teachers: Applied linguistics. New York, NY: Ronald. Bull, W. E., Briscoe, L. A., & Lamadrid, E. E. (1974). Spanish for Communication: Level three. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Bybee, J. L. & Slobin, D. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58, 265–289. Cain, J., Weber-Olsen, M., & Smith, R. (1987). Acquisition strategies in a first and second language: Are they the same? Journal of Child Language, 14, 333–352. Caramazza, A. (Ed.). (1990). Cognitive Neuropsychology and Neurolinguistics: Advances in models of cognitive function and impairment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Carello, C., Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. (1988). Rapid naming is affected by association but not by syntax. Memory and Cognition, 16 (3), 187–195. Carnie, A. (2002). Syntax. A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language attitude. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Attitude (pp. 83–118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Carroll, S. E. (1989). Second language acquisition and the computational paradigm. Language Learning, 39 (4), 535–594. Carroll, J. B. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now. In T. S. Parry & C. W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language Aptitude Reconsidered (pp. 11–29). Washington, DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics. Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and Evidence. The raw material of SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carstens, V. (2000). Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 31 (2), 319–355. Carstens, V. (2001). Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against phi-(in)completeness [December 2001]. Syntax, 4 (3), 147–163. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001). Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Chaudron, C. (1983). Research in metalinguistic judgements: A review of theory, methods and results. Language Learning, 33 (3), 343–377. Cheng, L. L.-S. & Sybesma, R. (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (4), 509–542. Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405. Chini, M. (1995). Un aspect du syntagme nominal en italien L2: Le genre. AILE, 5, 15–42. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origins, and use. New York, NY: Praeger. Chomsky, N. (1989). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In I. Laka & A. Mahajan (Eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10 (pp. 43–74). Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1998). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15. Chomsky, N. (1999). Derivation by phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 18. Chomsky, N. (2000). Linguistics and brain science. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, Language, Brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 13–28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 19. Chomsky, N. (2002). On Nature and Language. Cambridge: CUP. Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36 (1), 1–22. Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, G. (1994). On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In G. Cinque, J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi, & R. Zanuttini (Eds.), Paths towards UG. Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne (pp. 85–110). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Cinque, G. (1995). Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.

References 

Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93–119. Clahsen, H. (1988). Parameterized grammatical theory and language acquisition: A study of verb placement and inflection by children and adults. In S. Flynn & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 47–75). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in SLA. Second Language Research, 5, 1–29. Clahsen, H. (1992). Overregulatization in the acquisition of inflectional morphology. A comparison of German and English. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57 (4), 166–178. Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S., & Vainikka, A. (1994). The seeds of structure. In B. D. Schwartz & T. Hoekstra (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar (pp. 85–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cole, P. & Segui, J. (1994). Grammatical congruency and vocabulary type. Memory and Cognition, 22, 387–394. Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42 (4), 557–591. Cook, V. J. (1999). The object of SLA. Ms. University of Essex. Available online from http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/∼vcook/OBS18.htm Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573. Corbett, G. C. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: CUP. Corbett, G. C. & Fraser, N. M. (2002). Default genders. In B. Unterbeck & M. Rissanen (Eds.), From Syntax to Cognition. From phonology to text (pp. 297–339). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cowan, R. & Hatasa, Y. A. (1994). Investigating the validity and reliability of native speaker and L2 learner judgements about sentences. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in SLA (pp. 287–302). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax. Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crystal, D. (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell. Da Silva, Z. S. (1975). A Concept Approach to Spanish. New York: Harper and Row. Dalbor, J. B. (1972). Beginning College Spanish: From sounds to structures. New York, NY: Random House. Dato, D. P. (1975). On psycholinguistic universals in children’s learning of Spanish. In D. P. Dato (Ed.), Developmental Linguistics: Theory and applications (pp. 235–254). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Davies, W. D. & Kaplan, T. (1998). Native speaker vs. L2 learner grammaticality judgments. Applied Linguistics, 19 (2), 183–203. De Houwer, A. (1991). The Acquisition of two Languages from Birth: A case study. Cambridge: CUP. De Vincenzi, M. (1999). Differences between the morphology of gender and number: Evidence from establishing coreferences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28 (5), 537–554.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

De Vincenzi, M. & Di Domenico, E. (1999). A distinction among phi-features: The roles of gender and number in the retrieval of pronoun antecedents. Rivista di Linguistica, 11 (1), 41–74. Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.). (1989). Transfer in Language Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533. Del Viso, S. (1990). Errores espontáneos del habla y producción del lenguaje. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Del Viso, S., Igoa, J. M., & García-Albea, J. E. (1987). Corpus of spontaneous slips of the tongue in Spanish. Ms. Universidad de Oviedo. Delisle, H. H. (1985). The acquisition of gender by American students of German. The Modern Language Journal, 69 (1), 55–63. Demuth, K. (2000). Bantu noun class systems: Loanword and acquisition evidence. In G. Senft (Ed.), Systems of Nominal Classification (pp. 270–292). Cambridge: CUP. Den Dikken, M. (2000). The syntax of features. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29 (1), 5–23. Dewaele, J.-M. & Veronique, D. (2001). Gender assignment and gender agreement in advanced French interlanguage: A cross-sectional study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4 (3), 275–297. Di Domenico, E. (1995). Features and functional projections in the NP: The case of gender. Poster presented at the 18th GLOW Colloquium, Tromsø, Norway. Di Domenico, E. & De Vincenzi, M. (1999). Introduction to special issue on ‘Gender and number in normal and impaired language processing’. Rivista di Linguistica, 11 (1), 3–9. Di Sciullo, A. M. & Williams, E. (1987). On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dinnes, I. S. (1971). Must all unclassified Spanish words be memorized for gender? Hispania, 54, 487–492. Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? And other essays in semantics and syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dixon, R. M. W. (1986). Noun classes and noun classification in typological perspective. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization (pp. 105–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dominguez, A., Cuetos, F., & Segui, J. (1999). The processing of grammatical gender and number in Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28 (5), 485–498. Dornyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 589–630). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Doughty, C. J. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13 (4), 431–469. Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom SLA. Cambridge: CUP. Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 256–310). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

References 

Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2003). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Duffield, N. & White, L. (1999). Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic placement: Converging methodologies. Second Language Research, 15 (2), 133–160. Dumas, G., Swain, M., & Selinker, L. (1973). L’apprentissage du français languge seconde en classe d’immersion dans un milieu torontois. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 1, 66–82. DuPlessis, J., Solin, D., Travis, L., & White, L. (1987). UG or not UG, that is the question: A reply to Clahsen and Muysken. Second Language Research, 3, 56–75. Ellis, R. (1991). Grammaticality judgments and SLA. Second Language Research, 13, 161– 186. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of SLA. Oxford: OUP. Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54 (2), 227–275. Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: OUP. Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71–99. Embick, D. (2000). Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry, 31 (2), 185–230. Embick, D. & Noyer, R. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32 (4), 555–595. Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, Cognition and the Brain. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Epstein, S. D., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1998). The Strong Continuity Hypothesis: Some evidence concerning functional categories in adult SLA. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eubank, L. (1993/1994). On the transfer of parametric values in L2 development. Language Acquisition, 3, 182–208. Eubank, L., Bischof, J., Huffstutler, A., Leek, P., & West, C. (1997). ‘Tom eats slowly cooked eggs’: Thematic verb raising in L2 knowledge. Language Acquisition, 6, 171–199. Eubank, L. & Grace, S. T. (1998). V-to-I and inflection in non-native grammars. In M.-L. Beck (Ed.), Morphology and its Interfaces in L2 knowledge (pp. 69–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Eubank, L. & Gregg, K. R. (1999). Critical periods and (second) language acquisition: Divide et impera. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 65–100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Faussart, C., Jakubowicz, C., & Costes, M. (1999). Gender and number processing in spoken French and Spanish. Journal of Italian Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica, 11 (1), 75–111. Felix, S. W. (1985). More evidence on competing cognitive systems. Second Language Research, 1, 47–72. Felix, S. W. (1987). Cognition and Language Growth. Dordrecht: Foris. Fernández García, M. (1999). Patterns in gender agreement in the speech of L2 learners. In J. Gutierrez Rexach & F. Martinez Gil (Eds.), Advances in Hispanic Linguistics. Papers from the Second Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 3–15). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Finnemann, M. D. (1992). Learning agreement in the NP: The strategies of three first-year Spanish students. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 30 (2), 121–136.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Flege, J. E. (1989). Chinese subjects’ perception of the word-final English /t/-/d/ contrast: Performance before and after training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86 (5), 1684–1697. Flege, J. E., Frieda, E. M., & Nozawa, T. (1997). Amount of native language (L1) use affects the pronunciation of an L2. Journal of Phonetics, 25 (2), 169–186. Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and L2 speech. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 101–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Flege, J. E. & Liu, S. (2001). The effect of experience on adults’ acquisition of a second language [December 2001]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23 (4), 527–552. Flynn, S. (1987). A Parameter-setting Model of SLA. Dordrecht: Reidel. Flynn, S. & Lust, B. C. (1990). In defense of parameter-setting in L2 acquisition: A reply to Bley-Vroman and Chaudron 1990. Language Learning, 40, 419–449. Flynn, S. & Manuel, S. (1991). Age-dependent effects in language acquisition: An evaluation of the CPH. In L. Eubank (Ed.), Count and Counterpoint: UG in the L2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Flynn, S. (1996). A parameter-setting approach to SLA. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 121–158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. J. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. Franceschina, F. (1999). Morphological and syntactic approaches to the analysis of end-state L2 grammars. MA dissertation, University of Essex. Franceschina, F. (2001a). Grammatical gender in native and non-native Spanish grammars. In D. Arnold, F. Franceschina, & E. Thomas (Eds.), Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3 (pp. 1–19). Colchester: Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex. http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/pgr/egspll/ volume13 Franceschina, F. (2001b). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research, 17 (3), 213–247. Franceschina, F. (2001c). The special status of parameterised syntactic features in L2 acquisition. A view from the endstate perspective. In F. Franceschina, M. Kingston, & E. Thomas (Eds.), Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistic, Vol. 4 (pp. 19–34). Colchester: Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex. http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/pgr/egspll/volume14 Franceschina, F. (2001d). Where lies the difference between native and non-native grammars? Evidence from the L2A of Spanish. In S. Foster-Cohen & A. Nizegorodcew (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 1 (pp. 143–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Franceschina, F. (2002). Parameterized functional features and SLA. Paper presented at GASLA, 6, 25–28 April 2002, University of Ottawa, Canada. Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. J. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Friederici, A. D. & Jacobsen, T. (1999). Processing of grammatical gender during language comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28 (5), 465–484. Fukui, N. (1988). Deriving the differences between English and Japanese: A case study in parametric syntax. English Linguistics, 5, 249–270.

References 

Fukui, N. (1995). The principles-and-parameters approach: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In M. Shibatani & T. Bynon (Eds.), Approaches to Language Typology (pp. 327–372). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gandour, J., Marshall, R., & Windsor, J. (1989). Idiosyncratic strategies in sentence production: A case report. Brain and Language, 36, 614–624. García-Albea, J. E., Del Viso, S., & Igoa, J. M. (1989). Movement errors and levels of processing in sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 145–161. Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., Ehrlich, M. F., & Carreiras, M. (1995). Representations and processes in the interpretations of pronouns: New evidence from Spanish and French. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 41–62. Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1983). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1992). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gass, S. M. (1994). The reliability in L2 grammaticality judgements. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research Methodology in SLA (pp. 303–322). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gass, S. M. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of language transfer. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 317–345). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition. An introductory course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Giannakidou, A. & Stavrou, M. (1999). Nominalization and ellipsis in the Greek DP. Linguistic Review, 16 (3), 295–331. Giorgi, A. & Longobardi, G. (1991). The Syntax of Noun Phrases: Configuration, parameters and empty categories. Cambridge: CUP. Givón, T. (1976). Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic. New York, NY: Academic Press. Gleitman, L. R. & Newport, E. L. (1995). The invention of language by children: Environmental and biological influences on the acquisition of language. In L. R. Gleitman & M. Liberman (Eds.), Language: An invitation to cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goad, H. (1998). Plurals in SLI: Prosodic deficit or morphological deficit? Language Acquisition, 7 (2/4), 247–284. Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10, 447– 474. Goldowsky, B. N. & Newport, E. L. (1993). Modeling the effects of processing limitations on the acquisition of morphology: The less is more hypothesis. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), The proceedings of the 24th annual child language research forum (pp. 124–138). Stanford, CA: CSLI. González, G. (1970). The acquisition of Spanish grammar by native Spanish-speaking children. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas. Gopnik, M., Dalalakis, J., Fukuda, S. E., & Fukuda, S. (1997). Familial language impairment. In M. Gopnik (Ed.), The Inheritance and Innateness of Grammars (pp. 111–140). New York, NY: OUP.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Goss, N., Ying-Hua, Z., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Two heads may be better than one: mental activity in L2 grammaticality judgements. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research Methodology in SLA (pp. 263–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Granfeldt, J. (2000). Le développement morphosyntactique du syntagme nominal chez des enfents et des adultes – approche générativiste. In Petites études romanes de Lund extra seriem (PERLES) no. 9. Lund: Institut d’Etudes Romanes de l’Université de Lund. Granger, S. (1998). The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer (pp. 3–18). London: Longman. Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language (pp. 58–85). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton. Gregg, K. R. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79–100. Grinevald, C. (2000). A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In G. Senft (Ed.), Systems of Nominal Classification (pp. 50–92). Cambridge: CUP. Grodzinsky, Y., Shapiro, L., & Swinney, D. A. (2000). Language and the Brain: Representation and processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Grosjean, F., Dommergues, J.-Y., Cornu, E., Guillelmon, D., & Besson, C. (1994). The gender marking effect in spoken word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 56, 590–598. Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language Acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Guillelmon, D. & Grosjean, F. (2000). The gender marking effect in spoken word recognition: The case of bilinguals. Ms. University of Neuchâtel. Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., & Loftin, J. D. (2000). The effect of L1 use on prounciation in Quichua-Spanish bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 28 (1), 27–42. Gunter, T. C., Friederici, A. D., & Schriefers, H. J. (2000). Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12 (4), 556–568. Gurjanov, M., Lukatela, G., Lukatela, M., Savic, M., & Turvey, M. (1985). Grammatical priming of inflectional nouns by the gender of possessive adjectives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 692–701. Gurjanov, M., Lukatela, G., Moskovljevic, J., Savic, M., & Turvey, M. (1985). Grammatical priming of inflected nouns by inflected adjectives. Cognition, 19, 55–71. Hagoort, P. & Brown, C. M. (1999). Gender electrified: ERP evidence on the syntactic nature of gender processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28 (6), 715–728. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Osterhout, L. (1999). The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The Neurocognition of Language (pp. 273–307). Oxford: OUP. Hale, K. (1988). Linguistic theory: Generative grammar. In S. Flynn & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 26–33). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

References 

Halle, M. & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20 (pp. 111–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, M. & Marantz, A. (1994). Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In A. Carnie & H. Harley (Eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: Papers on phonology and morphology (pp. 275–288). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Han, Z. (2000). Persistence of implicit influence of NL: The case of the pseudo-passive. Applied Linguistics, 21 (1), 55–82. Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hara, M. & Ma, C.-H. (2004). Why do learners optionally choose a certain divergent analysis of TL over a TL-like one? In S. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace, & M. Ota (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 4 (pp. 7–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hardison, D. M. (1992). Acquisition of grammatical gender in French: L2 learner accuracy and strategies [January (1992]. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 48 (2), 292–306. Harley, B. (1979). French gender ‘rules’ in the speech of English-dominant, Frenchdominant and monolingual French-speaking children. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 129–156. Harley, B. & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 379–400. Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus on form tasks in promoting child L2A. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom SLA (pp. 156–174). Cambridge: CUP. Harley, H. & Noyer, R. (1999). Distributed morphology. Glot International, 4 (4), 3–9. Harley, H. & Ritter, E. (2002). Structuring the bundle: A universal morphosyntactic feature geometry. In H. Wiese & H. J. Simon (Eds.), Pronouns: Grammar and representation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Harnad, S. (Ed.). (1987). Categorical Perception: The groundwork of cognition. New York: CUP. Harris, J. W. (1985). Spanish word markers. In F. W. Neussel (Ed.), Current Issues in Spanish Phonology and Morphology (pp. 34–54). Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Harris, J. W. (1991). The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 22 (1), 27–62. Harris, J. W. (1992). The form classes of Spanish substantives. In Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp. 65–88). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Hawkins, R. D., Towell, R. J., & Bazergui, N. (1993). Universal grammar and the acquisition of French verb movement by native speakers of English. Second Language Research, 9, 189–233. Hawkins, R. D. & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of UG in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research, 13 (3), 187–226. Hawkins, R. D. (1998). Explaining the difficulty of French gender attribution for speakers of English. Paper presented at 8th annual EUROSLA conference, Paris. Hawkins, R. D. (2001a). Second Language Syntax. A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Hawkins, R. D. (2001b). The theoretical significance of Universal Grammar in SLA. Second Language Research, 17 (4), 345–367. Henry, A. (1995). Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. New York: OUP. Henry, A. (1997). Viewing change in progress: The loss of V2 in Hiberno-English imperatives. In A. Van Kemenade & N. Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change (pp. 273–296). Cambridge: CUP. Hermon, G. (1992). Binding theory and parameter setting. Linguistic Review, 9 (2), 145–181. Hernández Pina, F. (1984). Teorías psicosociolingüísticas y su aplicación a la adquisición del español como lengua materna. Madrid: Siglo XXI de España Editores. Herschensohn, J. (2000). The Second Time Around: Minimalism and L2A. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hinkel, E. (2004). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 8 (1), 5–29. Hiramatsu, K. (2001). Accessing linguistic competence: Evidence from children’s and adult’s acceptability judgements. Ph.D. disseration, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Hockett, C. F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York, NY: Macmillan. Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (Eds.). (2005). Investigations in Instructed SLA. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hu, G. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (3), 347–386. Hulk, A. (1991). Parameter setting and the acquisition of word order in L2 French. Second Language Research, 7 (1), 1–34. Hulk, A. & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3 (3), 227–244. Hurford, J. R. (1991). The evolution of the critical period for language acquisition. Cognition, 40, 159–201. Hyltenstam, K. (1992). Non-native features of near-native speakers. On the ultimate attainment of childhood L2 learners. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp. 351–368). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hyltenstam, K. & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 539–588). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Idiazabal, I. (1995). First stages in the acquisition of noun phrase determiners by a Basque-Spanish bilingual child. In C. Silva Corvalan (Ed.), Spanish in Four Continents. Studies in language contact and bilingualism (pp. 261–278). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Igoa, J. M., García-Albea, J. E., & Sánchez-Casas, R. (1999). Gender number dissociations in sentence production in Spanish. Rivista di Linguistica, 11 (1), 163–196. Ionin, T. & Wexler, K. (2002). Why is ‘is’ easier than ‘-s’?: Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child second language learners of English. Second Language Research, 18 (2), 95–136. Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: A case study of successful SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73–98.

References 

Ioup, G. (1995). Evaluating the need for input enhancement in post-critical period language acquisition. In D. M. Singleton & Z. Lengyel (Eds.), The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 95–123). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Irmen, L. & Knoll, J. (1999). On the use of the grammatical gender of anaphoric pronouns in German. A comparison between Finns and Germans. Sprache und Kognition, 18 (3/4), 123–135. Jacobs, L. M. (1989). A Deaf Adult Speaks Out. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Jacobsen, T. (1999). Effects of grammatical gender on picture and word naming: Evidence from German. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28 (5), 499–514. Jaeggli, O. (1982). Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Jamieson, D. G. & Morosan, D. E. (1989). Training new, nonnative speech contrasts: A comparison of the prototype and perceptual fading techniques. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 43, 88–96. Jarema, G. & Friederici, A. D. (1994). Processing articles and pronouns in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from French. Brain and Language, 46, 683–694. Johnson, J. & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. Johnson, J. & Newport, E. L. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39, 215–258. Jordens, P. (1996). Input and instruction in SLA. In P. Jordens & J. A. Lalleman (Eds.), Investigating Second Language Acquisition (pp. 407–449). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Juffs, A. & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in L2 sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 483– 516. Juffs, A. (1998). Some effects of L1 argument structure and morphosyntax on L2 sentence processing. Second Language Research, 14 (4), 406–424. Kanno, K. (1997). The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Research, 13, 265–287. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A Functional Approach to Child Language. A study of determiners and reference. Cambridge: CUP. Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Keenan, E. L. (1974). The functional principle: Generalising the notion of ‘subject of ’. Chicago Linguitic Society (CLS), 10, 298–309. Kellerman, E. & Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. New York: OUP. Keniston, H. (1937/1964). Spanish Syntax List. New York, NY: Holt. Kester, E.-P. (1996). On the Nature of Adjectival Inflection. Utrecht: OTS. Klein, W. P. & Dittmar, N. (1979). Developing Grammars: The acquisition of German syntax by foreign workers. Berlin: Springer. Koehn, C. (1994). The acquisition of gender and number morphology within NP. In J. M. Meisel (Ed.), Bilingual First Language Acquisition. French and German grammatical development (pp. 53–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Kolk, H. H. J. & Van Grunsven, M. M. F. (1985). Agrammatism as a variable phenomenon. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 347–384. Kolk, H. H. J. & Hofstede, B. (1994). The choice for ellipsis: A case study of stylistic shifts in an agrammatic speaker. Brain and Language, 47, 507–509. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in SLA. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. D., Scarcella, R. C., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (1982). Child-adult Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman. Kuczaj, S. A. (1977). The acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 589–600. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lakshmanan, U. & Selinker, L. (2001). Analyzing interlanguage: How do we know what learners know? Second Language Research, 17 (4), 393–420. Lamarche, J. (1991). Problems for N-movement to Num-P. Probus, 3 (2), 215–236. Lamendella, J. (1977). General principles of neuro-functional organization and their manifestation in primary and non-primary language acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 155–196. Lapkin, S. & Swain, M. (1977). The use of English and French cloze tests in a bilingual education program evaluation: Validity and error analysis. Language Learning, 27, 279– 314. Lapointe, S. G. (1982). A comparison of two recent theories of agreement. In Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, 18th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 122–134). Lardiere, D. (1998a). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 endstate grammar. Second Language Research, 14 (4), 359–375. Lardiere, D. (1998b). Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research, 14 (1), 1–26. Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to forms in SLA. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 102–129). Oxford: Blackwell. Larson-Hall, J. (2004). Predicting perceptual success with segments: A test of Japanese speakers of Russian. Second Language Research, 20 (1), 33–76. Lehmann, C. (1982). Universal and typological aspects of agreement. In Teil II, H. Seiler & C. Lehmann (Eds.), Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York, NY: John Wiley. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levy, Y. (1983). It’s frogs all the way down. Cognition, 15, 75–93. Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Liceras, J. M., Diaz, L., & Mongeon, C. (2000). N-drop and determiners in native and non-native Spanish: More on the role of morphology in the acquisition of syntactic knowledge. In R. P. Leow & C. Sanz (Eds.), Spanish Applied Linguistics at the Turn of the Millennium. Papers from the 1999 Conference on the L1 and L2 Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese, Georgetown University (pp. 67–96). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

References 

Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing Morphology:Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Great Expectations: SLA research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6 (2), 173–189. Liszka, S. (2001). Explaining divergent tense marking in advanced L2 speakers. In D. Arnold, F. Franceschina, & E. Thomas (Eds.), Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3 (pp. 59–69). Colchester: Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex. http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/pgr/egspll/volume53 Liszka, S. (2004). Exploring the effects of first language influence on second language pragmatic processes from a syntactic deficit perspective. Second Language Research, 20 (3), 212–231. Löbel, E. (2000). Classifiers versus genders and noun classes: A case study in Vietnamese. In B. Unterbeck, M. Rissanen, T. Nevalainen, & M. Saari (Eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition (pp. 259–320). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874–886. Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17 (3), 359–382. Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. M. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple perspectives. New York, NY: Newbury House. Long, M. H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251–285. Long, M. H. (2003). Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage development. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 487–535). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and LF. Linguistic Inquiry, 25 (4), 609–665. Longobardi, G. (2001). The structure of DPs: Some principles, parameters and problems. In M. R. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory (pp. 562–604). Malden, MA: Blackwell. López Ornat, S. (1988). On data sources on the acquisition of Spanish as a first language. Journal of Child Language, 15, 679–686. López Ornat, S. (1993). Cross-sectional experimental transcripts of conversations with Spanish children aged 1;6 to 3;8. Ms. López Ornat, S. (1994). La adquisición gramatical: Un esquema. In S. López Ornat, A. Fernandez, P. Gallo, & S. Mariscal (Eds.), La adquisición de la lengua española (pp. 101– 126). Madrid: Siglo XXI de España Editores. López Ornat, S. (1997). What lies between a pre-grammatical and a grammatical representation? Evidence from nominal and verbal form-function mappings in Spanish from 1;7 to 2;1. In A. T. Perez-Leroux & W. R. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish (pp. 3–20). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Lucy, J. (2000). Systems of nominal classification: A concluding discussion. In G. Senft (Ed.), Systems of Nominal Classification (pp. 326–341). Cambridge: CUP.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

MacLaughlin, D. (1993). The responsibility of linguistic theory to SLA data. Paper presented at the Workshop on Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, part of the Boston University Applied Linguistics Colloquium Series, 1 March 1993. Available from ERIC Document Reproduction Service, Document No. ED 362 022. MacLaughlin, D. (1995). Language acquisition and the Subset Principle. Linguistic Review, 12, 143–191. MacWhinney, B. (1978). The acquisition of morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 43 (1–2), Serial no. 174. MacWhinney, B., Leinbach, J., Taraban, R., & McDonald, J. (1989). Language learning: Cues or rules? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 255–277. MacWhinney, B. (1992). Transfer and competition in L2 learning. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp. 371–390). Amsterdam: North-Holland. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analysing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mandell, P. B. (1999). On the reliability of grammaticality judgement tests in SLA research. Second Language Research, 15 (1), 73–99. Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Maratsos, M. (1988). The acquisition of formal word classes. In Y. Levy, I. Schlesinger, & M. D. S. Braine (Eds.), Categories and Processes in Language Acquisition (pp. 31–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Maratsos, M. P. (2000). More overregularizations after all: New data and discussion on Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen & Xu. Journal of Child Language, 28 (1), 32–54. Marchman, V. A. (1993). Constraints on plasticity in a connectionist model of the English Past Tense. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5 (2), 215–234. Marcotte, A. C. & Morere, D. A. (1990). Speech lateralization in deaf populations: Evidence for a developmental critical period. Brain and Language, 39, 134–152. Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullmann, M. T., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J., & Xu, F. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. With commentary by Harald Clahsen. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57 (4), Serial no. 228. Marcus, G. F. (1995). The acquisition of the English past tense in children and multilayered connectionist networks. Cognition, 56, 271–279. Marcus, G. F. (2000). Children’s overregularization and its implications for cognition. In P. Broeder & J. Murre (Eds.), Models of Language Acquisition: Inductive and deductive approaches (pp. 154–176). Oxford: OUP. Martin, R. (1999). Case, the Extended Projection Principle and Minimalism. In S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working Minimalism (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Martohardjono, G. & Gair, J. W. (1993). Apparent UG inaccessibility in SLA: Misapplied principles or principled misapplication? In F. R. Eckman (Ed.), Confluence: Linguistics, L2 Acquisition and Speech Pathology (pp. 79–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martohardjono, G. & Flynn, S. (1995). Is there an age factor for UG? In D. M. Singleton & Z. Lengyel (Eds.), The age factor in second language acquisition (pp. 135–153). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional Morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: CUP.

References

Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. Matthews, P. H. (1997). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. Mayberry, R. I. & Eichen, E. B. (1991). The long lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486–512. Mayberry, R. I. (1993). First language acquisition after childhood differs from second language acquisition: The case of ASL. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1258–1270. McLaughlin, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28 (2), 309–332. Meisel, J. M. (1989). Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity and loss (pp. 13–40). Cambridge: CUP. Meisel, J. M. (1991). Principles of UG and strategies of language learning: Some similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition. In L. Eubank (Ed.), Count and Counterpoint: UG in the L2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meisel, J. M. (1997). The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: Contrasting first and second language development. Second Language Research, 13, 227–263. Mel’cuk, I. A. (1958). Statistics and the relationship between the gender of French nouns and their endings. Bjulleten’ objendinenija po porblemam masinnogo, 11–40. Mills, A. E. (1985). The acquisition of German. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The Cross-linguistic Study of Language Acquisition: The data, Vol. 1 (pp. 141–254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mills, A. E. (1986). The Acquisition of Gender: Evidence from German and English. Berlin: Springer. Mitchell, D., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24 (6), 469–488. Mitchum, C. C., Haendiges, A. N., & Berndt, R. S. (2004). Response strategies in aphasic sentence comprehension: An analysis of two cases. Aphasiology, 18 (8), 675–692. Möhring, A. (2001). The acquisition of French by German pre-school children. An investigation of gender assignment and gender agreement. In S. Foster-Cohen & A. Nizegorodcew (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 1 (pp. 171–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montalbetti, M. (1984). After Binding. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Montalbetti, M. (1986). How pro is it? In O. Jaeggli & C. Silva Corvalan (Eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics (pp. 137–152). Dordrecht: Foris. Moravcsik, E. A. (1978). Agreement. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Human Language 4 (pp. 331–374). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Moyer, A. (2004). Age, Accent and Experience in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Müller, N. (1990). Developing two gender assignment systems simultaneously. In J. M. Meisel (Ed.), Two First Languages – Early Grammatical Development in Bilingual children (pp. 194–232). Dordrecht: Foris.



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Müller, N. (1994). Gender and number agreement within DP. In J. M. Meisel (Ed.), Bilingual First Language Acquisition (pp. 53–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Müller, N. (1998). Transfer in bilingual first language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (3), 151–171. Müller, N. (2000). Gender and number in acquisition. In B. Unterbeck, M. Rissanen, T. Nevalainen, & M. Saari (Eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition (pp. 351–400). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Müller, N. & Hulk, A. (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4 (1), 1–21. Mueller Gathercole, V. C. (2000). Grammatical gender in bilingual and monolingual children: A Spanish morphosyntactic distinction. Ms., School of Psychology, University of Wales, Bangor. Munnich, E., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1994). Elicited imitation and grammaticality judgement tasks: What they measure and how they relate to each other. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research Methodology in SLA (pp. 227–243). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Murphy, V. A. (1997). The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgement task. Second Language Research, 13 (1), 34–65. Myers-Scotton, C. (1995). A lexically based model of code-switching. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One Speaker, Two Languages (pp. 233–256). Cambridge: CUP. Nagata, H. (1988). The reliability of linguistic intuition: The effect of repetition on GJs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17 (1), 1–17. Neidle, C., Bahan, B., MacLaughlin, D., Lee, R. G., & Kegl, J. (1998). Realizations of syntactic agreement in ASL: Similarities between the clause and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica, 52 (3), 191–226. Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B., & Lee, R. G. (2000). The Syntax of ASL: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Neidle, C. & MacLaughlin, D. (2002). The distribution of functional projections in ASL: Evidence from overt expressions of syntactic features. In G. Cinque (Ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures (pp. 195–224). Oxford: OUP. Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28. Newton, M. (2002). Savage Girls and Wild Boys: A history of feral children. London: Faber and Faber. Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. Odlin, T. (1989. Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: CUP. Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 436–486). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

References 

Oliphant, K. (1997). Acquisition of Grammatical Gender in Italian as a Foreign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Oliphant, K. (1998). Acquisition of grammatical gender in Italian as a foreign langauge. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 54 (2), 238–262. Orr, G. J. (1987). Aspects of Second Language Acquisition of Chichewa Noun Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Ortega, L. (2001). Changes in the accuracy and confidence of grammaticality judgements: Does the expliciteness of the target matter? Paper presented at the Form-Meaning Connections in SLA Conference, University of Illinois at Chicago, September 20–23, 2001. Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a non-native phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5 (3), 261–283. Oyama, S. (1978). The sensitive period and comprehension of speech. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 16, 1–17. Padilla, A. M. & Lindholm, K. (1978). Language mixing in bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 5, 327–335. Panagiotidis, P. (2001). Pronominals and empty noun heads: ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex. Paolillo, J. C. (2000). Asymmetries in Universal Grammar: The role of methods and statistics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 209–228. Papp, S. (2000). Stable and developmental optionality in native and non-native Hungarian grammars. Second Language Research, 16 (2), 173–200. Paradis, M. & Gopnik, M. (1997). Compensatory strategies in genetic dysphasia: Declarative memory. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 10 (2/3), 173–185. Paradis, M. (Ed.). (2001). Manifestations of Aphasia Symptoms in Different Languages. Pergamon Press. Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30, 449–472. Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 9–31. Penfield, W. & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. New York, NY: Athenaeum. Perez Pereira, M. (1991). The acquisition of gender: What Spanish children tell us. Journal of Child Language, 18, 571–590. Picallo, M. C. (1991). Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus, 3 (3), 279–316. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 52–79. Pienemann, M. (1998). Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability Theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 1–20. Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–193. Pisoni, D. B., Aslin, R. N., Perey, A., & Hennesy, B. (1982). Some effects of laboratory training on identification and discrimination of voicing contrasts in stop consonants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 297–314.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Platzack, C. (1990). A grammar without functional categories: A syntactic study of early Swedish child language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 13, 107–126. Poeppel, D. & Wexler, K. (1993). The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language, 69, 1–33. Posner, R. (1996). The Romance Languages. Cambridge: CUP. Prévost, P. & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16 (2), 103–133. Prévost, P. (2004). Morphological variation in early adult second language French: A crosssectional study. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace, & M. Ota (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 4 (pp. 147–175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: The nature of early child grammars of English. Oxford: Blackwell. Radford, A. (1993). Head-hunting: On the trail of the nominal Janus. In G. C. Corbett, N. M. Fraser, & S. McGlashan (Eds.), Heads in Grammatical Theory (pp. 73–113). Cambridge: CUP. Radford, A. (1997). Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English. A minimalist approach. Cambridge: CUP. Radford, A. (2000). NP Shells. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 33, 2–22. Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax. Exploring the structure on English. Cambridge: CUP. Ramsey, M. M. (1956). A Textbook of Modern Spanish. New York, NY: Holt. Reuland, E. (1993). Reflections on knowledge and language. In E. Reuland & W. Abraham (Eds.), Knowledge and Language. Vol. I: From Orwell’s problem to Plato’s problem (pp. 11–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Rice, M. L. & Warren, S. F. (Eds.). (2004). Developmental Language Disorders. From phenotypes to etiologies: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ringbom, H. (1987). The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ritter, E. (1991). Two functional categories in phrase structure. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and licensing (pp. 37–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ritter, E. (1993). Where is gender? Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 795–803. Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in SLA. Second Language Research, 17 (4), 368–392. Roca, I. M. (1989). The organisation of grammatical gender. Transactions of the Philological Society, 7 (1), 1–32. Roca, I. (2000). On the meaning of gender. Hispanic Research Journal, 1 (2), 113–128. Ronat, M. (1977). Une contrainte sur l’effacement du nom. In M. Ronat (Ed.), Langue (pp. 153–169). Paris: Hermann. Rosansky, E. J. (1975). The critical period for the acquisition of language: Some cognitive developmental considerations. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 6, 92–102. Sabourin, L. L. & Haverkort, M. (2000). L2 processing and the role of the language module. Poster presented at the Second International Conference on the Mental Lexicon, Montreal, Canada, October 2000.

References 

Sabourin, L. (2001). L1 effects on the processing of grammatical gender in L2. In S. FosterCohen & A. Nizegorodcew (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 1 (pp. 159–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sabourin, L. L. (2003). Grammatical gender and second language processing: An ERP study. Ph.D. dissertation, Groningen University. Saleemi, A. P. (1992). Universal Grammar and Language Learnability. Cambridge: CUP. Sanchez, L. (2004). Quechua-Spanish Bilingualism. Interfaces and convergence in functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sasaki, M. (1993). Relationships among second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude and intelligence. Language Learning, 43, 313–344. Sasaki, M. (1999). Second Language Proficiency, Foreign Language Aptitude and Intelligence. Quantitative and qualitative analyses. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24 (2), 205–214. Schachter, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and its relationship to UG. Applied Linguistics, 9, 219–235. Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on SLA (pp. 73–88). New York: CUP. Schachter, J. (1990). On the issues of completeness in SLA. Second Language Research, 6, 93–124. Schachter, J. (1996). Maturation and the issue of UG in SLA. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 159–193). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schnell de Acedo, B. (1994). Early morphological development: The acquisition of articles in Spanish. In J. L. Sokolov & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Language Development using CHILDES (pp. 210–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schumann, J. H. (1978). The Pidginization Hypothesis: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schütze, C. (2001). On the nature of default case. Syntax, 4 (3), 205–238. Schwartz, B. D. & Tomaselli, A. (1990). Some implications from an analysis of German word order. In W. Abraham, W. Kosmeijer, & E. Reuland (Eds.), Issues in Germanic syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behaviour. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (2), 147–165. Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (1994). Word order and nominative Case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra & B. D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar (pp. 317–368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the ‘full transfer/full access’ model. Second Language Research, 12 (1), 40–72. Schwartz, B. D. (1998). On two hypotheses of transfer in SLA: Minimal trees and absolute L1 influence. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 35–59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory (pp. 156–186). Oxford: Blackwell.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Scott, M. L. (1994). Auditory memory and perception in younger and older adult L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 263–281. Scovel, T. (1988). A Time to Speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech. New York, NY: Newbury House. Seliger, H. W. (1978). The implications of a multiple critical period hypothesis for second language learning. In W. C. Ritchie (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition Research. Issues and implications (pp. 11–19). New York, NY: Academic Press. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 10 (2), 209–231. Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman. Senft, G. (Ed.). (2000). Systems of Nominal Classification. Cambridge: CUP. Shelton, J. (1997). Second language acquisition of grammatical gender and agreement in French. Ph.D. disseration, University of Essex. Singleton, D. M. (1989). Language Acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Singleton, D. M. (1992). Second language instruction: The when and the how. AILA Review, 9, 46–54. Singleton, D. M. (1995). Introduction: A critical look at the Critical Period Hypothesis in SLA. In D. M. Singleton & Z. Lengyel (Eds.), The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 1–29). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Singleton, D. M. & Lengyel, Z. (Eds.). (1995). The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Singleton, D. M. & Ryan, L. (2004). Language Acquisition. The age factor. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Arnold. Sleeman, P. (1993). Noun ellipsis in French. Probus, 5, 271–295. Smith, N. & Tsimpli, I. M. (1995). The Mind of a Savant: Language learning and modularity. Oxford: Blackwell. Snyder, W., Senghas, A., & Inman, K. (2001). Agreement morphology and the acquisition of noun-drop in Spanish. Language Acquisition, 9 (2), 157–173. Soler, M. R. (1984). Adquisición y utilización del artículo. In M. Siguan (Ed.), Estudios sobre psicología del lenguaje infnatil. Madrid: Pirámide. Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in near-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9 (1), 22–47. Sorace, A. (1996). The use of acceptability judgements in SLA research. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 375–409). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Sorace, A. (2000). Syntactic optionality in non-native grammars. Second Language Research, 16 (2), 93–102. Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 130–151). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Sparks, R. & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90–111. Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

References 

Spencer, A. (1999). Gender as an inflectional category [August 1999]. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 25, 35–72. Spencer, A. (2000). Head marking. In K. Brown & J. Miller (Eds.), The Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories (pp. 186–192). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Spitz, E. (1965). Beitrag zur Genusbestimmung der deutschen Substantive. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 4/65, 35–43. Sportiche, D. (1990). Movement, agreement and case. Ms., UCLA. Available from http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/sportich/papers/mac.pdf and later published as Sportiche (1998). Sproat, R. W. (1988). Bracketing paradoxes, cliticization and other topics: The mapping between syntactic and phonological structure. In M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts, & M. Trommelen (Eds.), Morphology and Modularity. Dordrecht: Foris. Steckelberg, M. (1937). How erratic is the gender of German nouns? Modern Language Journal, 2, 519–521. Stevens, F. (1984.) Strategies for SLA. Montreal: Eden Press. Stockwell, P., Bowen, D., & Martin, J. W. (1965). The Grammatical Structures of English and Spanish [Contrastive Structures Series]. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Strong, M. (1976). German noun gender: a matter of memorization? Die Unterrichtspraxis, 9, 74–77. Surridge, M. E. & Lessard, G. (1984). Pour une prise de conscience du genre grammatical [October 1984]. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 41 (1), 43–52. Taeschner, T. (1983). The sun is Feminine. A study of language acquisition in bilingual children. Berlin: Springer. Tang, S.-W. (1998). Parameterization of Features in Syntax. Ph.D. disseration, University of California at Irvine. Taraban, R. & Roark, B. (1996). Competition in language-based categories. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 125–148. Taraban, R. & Kempe, V. (1999). Gender processing in native and nonnative Russian speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20 (1), 119–148. Taylor-Browne, K. (1984). The Acquisition of Grammatical Gender by Children in French Immersion Programmes. Ph.D. disseration, University of Calgary. Teschner, R. V. & Russell, W. M. (1984). The gender patterns of Spanish nouns: An inverse dictionary-based analysis. Hispanic Linguistics, 1 (1), 115–132. Thomas, M. (1991). UG and the interpretation of reflexives in a second language. Language, 67 (2), 211–239. Tolbert, K. (1978). The Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes: A cross-linguistic study with reference to Mayan and Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Towell, R. J. & Hawkins, R. D. (1994). Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Trahey, M. & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204. Tsimpli, I. M. & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter setting in L2? University College London Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149–169.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Tsimpli, I. M. & Smith, N. (1991). Second language learning: Evidence from a polyglot savant. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 171–184. Tsimpli, I. M. (1992). Functional Categories and Maturation: The prefunctional stage of language acquisition. Ph.D. disseration, UCL. Ullmann, S. (1966). Semantic universals. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct access to X’-theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In T. Hoekstra & B. D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12 (1), 7–39. Valois, D. (1991). The internal syntax of DP and adjective placement in French and English. In T. Sherer (Ed.), NELS 21 (pp. 367–382). Amherst, MA: GSLA Publications. van Berkum, J. J. A. (1997). Syntactic processes in speech production: The retrieval of grammatical gender. Cognition, 64 (2), 115–152. van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). When does gender constrain parsing? Evidence from ERPs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28 (5), 555–571. Van Naerssen, M. (1986). Hipótesis sobre la adquisición de una segunda lengua, consideraciones de interlenguaje: comprobación en el español. In J. M. Meisel (Ed.), Adquisición del lenguaje – Aquisiçao da linguagem (pp. 139–155). Frankfurt: KlausDieter Vervuert Verlag. Van Patten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction. New York, NY: Ablex. Van Patten, B. (Ed.). (2004). Processing Instruction. Theory, research and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Verhoeven, L. & van Balkom, H. (Eds.). (2004). Classification of Developmental Language Disorders. Theoretical issues and clinical implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vigliocco, G., Antonini, T., & Garrett, M. F. (1997). Grammatical gender is on the tip of the Italian tongues. Psychological Science, 8 (4), 314–317. Volterra, V. & Taeschner, T. (1978). The acquisition of language by bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 5 (2), 311–326. Vosse, T. & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 104–143. Walsh, T. M. & Diller, K. C. (1981). Neurolinguistic considerations on the optimum age for second language learning. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude (pp. 3–21). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Weber, D. (2000). On the function of gender. In B. Unterbeck, M. Rissanen, T. Nevalainen, & M. Saari (Eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition (pp. 495–510). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Weber-Fox, C. M. & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8 (3), 231–256.

References 

Weber-Fox, C. M. & Neville, H. J. (1999). Functional and neural subsystems are differenctially affected by delays in L2 immersion: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilinguals. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 23–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wesche, M. B., Edwards, H., & Wells, W. (1982). Foreign language aptitude and intelligence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3 (2), 127–140. White, L. (1989). UG and SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. White, L. (1992). Subjacency violations and empty categories in SLA. In H. Goodluck & M. Rochemont (Eds.), Island Constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing (pp. 445–464). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. White, L. (1996). UG and SLA: Current trends and new directions. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 85–120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. White, L. & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in SLA. Second Language Research, 12 (3), 233–265. White, L. (1998). Universal Grammar in SLA: The nature of IL representation. Ms. Based on a paper presented at the colloquium UG access in SLA: Reassessing the question. SLRF, 15–18 October 1998, University of Hawai’i. White, L., Valenzuela, E., MacGregor, M., Leung, I. Y.-K., & Ben Ayed, H. (2000). Abstract features in L2 grammars: evidence from L2 Spanish. Paper presented at EUROSLA 10, Krakow, 7–10 September 2000. White, L., Valenzuela, E., Kozlowska-MacGregor, M., Leung, I. Y.-K., & Ben Ayed, H. (2001). The status of abstract features in interlanguage: Gender and number in L2 Spanish. In A. H. J. Do, L. Dominguez, & A. Johansen (Eds.), BUCLD 25: Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (2000) (pp. 792–802). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. Williams, E. (1987). Introduction. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter Setting (pp. vii–xix). Dordrecht: Reidel. Wiltschko, M. (2002). The syntax of pronouns: Evidence from Halkomelem Salish [Feb 02]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20 (1), 157–195. Wimsatt, W. C. (1986). Developmental constraints, generative entrenchment and the innate-acquired distinction. In W. Bechtel (Ed.), Integrative Scientific Disciplines (pp. 185–208). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. Wimsatt, W. C. (1991). Generative entrenchment in development and evolution. Ms., Department of Philosophy, University of Chicago. Yip, V. & Matthews, S. (1991). Relative complexity: Beyond avoidance. Chinese University of Hong Kong Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 112–124. Yip, P.-C. & Rimmington, D. (1997). Chinese: An essential grammar. London: Routledge. Young, R. (1989). Ends and means: Methods for the study of interlanguage variation. In S. M. Gass, C. G. Madden, D. R. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic issues (pp. 65–90). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Young-Scholten, M. (1993). The Acquisition of Prosodic Structure in a Second Language. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Yuan, B. (2001). The status of thematic verbs in the L2A of Chinese: Against inevitability of thematic-verb raising in SLA. Second Language Research, 17 (3), 248–272. Zekhini, A. & Hulstijn, J. H. (1995). An experimental study on the learning of arbitrary and non-arbitrary gender of pseudo Dutch nouns by non-native and native speakers of Dutch. Applied Linguistics in Articles, 53, 121–136. Zubin, D. A. & Köpcke, K. M. (1981). Gender: A less than arbitrary grammatical category. Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 439–449.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Greenberg’s (1963, 1966) typological universals involving gender Universal 30 If a verb has categories of person-number or if it has categories of gender, it always has tense-mode categories. Universal 31 If either the subject or object noun agrees with the verb in gender, then the adjective always agrees with the noun in gender. Universal 32 Whenever the verb agrees with a nominal subject or nominal object in gender, it also agrees in number. Universal 36 If a language has the category of gender, it always has the category of number. Universal 37 A language never has more gender categories in nonsingular numbers than in the singular. Universal 43 If a language has gender categories in the noun, it has gender categories in the pronoun. Universal 44 If a language has gender distinctions in the first person, it always has gender distinctions in the second or third person or in both. Universal 45 If there are any gender distinctions in the plural of the pronoun, there are some gender distinctions in the singular also.

Appendix 2: Number of subjects that participated in each task L1

Over-all Inter-view Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6

NS +gen Arabic French German Greek Italian Portuguese Total +gen

42 4 9 2 2 24 12 53

5 – – – – 3 2 5

29 4 4 2 2 9 8 29

25 2 5 2 2 8 6 25

30 4 5 2 2 10 7 30

27 2 4 2 2 9 8 27

23 2 3 2 2 8 6 23

35 4 9 2 2 24 12 35

–gen (English)

15

5

15

15

15

15

15

15

Total all groups

110

15

73

65

75

69

61

110

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Appendix 3: Case and number mistakes made during spontaneous speech production Line 1 what the subjects said Line 2 correct version of what was said Line 3 English translation

Subject: EN1 (1) Y voy al opening plenary [. . .] *le presenta David Crystal Y voy al opening plenary [. . .] lo presenta David Crystal ‘And I’m going to the opening plenary [. . .] it will be presented by D.C.’

Subject: EN2 (2) Pero muy *lindo casitas Pero muy lindas casitas ‘But very nice houses’ (3) Con clases *formal con ella Con clases formales con ella ‘In formal classes with her’

Subject: PO1 (4) Y llegaba gente de todos los países. Uno estaba en Brasil y estaba en todos los *país Y llegaba gente de todos los países. Uno estaba en Brasil y estaba en todos los países ‘And there came people from all countries. One was in Brazil and it was like being in all countries’ (5) Y los *camión transportistas venían por el lado de la esposa Y los camiones transportistas venían por el lado de la esposa ‘And the lorries came from the wife’s family’

Appendix 4: Mistakes made by the Italian subjects in spontaneous production Line 1 what the subjects said Line 2 correct version of what was said Line 3 English translation

Subject: IT1 (1) hay que salir en *escursione hay que salir en excursión ‘one must go on tour’

Appendices 

(2) hay que ir en *escursione hay que ir en excursión ‘one must go on tour’ (3) no le gusta ir en *escursione no le gusta ir en excursión ‘he does not like going on tour’

Subject: IT2 (4) ma *l’agua después se volvió a ir pero el agua después se volvió a ir ‘but then the water disappeared again’ (5) porque estábamos más cerca *l’Adriático porque estábamos más cerca del Adriático ‘because we were closer to the Adriatic’ (6) por eso *l’alcancé enseguida a agarrarlo [antec: el español ‘Spanish’] por eso lo alcancé enseguida a agarrarlo ‘that is why I managed to learn it quickly’ (7) yo me acuerdo *lo primer día yo me acuerdo el primer día ‘I remember the first day’ (8) sabía *li dialecto sabía el dialecto ‘I spoke the dialect’

Subject: IT3 (9) porque la Sandra está con *l’asunto todo de excursión porque la Sandra está con el asunto todo de excursión ‘because Sandra is working on the business of (guided) tours’ (10) con *l’asunto que fue en Italia con el asunto que fue a Italia ‘with the fact that she went to Italy’ (11) porque iba con *l’asunto de la Sociedad Italiana porque iba con el asunto de la Sociedad Italiana ‘because she went on that related to the Italian Club’

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Appendix 5: Test 1 – Guessing game ¿A qué se refieren estas oraciones? Indíquelo haciendo un círculo alrededor de la palabra que corresponda. Ejemplo 1:

Ejemplo 2:

1.

Vas a tener que llevarla a la carpintería porque no tenemos las herramientas adecuadas para arreglarla en casa

2.

En Tailandia la ponen a la derecha del plato.

3.

Se le pusieron coloradas de vergüenza.

4.

¡Burro! ¡No crecen bajo tierra!

5.

Jaimito, ¿por qué no me lo querés prestar, si yo siempre te presto mis útiles? Sos muy egoísta.

6.

No sé cómo te lavaste porque quedaron tan sucias como antes de que te bañaras.

7.

Kasparov es uno de los jugadores más famosos del mundo.

8.

Las acabo de hacer arreglar pero ya andan mal de nuevo. Creo que deben tener un problema de fabricación.

9.

Sin semillas son más caras.

10. Quiero que lo pruebes. Es típico de la zona de donde vienen mis padres.

– silla – computadora – batidora – cuchara – tenedor – cuchillo – uñas – pantorrillas – mejillas – zanahorias – zapallos – papas – lápiz – regla – goma –manos – pies – codos – tenis – ajedrez – golf – teléfonos – calculadoras – relojes – nueces – uvas – aceitunas – pizza – ensalada – queso

Appendices 

11. Te juro que las puse en el estante esta mañana.

12. Sólo da flores blancas.

13. Las hojas que más les gustan son las de eucaliptus.

14. Y no se olviden de agregarla al final o la receta no va a salir bien.

15. Quiero estudiarlo porque es el idioma más hablado en el mundo.

16. ¡Te queda preciosa! Vas a ser la envidia de la fiesta.

17. ¡Están riquísimos! ¿Son de tu campo?

18. María la usa para ir al trabajo todos los días para ayudar a reducir la contaminación ambiental. 19. Para que queden crocantes y sabrosas lo mejor es usar el horno.

20. Las rosas tienen, pero las begonias no.

21. Eligieron este medio para transportar la correspondencia porque las rutas estaban cortadas y mandarla por vía aérea hubiera sido muy costoso. 22. La crisis agropecuaria empezaba a disolverse así que le subieron el precio después de que el gobierno anunció que ya no había más razón de que sea subsidiada porque la producción se había normalizado. 23. Me gustan condimentados con pimienta y hierbas provenzales.

24. Ponen unos huevos inmensos.

– relojes – libros – flores – clavel – jazmín – rosa – jirafas – koalas – elefantes – azúcar – limón – chocolate – japonés – chino – coreano – collar – pulsera – anillo – manzanas – hongos – zanahorias – moto – pick-up – bicicleta – panes – pollos – tostadas – espinas – hojas – pétalos – aire – tierra – agua – trigo – leche – maíz – carnes – pizzas – ravioles – patos – gallinas – avestruces

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

25. Los especialistas han dicho que no es adecuado para nuestros productos agrícolas. 26. Tradicionalmente se lo considera un producto francés por excelencia, pero actualmente hay otros países cuya producción es tan buena como la francesa. 27. Son atípicos de su especie ya que no pueden volar.

28. Los médicos recomiendan no consumirlas en exceso para evitar estreñirse. 29. Los que me gustaban no estaban en oferta, así que al final decidí no comprar nada. 30. Está en mi caja de herrramientas, paradito al costado del cerrucho.

31. La única manera de venderlos va a ser haciendo una buena rebaja en el precio. 32. No quiere viajar en esa época porque es pleno invierno en Europa.

– clima – zona – tierra – vino – mazamorra – salame – cocodrilos – pingüinos – hipopótamos – frutas – verduras – harinas – zapatos – camisas – faldas – martillo – pala – pinza – radios – televisores – cámaras – Pascua – Navidad – Día del Padre

Appendices 

Appendix 6: Test 1 – Design features of test sentences Canonical gender marking on nouns Gen Num Clue on: Script

Items

f

collar pulsera anillo cuchara tenedor cuchillo panes pollos tostadas teléfonos calculadoras relojes martillo pala pinza pizza ensalada queso manzanas hongos zanahorias zapatos camisas polleras

sing adj

pl

m

pron

En Inglaterra la ponen a la derecha del plato.

adj

Para que queden crocantes y sabrosas lo mejor es usar el horno.

pron

Las acabo de hacer arreglar pero ya andan mal de nuevo. Creo que deben tener una falla de fabricación.

sing adj

pl

¡Te queda preciosa! Vas a ser la envidia de la fiesta.

Está en mi caja de herrramientas, paradito al costado del cerrucho.

pron

Quiero que lo pruebes. Es típico de la zona de donde vienen mis padres.

adj

¡Están riquísimos! Son de tu huerta?

pron

Los que me gustaban no estaban en oferta, así que al final decidí no comprar nada.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Non-canonical gender marking on nouns Gen Num Clue on: Script

Items

f

trigo leche maíz

sing

adj

pron

pl

m

sing

pl

Le subieron el precio después de que el gobierno anunció que ya no había más razón de que sea subsidiada porque la producción se había normalizado y la crisis agropecuaria empezaba a disolverse. Y no se olviden de agregarla al final o la receta no va a salir bien.

adj

No sé cómo te lavaste porque quedaron tan sucias como antes de que te bañaras.

pron

“Te juro que las puse en el estante esta mañana.”

adj

Los especialistas han dicho que no es adecuado para nuestros productos agrícolas.

pron

“Jaimito, ¿por qué no me lo querés prestar, si yo siempre te presto mis útiles? Sos muy egoísta.”

adj

Me gustan condimentados con pimienta y hierbas provenzales.

pron

La única manera de venderlos va a ser haciendo una buena rebaja en el precio.

NB: The underlined words are the expected answers.

azúcar limón chocolate manos pies codos relojes libros flores clima zona tierra lápiz relga goma carnes pizzas ravioles radios televisores cámaras

Appendices 

Appendix 7: Test 1 – Design of distractor sentences

Gen Num Script f

sing

pl

Items

Vas a tener que llevarla a la carpintería porque no tenemos silla las herramientas adecuadas para arreglarla en casa. computadora batidora María la usa para ir al trabajo todos los días para ayudar a moto reducir la contaminación ambiental. pick-up bicicleta No quiere viajar para en esa época porque es pleno invierno Pascua Navidad en Europa. Día del Padre Eligieron este medio para transportar la correspondencia aire porque las rutas estaban cortadas y mandarla vía aérea hu- tierra agua biera sido muy costoso. Los médicos recomiendas no consumirlas en exceso para frutas evitar constiparse. verduras harinas Sin semillas son más caras. nueces uvas aceitunas espinas Las rosas tienen pero las begonias no. hojas pétalos Se le pusieron coloradas de la vergüenza. uñas pantorrillas mejillas

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Gen Num Script

Items

m

clavel jazmín rosa tenis golf ajedrez vino mazamorra salame japonés chino coreano patos gallinas avestruces zanahorias papas zapallos pingüinos cocodrilos hipopótamos jirafas koalas elefantes

sing

Sólo da flores blancas.

Kasparov es uno de los jugadores más famosos en el mundo.

Tradicionalmente se lo considera como un producto francés por excelencia, pero actualmente hay otros países cuya producción es tan buena como la francesa. Quiero estudiarlo porque es el idioma más hablado en el mundo. pl

Ponen unos huevos inmensos.

¡Burro! ¡No crecen bajo tierra!

Son atípicos de su especie porque no pueden volar.

Las hojas que más les gustan son las de eucaliptus.

NB: The underlined words are the correct options.

Appendices

Appendix 8: Test 2 – Provide the missing word El siguiente test consiste en escuchar y leer oraciones a las que les falta una palabra o una parte de una palabra. Agregue la palabra que falta después de escuchar cada oración. Aquí hay dos ejemplos.

Ahora corrija usted las oraciones que siguen. 1.

Romina está trabajando en su nuevo libro y de tener listo en este mes podríamos asegurar su publicación antes de la Feria del Libro. 2. Me dijo no tenía nada que hacer pero en realidad tenía que terminar los deberes. 3. Batista es un gran pintor pero nunca le gustó pintar retratos así que nuestro encargo aceptó pero de mala gana. 4. A: ¿Quién te escribió esa carta? B: Me mandó Ximena de México. 5. Dejá mirar televisión por unos minutos y prestá atención a lo que te estoy diciendo, por favor. 6. Tiene sólo cinco años pero ya se porta tan mal como sus hermanos mayores. No me permitió que tome la mano porque quería cruzar la calle sola. 7. Ana aprendió a tocar el piano con la señora de López. Ella enseñó todo lo que sabe. 8. Para mantener las fucsias en el jardín durante el invierno sin que se helen, hay que cubrir con un protector plástico en las noches. 9. El castellano es la lengua oficial del Estado español. Todos los españoles tienen el deber conocerla y el derecho a usarla. 10. Me dijo que los ravioles que encargamos estaban listos pero no me quiso dar porque no tenía el ticket conmigo en ese momento. 11. Para poder ponerse rápido, no terminó de planchar las mangas de la camisa así que fue al trabajo hecho un estropajo. 12. Tres de los jugadores del equipo local fueron amonestados el árbitro por mala conducta. Ahora el director técnico evalúa la estrategia a seguir en el próximo partido.



 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

13. No quiso ponerse esos zapatos para ir a la fiesta porque eligió la madre y ella hace todo lo contrario de lo que le dice la madre. 14. A: ¿Te acordaste de regar las plantas mientras yo estuve de viaje? B: Sí, regué todas las noches. 15. El bebé está llorando. Hay que dar la comida porque debe tener hambre. 16. Pareció un suicidio pero muchos años más tarde se descubrió había sido un asesinato planeado fríamente. 17. No entiendo por qué no quieren que José organice esta fiesta de la oficina, si las anteriores organizó todas muy bien. 18. Quiso tanto a sus sobrinos que legó toda su fortuna. 19. Perdí mis anteojos. ¿Me ayudás a buscar por favor que no veo nada? 20. A mis nietos que viven en Italia envié un paquete con regalos para Navidad. Espero que les llegue a tiempo. 21. Esta tarde trajeron un ramo de flores para Carmen pero como no estaba en casa se lo dejaron en casa la vecina. 22. ¡Basta de jugar con los videos! ¿Cuántas veces te tengo que pedir? 23. Mis padres me ayudaron a comprar el auto pero ahora, para no pedir otra vez a ellos, decidí ir al banco a solicitar un crédito para comprarme la casa. 24. Me sorprende que Patricia sepa la letra de la Marsellesa. Seguro que aprendió en su viaje a Francia.

Appendices 

Appendix 9: Test 2 detailed results

Table A9.1 Test 2 scores in masculine, feminine and gender neutral contexts (Factor B) in each L1 group (Factor A) – Descriptives Gender context (Factor B)

L1 (Factor A)

n

mean

standard deviation

Masculine

Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total Spanish +gen –gen Total

25 25 15 65 25 25 15 65 25 25 15 65

29.68 29.12 28.42 29.21 29.68 29.20 28.67 29.29 29.64 28.92 27.75 28.98

0.56 1.01 0.90 0.94 0.63 0.93 0.98 0.91 0.57 1.12 2.01 1.35

Feminine

Gender neutral

Table A9.2 Test 2 scores for singular and plural contexts (Factor C) per L1 group (Factor A) – Descriptives Number context (Factor C)

L1 (Factor A)

n

mean

standard deviation

Singular


25 25 15 65 25 25 15 65

44.60 43.68 42.08 43.74 44.40 43.56 42.75 43.74

0.65 1.25 1.78 1.48 0.87 1.33 1.60 1.35

Plural

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Table A9.3 Test 2 scores for accusative and dative contexts (Factor D) per L1 group (Factor A) – Descriptives Case context (Factor D)

L1 (Factor A)

n

mean

standard deviation

Accusative


25 25 15 65 25 25 15 65

44.52 43.74 42.81 43.88 44.46 43.38 41.63 43.47

1.59 2.71 2.88 2.71 1.89 3.72 6.68 4.50

Dative

Table A9.4 Test 2 scores in pre- and post-verbal contexts (Factor E) per L1 group (Factor A) – Descriptives Position in relation to the verb (Factor E)

L1 (Factor A)

n

mean

standard deviation

Spanish

25

44.64

1.09

+gen –gen Total Spanish

25 15 65 25

43.74 42.06 43.78 44.22

2.95 4.68 3.50 2.38

+gen –gen Total

25 15 65

43.38 43.12 43.67

3.32 3.22 3.08

Proclitic

Enclitic

Table A9.5 Test 2 scores in vowel-initial and consonant-initial contexts (Factor F) per L1 group (Factor A) – Descriptives Phonetic context (Factor F)

L1 (Factor A)

n

mean

standard deviation

V-initial verb


25 25 15 65 25 25 15 65

29.80 29.08 28.33 29.23 29.72 29.24 27.75 29.15

0.50 1.22 1.30 1.14 0.54 0.88 1.60 1.19

C-initial verb

Appendices 

Table A9.6 Test 2 – Frequencies of pronouns provided and omitted (Variable G) per L1 group (Variable A)

Variable A

A1: L1 Spanish A2: L1 +gen A3: L1 –gen

Total number of contexts

Variable G G1: Omissions G2: Omissions not identified identified

450 450 270

432 404 248

18 46 22

Table A9.7 Test 2 – All mistakes Group

Gen freq

Num freq

Case freq

Pos freq

Omi freq

Overall freq

L1 Spanish 3 (0.67 %) 7 (1.56 %) 2 (0.44 %) 2 (0.44 %) 18 (4 %) 32 L1 +gen 1 (0.22 %) 5 (1.11 %) 11 (2.44 %) 6 (1.33 %) 46 (10.22 %) 69 L1 –gen 7 (2.59 %) 6 (2.22 %) 9 (3.33 %) 16 (5.95 %) 22 (8.15 %) 60 NB: The figures between brackets are the percentages that the raw error scores represent out of the total number of possible contexts for the relevant type of mistake.

Table A9.8 Summary of statistical results for Test 2 main effects of A (L1 group) interval scores nominal data (Variable G) nominal data (Variable H) nominal data (Variable I) main effects of B (gender) p < 0.05 AxB main effects of C (number) AxC main effects of D (case) p < 0.025 AxD main effects of E (position) AxE main effects of F (phonological context) AxF

p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 n.s. n.s. p < 0.05 n.s. n.s. p < 0.025 n.s. n.s.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Appendix 10: Test 3 – Cloze/Multiple choice task, with key to answers Completar los espacios en las oraciones con palabras del círculo. (Sólo la mitad de las palabras en el círculo va a ser usada.) Ejemplo:

café

– –

Me gusta el . . .café. . . amargo. Ayer vimos una . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aburridísima. A

– – – –

Este (1) . . . . . .TEMA. . . . . . no está bien cubierto en el libro de texto, así que el (2) . . . . . .PROFESOR. . . nos recomendó lecturas complementarias. El (3) . . .POETA. . . . . . dejó la promoción de su obra literaria a cargo de su esposa, la famosa (4) . . . . . .ACTRIZ. . . . . . de teatro. Quisiera atender a mis amigos en un (5) . . .SALON. . . . . . . . . cómodo. Han comenzado las drásticas (6) LIQUIDACIONES de verano en los negocios del centro. B

– –

El (7) . . .NOVIO. . . . . . estaba muy nervioso cuando empezó la ceremonia de bodas, pero se había relajado un poco para el momento de ponerse los anillos. La (8) . . .SOPRANO. . . . . . estaba muy conmovida con tantos aplausos y con las flores que le dio la gente al final del espectáculo.

Appendices 

– –

Ayer fui a la (9) . . .ESCUELA. . . . . . . . . a encargar unos (10) . . .LIBROS. . . . . . . . . que me había recomendado la (11) . . .PROFESORA. . . . . . . . . Me lastimé la (12) . . .MANO. . . . . . . . . martillando la silla rota. C

– – – –

En la (13) . . .ULTIMA. . . . . . exposición de pintura (14) . . .BARROCA. . . . . . se dieron cita los críticos de arte más (15) . . .RENOMBRADOS. . . de la ciudad. El pescado está (16) . . .SOSO. . . . . .. La torre de control perdió todo contacto con el aviador (17) . . .VALEROSO. . . que fue al rescate de unos niños atrapados en la zona de los incendios forestales. Los deportistas llevan emblemas de los países a los que representan (18) IMPRESOS. . . . . . en las mangas de los uniformes. D

– – –

Tenía un aire (19) . . .ALTIVO. . . . . . cuando pasó en su moto recién (20) ESTRENADA. Empezó trabajando para la diseñadora más (21) RECONOCIDA en Italia y ahora está entre las modelos más (22) . . .FOTOGRAFIADAS en las revistas de moda. El libro trata de la historia de un flautista que estaba (23) . . .PRENDADO. . . de una joven (24) . . .SORDOMUDA. . .. que no podía oir la música que el le dedicaba.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Appendix 11: Gender clues in Test 3 items, sorted by FF’s code

T3 T3 item item* no.

FF’s Description code (SemMorph-Sx)


PP’s code (Sx-SemMorph)

6 13 5 19 12 20 10 16 9 14 1 18 4 24

0-0-f


2

Una pilin

FOO

0-0-m


1

Un tanten

MOO

0-1-f


15

Una linolo

FOM

0-1-m

2. Part Canonical 1 (morph=sx)

10

Un nepo

MOM

0-2-f


9

Una lodena FOF

0-2-m


16

Un satila

MOF

F-0-f

3. Part canonical 2 (sem=sx)

8

Una talaz

FFO

F-0-m F-1-f

7. Anticanonical 3 (sem vs. sx) 5. Anticanonical 1 (morph vs. sx/sem)

13 19

Un pifar Una rebo

MFO FFM

F-1-m F-2-f

8. Fully anticanonical 1 (sem vs. morph/sx) – 1. Fully canonical –

– –

(MFM) (FFF)

F-2-m M-0-f M-0-m

9. Fully anticanonical 2 (sem/morph vs. sx) 21 7. Anticanonical 3 (sem vs. sx) 14 3. Part canonical 2 (sem=sx) 7

Un capola Una liben Un cater

MFF FMO MMO

M-1-f M-1-m

9. Fully anticanonical 2 (sem/morph vs. sx) 22 1. Fully canonical –

Una lampo FMM – (MMM)

M-2-f M-2-m

8. Fully anticanonical 1 (sem vs. morph/sx) – 5. Anticanonical 1 (morph vs. sx/sem) 20

– Un tiba

(FMF) MMF

Dos palires Dos borales Dos carepos Dos aninas Dos milipos Dos ticas Dos lacatos Dos danitas

OMO OFO OOM OOF OMM OFF OFM OMF

8 22 11 21

2 17 7 15 3 23

Una liquidación Una exposición Un salón Un aire Una mano Una moto Un libro Un pescado Una escuela Una pintura Un tema Un emblema Una actriz Una joven Un . . . . . . . . ..? Una soprano Una modelo Un . . . . . . . . ..o? Una profesora Una diseñadora Un . . . . . . . . ..a? Una . . . . . . . . ..? Un profesor Un aviador Una . . . . . . . . ..o? Un novio Un crítico Una . . . . . . . . ..a? Un poeta Un flautista

3 4 5 6 11 12 17 18

Appendices 

Appendix 12: Gender clues in Test 3 items, sorted by PP’s presentation order


5 19 6 13

2 17 4 24 9 14 10 16

12 20 1 18

8 22 3 23

11 21 7 15





1

Un tanten

MOO


2

Una pilin

FOO

M-0-m


3 4 5 6 7

Dos palires Dos borales Dos carepos Dos aninas Un cater

OMO OFO OOM OOF MMO

F-0-f


8

Una talaz

FFO

0-2-f


9

Una lodena FOF

0-1-m


10

Un nepo

MOM

F-0-m M-0-f 0-1-f

7. Anticanonical 3 (sem vs. sx) 7. Anticanonical 3 (sem vs. sx) 6. Anticanonical 2 (morph vs. sx)

11 12 13 14 15

Dos milipos Dos ticas Un pifar Una liben Una linolo

OMM OFF MFO FMO FOM

0-2-m


16

Un satila

MOF

F-1-f


17 18 19

Dos lacatos OFM Dos danitas OMF Una rebo FFM

M-2-m


20

Un tiba

MMF

F-2-m M-1-f F-1-m F-2-f

9. Fully anticanonical 2 (sem/morph vs. sx) 9. Fully anticanonical 2 (sem/morph vs. sx) 8. Fully anticanonical 1 (sem vs. morph/sx) 1. Fully canonical

21 22 – –

Un capola Una lampo – –

MFF FMM (MFM) (FFF)

M-1-m

1. Fully canonical

–

–

(MMM)

M-2-f

8. Fully anticanonical 1 (sem vs. morph/sx) –

–

(FMF)

Un salón 0-0-m Un aire Una liquidación 0-0-f Una exposición

Un profesor Un aviador Una actriz Una joven Una escuela Una pintura Un libro Un pescado

Un . . . . . . . . ..? Una . . . . . . . . ..? Una mano Una moto Un tema Un emblema

Una soprano Una modelo Un poeta Un flautista Un . . . . . . . . ..a? Una . . . . . . . . ..o? Un . . . . . . . . ..o? Una profesora Una diseñadora Un novio Un crítico Una . . . . . . . . ..a?

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Appendix 13: Gender clues in Test 3 items, sorted by PP’s code





8 22 4 24

F-1-f


19

Una rebo

FFM

F-0-f


8

Una talaz

FFO

M-1-f M-0-f 0-2-f

9. Fully anticanonical 2 (sem/morph vs. sx) 22 7. Anticanonical 3 (sem vs. sx) 14 2. Part Canonical 1 (morph=sx) 9

Una lampo FMM Una liben FMO Una lodena FOF

0-1-f


15

Una linolo

FOM

0-0-f


2

Una pilin

FOO

F-2-m F-0-m M-2-m

9. Fully anticanonical 2 (sem/morph vs. sx) 21 7. Anticanonical 3 (sem vs. sx) 13 5. Anticanonical 1 (morph vs. sx/sem) 20

Un capola Un pifar Un tiba

MFF MFO MMF

M-0-m


7

Un cater

MMO

0-2-m


16

Un satila

MOF

0-1-m


10

Un nepo

MOM

0-0-m


1

Un tanten

MOO

F-2-f

1. Fully canonical

12 17 4 18 11 3 6 5 –

Dos ticas Dos lacatos Dos borales Dos danitas Dos milipos Dos palires Dos aninas Dos carepos –

OFF OFM OFO OMF OMM OMO OOF OOM (FFF)

M-2-f F-1-m M-1-m

8. Fully anticanonical 1 (sem vs. morph/sx) – 8. Fully anticanonical 1 (sem vs. morph/sx) – 1. Fully canonical –

– – –

(FMF) (MFM) (MMM)

9 14 12 20 6 13

3 23 2 17 1 18 10 16 5 19

11 21

7 15

Una soprano Una modelo Una actriz Una joven Una . . . . . . . . ..o? Una . . . . . . . . ..? Una escuela Una pintura Una mano Una moto Una liquidación Una exposición Un . . . . . . . . ..a? Un . . . . . . . . ..? Un poeta Un flautista Un profesor Un aviador Un tema Un emblema Un libro Un pescado Un salón Un aire

Una profesora Una diseñadora Una . . . . . . . . ..a? Un . . . . . . . . ..o? Un novio Un crítico

Appendices 

Appendix 14: Test 4 – GJT with correction Algunas de las siguientes oraciones tienen errores y otras no. Indique cuáles tienen error corrija el error. (En las oraciones incorrectas, sólo hay un error por oración.)

Ahora corrija usted mismo las oraciones que tienen error. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Sáquelas de a una y con cuidado que son muy frágiles. Las frases que podía decir eran siempre muy cortos porque no sabía hablar bien el idioma. Este compromiso no es nuevo: prometieron hacer las rutas apenas asumieron el cargo y aún no han cumplido. Si no lo hago la primer día, no lo hago más. Tiene la boca llena de comida, así que no hable. Terminaron por declararla perdido después de diez años de búsqueda. Me dio el estuche pero estaba vacía. No sé adónde estarán los anteojos. Escucha la misma radio cada mañana. A los guardias de la Reina los relevan cada tres horas. Los alumnos de la mañana son más aplicados que los chicos de la tarde. Las gobiernos democráticos que fallaron al pueblo nunca fueron reelectos. A ella la nombraron líder del partido después de muchos años de trabajo en las bases. Los devolvieron rotas, así que tuvimos que cobrar extra por el alquiler. Le aburren mucho los programas de televisión, especialmente si son históricos. Estos árboles han sobrevivido a la sequía gracias a las raíces que tienen. Los tienen tan grandes que llegan a absorber agua de capas subterráneas muy profundas. ¿Y la cartera adónde la dejé ahora? Los grandes poblaciones del sur de Etiopía sufrieron más que nadie la sequía. Estaban uno arriba de otro y yo temía que se cayeran, pero no sucedió así. A la humedad no se la siente en la piel sino en los huesos. La nieve de la puerta, quiero que lo barras antes de que lleguen los invitados. Ésta viene última, después de la X. Hay un cierta clase de pinos que se adapta mejor al clima de la zona. Tiene una manguera que es poroso y deja pasar un poco de agua por las paredes. Todas están ya pegados en cada sobre así que podemos llevar las bolsas al correo. La camisa te queda perfecta y además combina con lo que tenés puesto. Las demolieron todas en los últimos tres años, con lo que el barrio quedó irreconocible. Las arreglé pero algunos igual no funcionan. La juventud de hoy no está para nada interesada en temas de política. Los decoradores terminaron de arreglar las oficinas nuevas de la compañía. Sólo quiso mandar a sus hijos al universidad estatal.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

31. Los idiomas autóctonos de América del Norte han desaparecido en gran parte. 32. Lo tenían sometida a los peores trabajos del establecimiento pero nunca se quejó a nadie. 33. Las aves del lago de la universidad parecen estar afectadas por un virus que les hace perder el plumaje. 34. La buen tiempo de ayer nos permitió pasar un agradable día de campo. 35. Mauricio le regaló un broche de oro a Susana y ella se la puso para la fiesta de graduación. 36. Cuando terminó de pasar el tren de las 12:30, el riel de la derecha se quedó trabado y tuvieron que venir los de mantenimiento. 37. Durante las últimas vacaciones visitamos Medio Oriente. 38. Me los devolvió porque eran mías pero recién después de un año. Nunca más le pienso prestar nada. 39. Me dieron los resultados esta mañana pero aún no me los han explicado así que no sé si es grave. 40. La radio no anda así que lo tendremos que enviar de vuelta a la fábrica. Ahora tome un descanso de unos minutos antes de seguir con las oraciones 41 a 80. 41. Estos esquemas podríamos usarlas para empezar el diseño de la obra. 42. El niño venía de Italia pero en el Registro Civil la anotaron como si hubiera nacido en Argentina. 43. Tienen un nuevo esquema para gente joven que puede interesarte. 44. Elegí estas clases nuevos para cursar el año que viene: geografía, historia y literatura. 45. Los asesores de imagen son una obsesión del mundo político actual. 46. Hay que sacarlos todos de las cajas antes de que se derritan. 47. Las abejas son indiferentes a la gente pero si los provocan suelen picar. 48. Me dieron las nombres importantes de las personas que asistirán al evento. 49. Los caballos estaban bien alimentadas y eso se notaba especialmente en el pelaje. 50. Las Hermanas del Sagrado Corazón están plenamente dedicadas a ayudar a los más pobres. 51. Elisa tiene los mismos ojos que su madre. 52. Las banderas americanos flameaban frente al cuartel general de la OEA. 53. Compró un coche el año pasado y terminará de pagarlo dentro de dos años. 54. La año pasado fuimos a Cafayate y pasamos unas vacaciones estupendas. 55. Me dio un caramelo de menta envuelta en un papel brillante y ruidoso. 56. A éstos quisiera que los pongas en la pared de la sala, si es que te parece bien. 57. Instalaron un sistema francesa de riego que va bajo tierra. 58. Las clases aún no han comenzado pero el nuevo maestro ya ha preparado las suyas para el primer día. 59. Los hermanos Lumière jugaron un papel significativo en el nacimiento del cine. 60. Algunos dilemas de los países desarrollados son totalmente secundarias para el Tercer Mundo. 61. La gente educada no trae comida a la biblioteca. 62. Los jóvenes ya no respetan esas sagradas reglas que dictan claramente las Escrituras. 63. A medida que aprendo la materia disfruto más de estudiarlo.

Appendices 

64. Te hacían estudiar los salmos y después las tenías que repetir de memoria. 65. Barcelona es el centro de la cultura catalán de hoy. 66. Me lo dieron abierto porque tuvieron que hacerle un control de seguridad en el aeropuerto. 67. Los nuevas mercados constituyen un desafío para la industria. 68. Rezan estas plegarias todas las mañanas y las repiten por la noche. 69. No quedan turnos, pero a su hijo el médico lo va a ver tan pronto como pueda. 70. A ella lo quisieron arrestar por desacato a la autoridad pero intervino su abogado y solucionó todo. 71. Son acontecimientos de la Primera Guerra que ya pocos recuerdan. 72. Este nueva etapa debe marcar el cambio de actitud de la empresa. 73. Tiene las manos quemadas de tanto trabajar bajo el sol en los campos de algodón. 74. Las diferentes canales de televisión ofrecen algo para cada gusto. 75. Los grandes problemas de la humanidad no se solucionarán de la noche a la mañana. 76. En este nuevo siglo no ha cambiado mucho y todo sigue prácticamente igual. 77. Me lo llevé, pero cuando llegué a casa, me di cuenta de que no era mía, así que aquí está de vuelta. Le pido mil disculpas. 78. Las próximos semanas empezamos a las 9 en vez de a las 10. 79. La mayoría de las casas del pueblo están hechos de barro. 80. Algunos motivos políticos pueden explicar el estado actual de la economía.

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Appendix 15: Test 4 sentences arranged according to variables

1. det+N+adj Canonical Grammatical

f

sing Tiene la boca llena de comida así que no hable. (5) pl Los decoradores teminaron de arreglar las oficinas nuevas de la compañía. (29) m sing Los asesores de imagen son una obsesión del mundo político actual. (45) pl Algunos motivos políticos pueden explicar el estado actual de la economía. (80) Ungrammatical f sing *Barcelona es el centro de la cultura catalán de hoy. (65) pl *Las banderas americanos flameaban frente al cuartel general de la OEA. (52) m sing *La año pasado fuimos a Cafayate y pasamos unas vacaciones estupendas. (54) pl *Las gobiernos democráticos que fallaron al pueblo nunca fueron reelectos. (11) Non-canonical Grammatical f sing La gente educada no trae comida a la biblioteca. (61) pl Tiene las manos quemadas de tanto trabajar bajo el sol en los campos de algodón. (73) m sing Los hermanos Lumière jugaron un papel significativo en el nacimiento del cine. (59) pl Los idiomas autóctonos de América del Norte han desaparecido en gran parte. (31) Ungrammatical f sing *Sólo quiso mandar a sus hijos al universidad estatal. (30) pl *Elegí estas clases nuevos para cursar el año que viene: geografía, historia y literatura. (44) m sing *Instalaron un sistema francesa de riego que va bajo tierra. (57) pl *Me dieron las nombres importantes de las personas que asistirían al evento. (48) 2. det+adj+N Canonical Grammatical f sing Son aconteciemientos de la Primera Guerra que ya pocos recuerdan. (71) pl Los jóvenes ya no respetan esas sagradas reglas que dictan claramente las Escrituras. (62) m sing En este nuevo siglo no ha cambiado mucho y todo sigue prácticamente igual. (76) pl Elisa tiene los mismos ojos de su madre. (51)

Appendices 

Ungrammatical

Non-canonical Grammatical

Ungrammatical

f

sing *Este nueva etapa debe marcar el cambio de actitud de la empresa. (72) pl *Las próximos semanas empezamos a las 9 en vez de a las 10. (78) m sing *La buen tiempo de ayer nos permitió pasar un agradable día de campo. (34) pl *Los nuevas mercados constituyen un desafío para la industria. (67) f

sing Escucha la misma radio cada mañana. (8) pl Durante las últimas vacaciones visitamos Medio Oriente. (37) m sing Tienen un nuevo esquema para gente joven que puede interesarte. (43) pl Los grandes problemas de la humanidad no se solucionarán de la mañana a la noche. (75) f sing *Hay un cierta clase de pinos que se adapta mejor al clima de la zona. (22) pl *Los grandes poblaciones del sur de Etiopía sufrieron más que nadie la sequía. (17) m sing *Si no lo hago la primer día no lo hago más. (4) pl *Las diferentes canales de televisión ofrecen algo para cada gusto. (74)

3. det+N/pron or adj Canonical Grammatical f

sing Pron ¿Y la cartera adónde la dejaste ahora? (16) Adj La camisa te queda perfecta y además combina con lo que tenés puesto. (25) pl Pron Rezan estas plegarias todas las mañanas y las repiten por la noche. (68) Adj Las Hermanas del Sagrado Corazón están plenamente dedicadas a ayudar a los más pobres. (50) m sing Pron No quedan turnos pero a su hijo el médico lo va a ver tan pronto como pueda. (69) Adj Este compromiso no es nuevo: prometieron hacer las rutas apenas asumieron el cargo y aún no han cumplido. (3) pl Pron Me dieron los resultados esta mañana pero aún no me los han explicado así que no sé si es grave. (39) Adj Los alumnos de la mañana son más aplicados que los chicos de la tarde. (10)

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Ungrammatical f

sing Pron *A medida que aprendo la materia disfruto más de estudiarlo. (63) Adj *Tiene una manguera que es poroso y deja pasar un poco de agua por las paredes. (23) pl Pron *Las abejas son indiferentes a la gente pero si los provocan suelen picar. (47) Adj *La mayoría de las casas del pueblo están hechos de barro. (79) m sing Pron *El niño venía de Italia pero en el Registro Civil la anotaron como si hubiera nacido en Argentina. (42) Adj *Me dio un caramelo de menta envuelta en un papel brillante y ruidoso. (55) pl Pron *Te hacían estudiar los salmos y después las tenías que repetir de memoria. (64) Adj *Los caballos estaban bien alimentadas y eso se notaba especialmente en el pelaje. (49)

Non-canonical Grammatical

f

sing Pron A la humedad no se la siente en la piel sino en los huesos. (19) Adj La juventud de hoy no está para nada interesada en temas de política. (28) pl Pron Las clases aún no han comenzado pero el nuevo maestro ya ha preparado las suyas para el primer día. (58) Adj Las aves del lago de la universidad parecen estar afectadas por un virus que les hace perder el plumaje. (33) m sing Pron Compró un coche el año pasado y terminará de pagarlo dentro de dos años. (53) Adj Cuando terminó de pasar el tren de las 12:30, el riel se quedó trabado y tuvieron que venir los de mantenimiento. (36) pl Pron A los guardias de la Reina los relevan cada tres horas. (9) Adj Le aburren mucho los programas de televisión, especialmente si son históricos. (14)

Appendices 

Ungrammatical f

sing Pron *La radio no anda así que lo tendremos que llevar de vuelta a la fábrica. (40) Adj *La nieve de la puerta, quiero que lo barras antes de que lleguen los invitados. (20) pl Pron *Estos árboles han sobrevivido a la sequía gracias a las raíces que tienen. Los tienen tan grandes que llegan a absorver agua de capas subterráneas muy profundas. (15) Adj *Las frases que podía decir eran siempre muy cortos porque no sabía hablar bien el idioma. (2) m sing Pron *Mauricio le regaló un broche de oro a Susana y ella se la puso para la fiesta de graduación. (35) Adj *Me dio el estuche pero estaba vacía. No sé adonde estarán los anteojos. (7) pl Pron *Estos esquemas podríamos usaralas para empezar el diseño de la obra. (41) Adj *Algunos dilemas de los países desarrollados son totalmente secundarias para el Tercer Mundo. (60)

4. pron/adj Grammatical

f

sing Esta viene última, después de la X. (21) pl Las demolieron todas en los últimos tres años, con lo que el barrio quedó irreconocible. (26) m sing Me lo dieron abierto porque tuvieron que hacerle un control de seguridad en el aeropuerto. (66) pl Hay que sacarlos todos de las cajas antes de que se derritan. (46) Ungrammatical f sing *Terminaron por declararla perdido después de diez años de búsqueda. (6) pl *Todas están ya pegados en cada sobre así que podemos llevar las bolsas al correo. (24) m sing *Lo tenían sometida a los peores trabajos del establecimiento pero nunca se quejó a nadie. (32) pl *Los devolvieron rotas así que tuvimos que cobrar extra por el alquiler. (13) 5. pron/pron Grammatical f sing A ella la nombraron líder del partido después de muchos años de trabajo en las bases. (12) pl Sáquelas de a una y con cuidado que son muy frágiles. (1) m sing Estaban uno arriba de otro y yo temía que se cayeran, pero no sucedió así. (18) pl Estos quisiera que los pongas en la pared de la sala, si es que te parece bien. (56)

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Ungrammatical f

sing *A ella lo quisieron arrestar por desacato a la autoridad pero intervino su abogado y solucionó todo. (70) pl *Las arreglé pero algunos igual no funcionan. (27) m sing *Me lo llevé, pero cuando llegué a casa me di cuenta de que no era mía así que aquí está de vuelta. Le pido mil disculpas. (77) pl *Me los devolvió porque eran mías pero recién después de un año. Nunca más le pienso prestar nada. (38)

Appendix 16: Lexical items used in Test 4 1. det+N+adj Canonical

Grammatical

f m

Ungrammatical

f m

Non-canonical

Grammatical

f m

Ungrammatical

f m

2. det+adj+N Canonical

Grammatical

f m

Ungrammatical

f m

sing pl sing pl sing pl sing pl sing pl sing pl sing pl sing pl

boca oficinas mundo motivos cultura banderas año gobiernos gente manos papel idiomas universidad clases sistema nombres

sing pl sing pl sing pl sing pl

guerra reglas siglo ojos etapa semanas tiempo mercados

Appendices 

Non-canonical

Grammatical

f m

Ungrammatical

f m

3. det+N / pron or adj Canonical

Grammatical

f

sing pl sing pl sing pl sing pl

radio vacaciones esquema problemas clase poblaciones día canales

sing

cartera camisa plegarias hermanas hijo compromiso resultados alumnos materia manguera abejas casas niño caramelo salmos caballos humedad juventud clases aves coche riel guardias programas radio nieve raíces frases broche estuche esquemas dilemas

pl m

sing pl

Ungrammatical

f

sing pl

m

sing pl

Non-canonical

Grammatical

f

sing pl

m

sing pl

Ungrammatical

f

sing pl

m

sing pl

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

4. pron / adj Grammatical

f

sing pl

m

sing pl

Ungrammatical

f

sing pl

m

sing pl

5. pron / pron Grammatical

f

sing pl

m

sing pl

Ungrammatical

f

sing pl

m

sing pl

esta última las todas lo abierto -los todos -la perdido todas pegados lo sometida los rotas ella la -las una uno otro estos los ella lo las algunos lo mía los mías

Appendices 

Appendix 17: Sample of pictures used in Test 5

un cater (mM0)

dos lacatos (0F1)

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars una lodena (f02)

dos aniras (002)

Appendices 

Appendix 18: Test 5 – Novel words task – Test items and colours Design order (same as Pérez-Pereira 1991: 578) Determiner Natural gender Word marker Novel word (Syntax) (Semantics) (Morph.)

Colour of model item

Colour of test item

m f 0 0 0 0 m f f m 0 0 m f f m 0 0 f m m f

5. marrón 7. azul 9. rosas 11. azules 13. verdes 15. violetas 17. verde 19. rosa 21. roja 23. marrón 25. marrones 27. azules 29. anaranjado 31. azul 33. rosa 35. anaranjado 37. rosas 39. verdes 41. violeta 43. verde 45. anaranjado 47. marrón

6. negro 8. amarilla 10. amarillos 12. rojas 14. rojos 16. blancas 18. amarillo 20. amarilla 22. negra 24. blanco 26. negros 28. amarillas 30. negro 32. roja 34. blanca 36. blanco 38. blancos 40. negras 42. roja 44. rojo 46. amarillo 48. blanco

0 0 m f 0 0 m f 0 0 m f f m 0 0 f m f m f m

Training items: Un Zapato negro / blanco Dos bicicletas rojas / verdes

0 0 0 0 m f 0 0 f m m f 0 0 m f m f m f f m

1. un tanten 10. una pilin 4. dos palires 16. dos borales 8. dos carepos 21. dos aniras 5. un cater 13. una talaz 2. una lodena 9. un nepo 15. dos milipos 18. dos ticas 12. un pifar 17. una liben 3. una linolo 22. un satila 6. dos lacatos 14. dos danitas 19. una rebo 7. un tiba 11. un capola 20. una lampo

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Test presentation order (fixed at random) Determiner Natural gender Word marker Novel word (Syntax) (Semantics) (Morph.)

Colour of model item

Colour of test item

m f f 0 m 0 m 0 m f m m f 0 0 0 f 0 f f 0 m

5. marrón 21. roja 33. rosa 9. rosas 17. verde 37. rosas 43. verde 13. verdes 23. marrón 7. azul 45. anaranjado 29. anaranjado 19. rosa 39. verdes 25. marrones 11. azules 31. azul 27. azules 41. violeta 47. marrón 15. violetas 35. anaranjado

6. negro 22. negra 34. blanca 10. amarillos 18. amarillo 38. blancos 44. rojo 14. rojos 24. blanco 8. amarilla 46. amarillo 30. negro 20. amarilla 40. negras 26. negros 12. rojas 32. roja 28. amarillas 42. roja 48. blanco 16. blancas 36. blanco

0 0 0 m m f m 0 0 0 f f f m m f m f f m 0 0

0 f m 0 0 m f m m 0 f 0 0 f m 0 0 f m m f f

1. un tanten 2. una lodena 3. una linolo 4. dos palires 5. un cater 6. dos lacatos 7. un tiba 8. dos carepos 9. un nepo 10. una pilin 11. un capola 12. un pifar 13. una talaz 14. dos danitas 15. dos milipos 16. dos borales 17. una liben 18. dos ticas 19. una rebo 20. una lampo 21. dos aniras 22. un satila

Appendix 19: Test 5 – Novel words task – Script as recorded on tape Test número seis. A continuación va a ver una serie de dibujos. Conteste las preguntas. Ejemplo: Pregunta: Aquí tenemos un zapato. ¿De qué color es? Respuesta: Gris. Pregunta: ¿Aquí qué ve? Respuesta: Un zapato blanco. Segundo ejemplo: Aquí tenemos dos bicicletas. ¿De qué color son? Rojas. ¿Aquí qué ve? Dos biciletas verdes. Ahora conteste las preguntas usted mismo. 1. 2.

Aquí tenemos un tanten. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve?

Appendices 

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

Aquí tenemos una / lodena. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos una / linolo. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos dos palires. ¿De qué color son? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos un cater. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos dos lacatos. ¿De qué color son? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos un tiba. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos dos carepos. ¿De qué color son? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos un nepo. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos una / ‘pilin. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos un capola. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos un pifar. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos una / ta’laz. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos dos danitas. ¿De qué color son? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos dos milipos. ¿De qué color son? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos dos borales. ¿De qué color son? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos una / liben. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos dos ticas. ¿De qué color son? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos una / rebo. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos una / lampo. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos dos aniras. ¿De qué color son? ¿Y aquí qué ve? Aquí tenemos un satila. ¿De qué color es? ¿Y aquí qué ve?

(5 minutes approximately)

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

NB: Special care was taken when recording items 7, 19, 21, 31, 33, 41 and 47 (all of which start with a consonant and are presented following the feminine article una) to make sure that the last vowel in the article would not be pronounced as if it were the first vowel in the following word. This was to avoid, for example, una lodena from being heard as un alodena.

Appendix 20: Test 6 – Gender assignment check Escriba el artículo que corresponde a las siguientes palabras. (Atención: algunas pueden llevar más de una opción.) Ejemplos: . . .la. . . mesa . . .el. . . pato . . .el / la. . . cantante . . . . . . abeja . . . . . . actriz . . . . . . aire . . . . . . alumno . . . . . . año . . . . . . anteojos . . . . . . ave . . . . . . aviador . . . . . . azúcar . . . . . . bandera . . . . . . boca . . . . . . broche . . . . . . caballo . . . . . . calculadora . . . . . . camisa . . . . . . canal . . . . . . caramelo . . . . . . carta . . . . . . cartera . . . . . . casa . . . . . . clase . . . . . . clima . . . . . . coche . . . . . . compromiso . . . . . . crítico . . . . . . cuchara . . . . . . cultura . . . . . . aves

. . . . . . día . . . . . . dilema . . . . . . diseñadora . . . . . . emblema . . . . . . encargo . . . . . . escuela . . . . . . esquema . . . . . . estuche . . . . . . etapa . . . . . . exposición . . . . . . fiesta . . . . . . flautista . . . . . . flor . . . . . . frase . . . . . . fucsia . . . . . . gente . . . . . . gobierno . . . . . . guardia . . . . . . guerra . . . . . . hermana . . . . . . hijo . . . . . . hongo . . . . . . humedad . . . . . . idioma . . . . . . joven . . . . . . juventud . . . . . . lápiz . . . . . . aires

. . . . . . leche . . . . . . letra . . . . . . libro . . . . . . liquidación . . . . . . manguera . . . . . . mano . . . . . . martillo . . . . . . materia . . . . . . mercado . . . . . . modelo . . . . . . motivo . . . . . . moto . . . . . . mundo . . . . . . nieto . . . . . . nieve . . . . . . niño . . . . . . nombre . . . . . . novio . . . . . . oficina . . . . . . ojo . . . . . . padre . . . . . . papel . . . . . . pescado . . . . . . pintura . . . . . . planta . . . . . . plegaria . . . . . . población . . . . . . azúcares

. . . . . . poeta . . . . . . problema . . . . . . profesor . . . . . . profesora . . . . . . programa . . . . . . pulsera . . . . . . queso . . . . . . radio . . . . . . raíz . . . . . . raviol . . . . . . regla . . . . . . resultado . . . . . . riel . . . . . . salmo . . . . . . salón . . . . . . semana . . . . . . siglo . . . . . . sistema . . . . . . sobrino . . . . . . soprano . . . . . . televisor . . . . . . tema . . . . . . tiempo . . . . . . tostada . . . . . . universidad . . . . . . vacación . . . . . . zapato . . . . . . años

Appendices 

Appendix 21: Test 6 items in alphabetical order and with information about where in the other experimental tasks they were used Test items 1. abeja 2. actriz 3. aire 4. aires 5. alumno 6. año 7. años 8. anteojos 9. ave 10. aves 11. aviador 12. azúcar 13. azúcares 14. bandera 15. boca 16. broche 17. caballo 18. calculadora 19. camisa 20. canal 21. caramelo 22. carta 23. cartera 24. casa 25. clase 26. clima 27. coche 28. compromiso 29. crítico 30. cuchara 31. cultura 32. día 33. dilema 34. diseñadora 35. emblema 36. encargo 37. escuela 38. esquema 39. estuche 40. etapa 41. exposición

Test no:Item no. T4:47 T3:4 T3:19 – T4:10 T4:54 – T2:19 T4:33 – T3:17 T1:14 – T4:52 T4:5 T4:35 T4:49 T1:8 T2:11, T4:25 T4:74 T4:55 T2:4 T4:16 T4:79 T4:22, T4:44, T4:58 T1:25 T4:53 T4:3 T3:15 T1:2 T4:65 T4:4 T4:60 T3:21 T3:18 T2:3 T3:9 T4:41, T4:43 T4:7 T4:72 T3:13

Test items 42. fiesta 43. flautista 44. flor 45. frase 46. fucsia 47. gente 48. gobierno 49. guardia 50. guerra 51. hermana 52. hijo 53. hongo 54. humedad 55. idioma 56. joven 57. juventud 58. lápiz 59. leche 60. letra 61. libro 62. liquidación 63. manguera 64. mano 65. martillo 66. materia 67. mercado 68. modelo 69. motivo 70. moto 71. mundo 72. nieto 73. nieve 74. niño 75. nombre 76. novio 77. oficina 78. ojo 79. padre 80. papel 81. pescado 82. pintura

Test no:Item no. T2:17 T3:23 T1:11 T4:2 T2:8 T4:61 T4:11 T4:9 T4:71 T4:50 T4:69 T1:17 T4:18 T4:31 T3:24 T4:28 T1:5 T1:22 T2:24 T2:1, T3:10 T3:6 T4:23 T1:6, T3:12, T4:73 T1:30 T4:63 T4:67 T3:22 T4:80 T3:20 T4:45 T2:20 T4:20 T4:42 T4:48 T3:7 T4:29 T4:51 T2:23 T4:59 T3:16 T3:14

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

Test items 83. planta 84. plegaria 85. población 86. poeta 87. problema 88. profesor 89. profesora 90. programa 91. pulsera 92. queso 93. radio 94. raíz 95. raviol 96. regla 97. resultado

Test no:Item no. T2:14 T4:68 T4:17 T3:3 T4:75 T3:2 T3:11 T4:14 T1:16 T1:10 T4:8, T4:40 T4:15 T1:23, T2:10 T4:62 T4:39

Test items 98. riel 99. salmo 100. salón 101. semana 102. siglo 103. sistema 104. sobrino 105. soprano 106. televisor 107. tema 108. tiempo 109. tostada 110. universidad 111. vacación 112. zapato

Test no:Item no. T4:36 T4:64 T3:5 T4:78 T4:76 T4:57 T2:18 T3:8 T1:31 T3:1 T4:34 T1:19 T4:30 T4:37 T1:29, T2:13

Appendix 22: Nouns used in Tests 1 and 6 In Test 1 presentation order

In alphabetical order

Test items 1. cuchara 2. lápiz 3. mano 4. calculadora 5. queso 6. flor 7. azúcar 8. pulsera 9. hongo 10. tostada 11. leche 12. raviol 13. clima 14. zapato 15. martillo 16. televisor

Test items 1. azúcar 2. calculadora 3. clima 4. cuchara 5. flor 6. hongo 7. lápiz 8. leche 9. mano 10. martillo 11. pulsera 12. queso 13. raviol 14. televisor 15. tostada 16. zapato

Test no:Item no. T1:2 T1:5 T1:6 T1:8 T1:10 T1:11 T1:14 T1:16 T1:17 T1:19 T1:22 T1:23 T1:25 T1:29 T1:30 T1:31

Test no:Item no. T1:14 T1:8 T1:25 T1:2 T1:11 T1:17 T1:5 T1:22 T1:6 T1:30 T1:16 T1:10 T1:23 T1:31 T1:19 T1:29

Appendices 



Test items 1. libro 2. encargo 3. carta 4. fucsia 5. raviol 6. camisa 7. zapato 8. planta 9. fiesta 10. sobrino 11. anteojos 12. nieto 13. padre 14. letra

Test items 1. anteojos 2. camisa 3. carta 4. encargo 5. fiesta 6. fucsia 7. letra 8. libro 9. nieto 10. padre 11. planta 12. raviol 13. sobrino 14. zapato

Test no:Item no. T2:1 T2:3 T2:4 T2:8 T2:10 T2:11 T2:13 T2:14 T2:17 T2:18 T2:19 T2:20 T2:23 T2:24

Test no:Item no. T2:19 T2:11 T2:4 T2:3 T2:17 T2:8 T2:24 T2:1 T2:20 T2:23 T2:14 T2:10 T2:18 T2:13



Test items 1. tema 2. profesor 3. poeta 4. actriz 5. salón 6. liquidación 7. novio 8. soprano 9. escuela 10. libro 11. profesora 12. mano 13. exposición 14. pintura 15. crítico 16. pescado 17. aviador 18. emblema 19. aire

Test items 1. actriz 2. aire 3. aviador 4. crítico 5. diseñadora 6. emblema 7. escuela 8. exposición 9. flautista 10. joven 11. libro 12. liquidación 13. mano 14. modelo 15. moto 16. novio 17. pescado 18. pintura 19. poeta

Test no:Item no. T3:1 T3:2 T3:3 T3:4 T3:5 T3:6 T3:7 T3:8 T3:9 T3:10 T3:11 T3:12 T3:13 T3:14 T3:15 T3:16 T3:17 T3:18 T3:19

Test no:Item no. T3:4 T3:19 T3:17 T3:15 T3:21 T3:18 T3:9 T3:13 T3:23 T3:24 T3:10 T3:6 T3:12 T3:22 T3:20 T3:7 T3:16 T3:14 T3:3

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

In Test 3 presentation order


Test items 20. moto 21. diseñadora 22. modelo 23. flautista 24. joven

Test items 20. profesor 21. profesora 22. salón 23. soprano 24. tema

Test no:Item no. T3:20 T3:21 T3:22 T3:23 T3:24

Test no:Item no. T3:2 T3:11 T3:5 T3:8 T3:1



Test item 1. frase 2. compromiso 3. día 4. boca 5. estuche 6. radio 7. guardia 8. alumno 9. gobierno 10. programa 11. raíz 12. cartera 13. población 14. humedad 15. nieve 16. clase 17. manguera 18. camisa 19. juventud 20. oficina 21. universidad 22. idioma 23. ave 24. tiempo 25. broche 26. riel 27. vacación 28. resultado 29. radio 30. esquema

Test item 1. abeja 2. alumno 3. año 4. ave 5. bandera 6. boca 7. broche 8. caballo 9. camisa 10. canal 11. caramelo 12. cartera 13. casa 14. clase 15. clase 16. clase 17. coche 18. compromiso 19. cultura 20. día 21. dilema 22. esquema 23. esquema 24. estuche 25. etapa 26. frase 27. gente 28. gobierno 29. guardia 30. guerra

Test no:Item no. T4:2 T4:3 T4:4 T4:5 T4:7 T4:8 T4:9 T4:10 T4:11 T4:14 T4:15 T4:16 T4:17 T4:18 T4:20 T4:22 T4:23 T4:25 T4:28 T4:29 T4:30 T4:31 T4:33 T4:34 T4:35 T4:36 T4:37 T4:39 T4:40 T4:41

Test no:Item no. T4:47 T4:10 T4:54 T4:33 T4:52 T4:5 T4:35 T4:49 T4:25 T4:74 T4:55 T4:16 T4:79 T4:22 T4:44 T4:58 T4:53 T4:3 T4:65 T4:4 T4:60 T4:41 T4:43 T4:7 T4:72 T4:2 T4:61 T4:11 T4:9 T4:71

Appendices 

In Test 4 presentation order


Test item 31. niño 32. esquema 33. clase 34. mundo 35. abeja 36. nombre 37. caballo 38. hermana 39. ojo 40. bandera 41. coche 42. año 43. caramelo 44. sistema 45. clase 46. papel 47. dilema 48. gente 49. regla 50. materia 51. salmo 52. cultura 53. mercado 54. plegaria 55. hijo 56. guerra 57. etapa 58. mano 59. canal 60. problema 61. siglo 62. semana 63. casa 64. motivo

Test item 31. hermana 32. hijo 33. humedad 34. idioma 35. juventud 36. manguera 37. mano 38. materia 39. mercado 40. motivo 41. mundo 42. nieve 43. niño 44. nombre 45. oficina 46. ojo 47. papel 48. plegaria 49. población 50. problema 51. programa 52. radio 53. radio 54. raíz 55. regla 56. resultado 57. riel 58. salmo 59. semana 60. siglo 61. sistema 62. tiempo 63. universidad 64. vacación

Test no:Item no. T4:42 T4:43 T4:44 T4:45 T4:47 T4:48 T4:49 T4:50 T4:51 T4:52 T4:53 T4:54 T4:55 T4:57 T4:58 T4:59 T4:60 T4:61 T4:62 T4:63 T4:64 T4:65 T4:67 T4:68 T4:69 T4:71 T4:72 T4:73 T4:74 T4:75 T4:76 T4:78 T4:79 T4:80

Test no:Item no. T4:50 T4:69 T4:18 T4:31 T4:28 T4:23 T4:73 T4:63 T4:67 T4:80 T4:45 T4:20 T4:42 T4:48 T4:29 T4:51 T4:59 T4:68 T4:17 T4:75 T4:14 T4:8 T4:40 T4:15 T4:62 T4:39 T4:36 T4:64 T4:78 T4:76 T4:57 T4:34 T4:30 T4:37

Name index

A Abney, Steven Paul  Abrahamsson, Niclas ,  Adger, David  Aguirre, Carmen  Al-Hamad, Mohammad  Anderson, Stephen R.  Antón-Méndez, Ines ,  Antonini, Tiziana  Aronoff, Mark – Atkinson, Martin  Ayoun, Dalila ,  B Badecker, W.  Bahan, Benjamin  Baker, Mark C. ,  Bard, E.  Barlow, Michael  Barreña, Andoni ,  Bartning, Inge ,  Bates, Elizabeth A. ,  Baugh, Albert C.  Bazergui, N.  Beck, Maria-Luise , –,  Ben Ayed, Hela  Bernstein, Judy B. ,  Berent, Gerlad P.  Bergen, John J. , – Besson, Carole ,  Bever, Thomas G.  Bialystok, Ellen – Birdsong, David , , , , , , ,  Bischof, Janine  Bley-Vroman, Robert –, ,  Bobaljik, Jonathan David  Bongaerts, Theo , 

Borer, Hagit  Botha, Rudolf P.  Boustagui, Elizabeth  Bowen, D.  Boyd, P. A.  Böhme, K.  Briscoe, L. A.  Broschart, Jurgen  Brown, Colin M. ,  Brown, Cynthia A.  Brown, Roger  Bruhn de Garavito, Joyce , ,  Brysbaert, M.  Bull, W. E.  C Cable, Thomas  Cain, Jacquelin ff., ff. Carello, C.  Carnie, Andrew  Carreiras, Manuel  Carroll, Susanne E. , , –, ,  Carstens, Vicki ff. Cenoz, Jasone  Chan, Cecilia , , , , , , ff. Chierchia, Gennaro  Cinque, Guglielmo  Chaudron, Craig  Chini, M. ,  Chomsky, Noam , , –, –, –, ,  Clahsen, Harald , – Clifton, Charles Jr.  Cole, Pascale  Costes, Marianne ,  Cook,Vivian J. , , ,  Coppieters, René , , 

Corbett, Greville C. , –,  Corley, M. M. B.  Cornu, Etienne ,  Cowan, Ron  Cuetos, Fernando ,  Crystal, David  D Dalbor, J. B.  D’Amico, Simona  Da Silva, Zenia Sacks ,  Dato, D. P.  Davies, William D.  Dechert, Hans W.  De Houwer, Annick  DeKeyser, Robert M. , , , ,  Delisle, Helga H.  Del Viso, Susana  Demuth, Katherine  Den Dikken, Marcel  Devescovi, Antonella ,  De Vincenzi, Marica ,  Dewaele, Jean-Marc ,  Diaz, Lourdes , ff. Di Domenico, Elisa , ,  Diller, K. C. ,  Dinnes, I. S. ,  Di Sciullo, Anna Maria – Dittmar, Norbert  Dixon, Robert M. W. ,  Doughty, Catherine J. ,  Dominguez, Alberto  Dommergues, Jean-Yves ,  Duffield, Nigel  DuPlessis, Jean , – Dumas, G. 

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

E Edwards, Helen  Ehrlich, M. F.  Eichen, Ellen B.  Eisenbeiss, Sonja  El Tigi, Manal  Ellis, Rod , , , ,  Elman, Jeffrey L.  Embick, David – Emmorey, Karen  Epstein, Samuel David ,  Eubank, Lynne ,  F Faussart, Christel ,  Felix, Sacha W.  Ferguson, Charles A.  Fernández García, Marisol  Finnemann, Michael D.  Flege, James Emil , , , , ,  Flynn, Suzanne , , , , ,  Foley, William A. – Franceschina, Florencia , , , , , , ,  Fraser, Norman M. ,  Frieda, Elaina M.  Friederici, Angela D. ,  Fukui, Naoki  G Gair, James W. , ,  Ganschow, Leonore  García-Albea, Jose Eugenio ,  Garnham, Alan  Garrett, Merrill F.  Gass, Susan M. , , ,  Genesee, Fred ,  Giannakidou, Anastasia  Givón, Talmy  Gleitman, Lila R.  Goldowsky, Boris N.  Goss, Nancy  Grace, Sabine Thepaut  Granfeldt, Jonas ,  Granger, Sylviane  Greenberg, Joseph Harold  Gregg, Kevin R. , 

Grinevald, C.  Grosjean, Francois , , ,  Guasti, Maria Theresa  Guillelmon, Delphine , , ,  Guion, Susan Guignard  Gunter, T. C.  Gurjanov, M.  H Hagoort, Peter ,  Hakuta, Kenji – Hale, Kenneth  Halle, Morris –,  Han, ZhaoHong ,  Hardison, Debra M.  Harley, Birgit , , ,  Harley, Heidi B. ,  Harnad, Stevan  Harrington, Michael  Harris, James W. –, , –,  Hart, Doug ,  Hatasa, Yukiko Abe  Haverkort, Marco  Hawkins, Roger D. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ff. Henry, Alison  Hermon, Gabriella  Hernandez, Arturo ,  Hernández Pina, Fuensanta ff. Herschensohn, Julia  Hinkel, Eli  Hiramatsu, Kazuko  Hockett, Charles Francis  Housen, Alex  Hu, Guangwei  Hufeisen, Britta  Huffstutler, April  Hulk, Aafke –,  Hulstijn, Jan H.  Hurford, James R.  Hyltenstam, Kenneth , ,  I Idiazabal, Itziar ,  Igoa, Jose Manuel , 

Inman, Kelly ,  Ionin, Tania ,  Ioup, Georgette  Irmen, Lisa  J Jacobs, Leo M.  Jacobsen, Thomas  Jaeggli, Osvaldo  Jakubowicz, Celia ,  Jamieson, D. G.  Jarema, Gonia  Jessner, Ulrike  Johnson, Jacqueline , –, , ,  Jordens, Peter  Juffs, Alan ,  K Kanno, Kazue  Kaplan, Tami  Karmiloff-Smith, Annette ff., ff. Keenan, Edward L.  Kegl, Judy  Kellerman, Eric ,  Kempe, Vera ,  Kempen, Gerard  Keniston, H.  Kester, Ellen-Petra , – Klein, Wolf Peter  Knoll, Jochen  Koehn, Caroline , ,  Kozlowska-MacGregor, Martina  Köpcke, Klaus Michael  Krashen, Stephen D. ,  L Lakoff, George  Lakshmanan, Usha – Lamadrid, E. E.  Lamendella, John T.  Lantolf, James P.  Lapkin, Sharon  Lapointe, Steven G.  Lardiere, Donna , , , , , –, , ,  Larson-Hall, Jenifer  Lee, Robert G. 

Name index  Leek, Patricia  Lehmann, Christian  Leinbach, J.  Lengyel, Zsolt  Lenneberg, Eric H.  Lessard, Gregory  Leung, Ingrid Yan-kit  Levelt, Willem J. M. ,  Levy, Yonata  Li, Charles N.  Liceras, Juana M. , ff. Lieber, Rochelle  Lightbown, Patsy M.  Lindholm, Kathryn  Liszka, Sarah , , ,  Liu, H.  Liu, Serena , ,  Lively, S. E.  Loftin, Jonathan D.  Logan, J. S.  Long, Michael H. , , , , –,  Longobardi, Giuseppe  López Ornat, Susana , ff. Löbel, Elisabeth ,  Lucy, John ,  Lukatela, G.  Lukatela, M.  Lust, Barbara C.  M MacLaughlin, Dawn , ,  MacWhinney, Brian , , ,  Mandell, Paul B.  Manuel, S.  Marantz, Alec –,  Maratsos, Michael P. ,  Marcotte, Ann C.  Martin, J. W.  Martohardjono, Gita , , , , , ,  Matthews, Peter Hugoe ,  Matthews, Stephen  Mayberry, Rachel I.  McDonald, Janet  McLaughlin, Barry  Meisel, Jurgen M. –, ,  Mel’cuk, Igor A. , 

Mills, Anne E. , ,  Miozzo, Michele  Mitchell, D.  Molis, Michelle ,  Mongeon, Caroline , ff. Montalbetti, Mario  Moravcsik, Edith A.  Morere, Donna A.  Morosan, D. E.  Moskovljevic, J.  Moselle, Martha  Moyer, Alene ,  Möhring, Anja  Mueller Gathercole, Virginia C. ,  Munnich, Edward  Murphy, Victoria A.  Muysken, Pieter – Müller, Natasha –, –,  N Nagata, Hiroshi  Neidle, Carol  Newport, Elissa L. , –, , , ,  Newton, Michael  Nichols, Johanna , , , ,  Norris, John M.  Noyer, Rolf – Nozawa, Takeshi  O Oakhill, Jane  Odlin, Terence  Oliphant, Katrina  Orr, G. J. ,  Ortega, Lourdes ,  Osterhout, Lee  Oyama, Susan ,  P Padilla, Amado M.  Panagiotidis, Phoevos , ,  Paolillo, John C.  Papp, Szilvia  Patkowski, Mark S.  Peirce, Bonny 

Penfield, Wilder  Perez Pereira, Miguel ff., , ff. Picallo, M. Carme  Pienemann, Manfred  Pierrard, Michel  Pisoni, David B.  Pizzamiglio, L. ,  Platzack, Christer  Poeppel, David  Prévost, Phillipe , – R Radford, Andrew , ,  Ramsey, Marathon Montrose ,  Raupach, Manfred  Reuland, Eric  Rimmington, Don  Ringbom, Hakan  Ritter, Elizabeth , ,  Rizzi, Luigi ,  Roark, B.  Roberts, LaMar  Robertson, B.  Robinson, Peter  Roca, Iggy –, ,  Rosansky, Ellen J.  Roussou, Anna , , , , ff. Russell, William M. , ,  Ryan, Lisa  S Sabourin, Laura L. , , ,  Sánchez-Casas, Rosa  Sasaki, Miyuki  Savic, M.  Scarcella, Robin C.  Schachter, Jacquelyn , ,  Schnell de Acedo, Beatrice ,  Schriefers, Herbert J.  Schumann, John H.  Schwartz, Bonnie D. , , , , , , , , – Scott, Mary Lee  Scovel, Thomas ,  Segui, Juan , 

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars Seliger, Herbert W. ,  Selinker, Larry , –, , ,  Senft, Gunter  Senghas, Ann ,  Sharwood Smith, Michael  Shelton, Jane ,  Singleton, David Michael ,  Skehan, Peter  Sleeman, Petra  Smith, Neil , , , ff. Smith, Rosslyn ff. Snyder, William ,  Soler, M. R.  Solin, Doreen , – Sorace, Antonella , ,  Sparks, Richard  Spencer, Andrew , – Spitz, E.  Sportiche, Dominique  Sproat, Richard William  Sprouse, Rex A. , , , , , , – Steckelberg, M.  Stevens, Florence  Stavrou, Melita  Stockwell, Peter  Strong, Mark  Surridge, Marie E.  Swain, Merrill 

T Tang, Sze-Wing  Taraban, Roman ,  Taeschner, Traute  Taylor-Browne, K.  Teschner, Richard V. , ,  Thomas, Margaret  Thompson, Sandra A.  Tolbert, K.  Tomaselli, Alessandra  Towell, Richard J.  Trahey, Martha  Travis, Lisa , – Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria , , , , ff. Turvey, M.  V Vainikka, Anne  Valenzuela, Elena  Valois, Daniel ,  van Berkum, Jos J. A. ,  Van Naerssen, M.  Van Patten, Bill  Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. – Veronique, Daniel ,  Vigliocco, Gabriella  Volterra, Virginia  Vosse, T. 

W Walsh, T. M. ,  Weber, Doris  Weber-Olsen, Marcia ff. Wells, W.  Wesche, Marjorie Bingham  West, Clint  Wexler, Kenneth , ,  White, Lydia , , , , –, , , , , –, , , , ,  Williams, Edwin – Williams, Jessica  Wiltschko, Martina 

Y Ying-Hua, Zhang  Yip, Po-ching  Yip, Virginia  Young, Richard , ,  Young-Scholten, Martha  Yuan, Boping 

Z Zanuttini, Raffaella  Zekhini, A.  Zubin, David A. 

Bates et al. (1996) = Bates, Devescovi, Hernandez & Pizzamiglio (1996)  Bull et al. (1974) = Bull, Briscoe & Lamadrid (1974)  Del Viso et al. (1987) = Del Viso, Igoa & García-Albea (1987)  Dominguez et al. (1999) = Dominguez, Cuetos & Segui (1999)  DuPlessis et al. (1987) = DuPlessis, Solin, Travis & White (1987) , – Eubank et al. (1997) = Eubank, Bischof, Huffstutler, Leek & West (1997)  Grosjean et al. (1994) = Grosjean, Dommergues, Cornu, Guillelmon & Besson (1994)  Ioup et al. (1994) = Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi & Moselle (1994)  MacWhinney et al. (1989) = MacWhinney, Leinbach, Taraban & McDonald (1989)  Mitchell et al. (1995) = Mitchell, Cuetos, Corley & Brysbaert (1995)  Neidle et al. (1998) = Neidle, Bahan, MacLaughlin, Lee & Kegl (1998)  Neidle et al. (2000) = Neidle, Kegl, MacLaughlin, Bahan & Lee (2000)  Stockwell et al. (1965) = Stockwell, Bowen & Martin (1965)  White et al. (2001) = White, Valenzuela, Kozlowska-MacGregor, Leung & Ben Ayed (2001) , 

Subject index

A A’-Morphous Morphology  adult grammar  Affective Filter Hypothesis  agreement ,  attainment , , 

C categorical perception  code-switching  comparative fallacy  compensatory strategies –, ff. Competition Hypothesis  computational deficit  computational resources , , ,  concord  Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis  critical period , , ff., , ff.

Exercise Hypothesis 

F Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (FFFH) , –,  failure driven development  Full Transfer/Full Access (FT/FA) –, ,  final state  fossilization  Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH)  G gender ff. gender congruency effect general problem solving abilities  grammatical features – I inflectional class  Input Hypothesis 

D developmental problem  Distributed Morphology (DM)  Dual Access Model 

L ‘Less is more’ Hypothesis  Lexicalist Hypothesis  Local Impairment Hypothesis (LIH) 

E endstate ,  entrenchment  exceptional learners 

M masquerading  Matrix Language Framework (MLF)  maturational constraints 

mature grammar  Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis (MSIH)  morphological feature geometry  N nativelikeness – nominal classification systems ,  O Orwell’s problem , ff. optionality – P parameter setting ,  Pidginization Hypothesis  Plato’s problem  poverty of the stimulus  primary linguistic data  R representational resources , , ,  S sex  stabilization ,  steady state –,  syntax/PF interface ff. systematic divergence  T transfer ff., , 

 Fossilized Second Language Grammars

U ultimate attainment see attainment V Valueless Features Hypothesis 

W Wisconsin University Spanish Placement Test (WUSPT)  Word-and-Paradigm (WP) Morphology 

word marker see inflectional class Word Syntax 

In the series Language Acquisition and Language Disorders the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 40 DEEN, Kamil Ud: The Acquisition of Swahili. 2005. xiv, 241 pp. 39 UNSWORTH, Sharon, Teresa PARODI, Antonella SORACE and Martha YOUNG-SCHOLTEN (eds.): Paths of Development in L1 and L2 acquisition. In honor of Bonnie D. Schwartz. viii, 216 pp. + index. Expected February 2006 38 FRANCESCHINA, Florencia: Fossilized Second Language Grammars. The acquisition of grammatical gender. 2005. xxiv, 288 pp. 37 MONTRUL, Silvina A.: The Acquisition of Spanish. Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. 2004. xvi, 413 pp. 36 BARTKE, Susanne and Julia SIEGMÜLLER (eds.): Williams Syndrome across Languages. 2004. xvi, 385 pp. 35 SÁNCHEZ, Liliana: Quechua-Spanish Bilingualism. Interference and convergence in functional categories. 2003. x, 189 pp. 34 OTA, Mitsuhiko: The Development of Prosodic Structure in Early Words. Continuity, divergence and change. 2003. xii, 224 pp. 33 JOSEFSSON, Gunlög, Christer PLATZACK and Gisela HÅKANSSON (eds.): The Acquisition of Swedish Grammar. 2004. vi, 315 pp. 32 PRÉVOST, Philippe and Johanne PARADIS (eds.): The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts. Focus on functional categories. 2004. viii, 384 pp. 31 MARINIS, Theodoros: The Acquisition of the DP in Modern Greek. 2003. xiv, 261 pp. 30 HOUT, Roeland van, Aafke HULK, Folkert KUIKEN and Richard J. TOWELL (eds.): The Lexicon–Syntax Interface in Second Language Acquisition. 2003. viii, 234 pp. 29 FERNÁNDEZ, Eva M.: Bilingual Sentence Processing. Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. 2003. xx, 294 pp. 28 SHIMRON, Joseph (ed.): Language Processing and Acquisition in Languages of Semitic, Root-Based, Morphology. 2003. vi, 394 pp. 27 SALABERRY, M. Rafael and Yasuhiro SHIRAI (eds.): The L2 Acquisition of Tense–Aspect Morphology. 2002. x, 489 pp. 26 SLABAKOVA, Roumyana: Telicity in the Second Language. 2001. xii, 236 pp. 25 CARROLL, Susanne E.: Input and Evidence. The raw material of second language acquisition. 2001. xviii, 461 pp. 24 WEISSENBORN, Jürgen and Barbara HÖHLE (eds.): Approaches to Bootstrapping. Phonological, lexical, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition. Volume 2. 2001. viii, 337 pp. 23 WEISSENBORN, Jürgen and Barbara HÖHLE (eds.): Approaches to Bootstrapping. Phonological, lexical, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition. Volume 1. 2001. xviii, 299 pp. 22 SCHAEFFER, Jeanette C.: The Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambling and Clitic Placement. Syntax and pragmatics. 2000. xii, 187 pp. 21 HERSCHENSOHN, Julia: The Second Time Around – Minimalism and L2 Acquisition. 2000. xiv, 287 pp. 20 KANNO, Kazue (ed.): The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language. 1999. xii, 180 pp. 19 BECK, Maria-Luise (ed.): Morphology and its Interfaces in Second Language Knowledge. 1998. x, 387 pp. 18 KLEIN, Elaine C. and Gita MARTOHARDJONO (eds.): The Development of Second Language Grammars. A generative approach. 1999. vi, 412 pp. 17 ARCHIBALD, John: Second Language Phonology. 1998. xii, 313 pp. 16 HANNAHS, S.J. and Martha YOUNG-SCHOLTEN (eds.): Focus on Phonological Acquisition. 1997. v, 289 pp. 15 BRINKMANN, Ursula: The Locative Alternation in German. Its structure and acquisition. 1997. x, 289 pp. 14 CLAHSEN, Harald (ed.): Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition. Empirical findings, theoretical considerations and crosslinguistic comparisons. 1996. xxviii, 499 pp. 13 ALLEN, Shanley E.M.: Aspects of Argument Structure Acquisition in Inuktitut. 1996. xvi, 244 pp. 12 JUFFS, Alan: Learnability and the Lexicon. Theories and second language acquisition research. 1996. xi, 277 pp. 11 YIP, Virginia: Interlanguage and Learnability. From Chinese to English. 1995. xvi, 247 pp. 10 LAKSHMANAN, Usha: Universal Grammar in Child Second Language Acquisition. Null subjects and morphological uniformity. 1994. x, 162 pp. 9 ADONE, Dany: The Acquisition of Mauritian Creole. 1994. xii, 167 pp.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

HOEKSTRA, Teun and Bonnie D. SCHWARTZ (eds.): Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar. 1994. xii, 401 pp. MEISEL, Jürgen M. (ed.): Bilingual First Language Acquisition. French and German grammatical development. 1994. vi, 282 pp. THOMAS, Margaret: Knowledge of Reflexives in a Second Language. 1993. x, 234 pp. GASS, Susan M. and Larry SELINKER (eds.): Language Transfer in Language Learning. Revised edition. 1992. x, 236 pp. ECKMAN, Fred R. (ed.): Confluence. Linguistics, L2 acquisition and speech pathology. 1993. xvi, 260 pp. EUBANK, Lynn (ed.): Point Counterpoint. Universal Grammar in the second language. 1991. x, 439 pp. HUEBNER, Thom and Charles A. FERGUSON (eds.): Cross Currents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. 1991. viii, 435 pp. WHITE, Lydia: Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. 1989. xii, 198 pp.

Fossilized Second Language Grammars: The Acquisition of Grammatical Gender

Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition Research)

Language Acquisition: The Age Factor (Second Language Acquisition)

Approaches to Second Language Acquisition

Age in second language acquisition

Investigations In Instructed Second Language Acquisition (Studies on Language Acquisition)

Third or Additional Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Third Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar (Second Language Acquisition)

Speaking and Instructed Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy

Second Language Acquisition - Foreign Language Learning

Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

An Outline of Second Language Acquisition Theories

Arabic Second Language Acquisition of Morphosyntax

A Philosophy of Second Language Acquisition

Telicity in the Second Language (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

The Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition

Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition (Language Acquisition & Language Disorders)

Grammatical Difficulties Encountered by Second Language Learners

Second Language Writing Systems (Second Language Acquisition (Buffalo, N.Y.))

The Acquisition of Swedish Grammar (Language Acquisition & Language Disorders)

Second Language Acquisition of Articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (Second Language Acquisition)

Dyslexia in the Foreign Language Classroom (Second Language Acquisition)

Age and the Acquisition of English As a Foreign Language (Second Language Acquisition, 4)

Grammatical Inference: Learning Automata and Grammars

Variation in second language acquisition, Volume 50

Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition

Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition

Fossilized Second Language Grammars: The Acquisition of Grammatical Gender

Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition Research)

Language Acquisition: The Age Factor (Second Language Acquisition)

Approaches to Second Language Acquisition

Age in second language acquisition

Investigations In Instructed Second Language Acquisition (Studies on Language Acquisition)

Third or Additional Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Third Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar (Second Language Acquisition)

Speaking and Instructed Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy

Second Language Acquisition - Foreign Language Learning

Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

An Outline of Second Language Acquisition Theories

Arabic Second Language Acquisition of Morphosyntax

A Philosophy of Second Language Acquisition

Telicity in the Second Language (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

The Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition

Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition (Language Acquisition & Language Disorders)

Grammatical Difficulties Encountered by Second Language Learners

Second Language Writing Systems (Second Language Acquisition (Buffalo, N.Y.))

The Acquisition of Swedish Grammar (Language Acquisition & Language Disorders)

Second Language Acquisition of Articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (Second Language Acquisition)

Dyslexia in the Foreign Language Classroom (Second Language Acquisition)

Age and the Acquisition of English As a Foreign Language (Second Language Acquisition, 4)

Grammatical Inference: Learning Automata and Grammars

Variation in second language acquisition, Volume 50

Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition

Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition

Recommend Documents