CAS LX 400 Second Language AcquisitionFunctional categoriesVainikka (1993/4), L1ASlide 4Slide 5Slide 6Slide 7Slide 8Slide 9Vainikka (1993/4)Vainikka & Young-Scholten’s primary claims about L2AVainikka & Young-ScholtenV&YS—headedness transferSlide 14PredictionsSlide 16Slide 17V&YS L2A—VP stageSlide 19Slide 20Slide 21V&YS L2A—TP stageSlide 23V&YS L2A—AgrP stageV&YS L2A—AgrPSlide 26StagesV&YS—some implicationsV&YS summaryParadis et al. (1998)Slide 31Slide 32Summary of “UG in L2A” partSlide 35Slide 36Slide 37Slide 38Slide 39Conclusions?What else is there?Slide 42Week 5b. Tree-building andwrapping up L2A & UGCAS LX 400Second Language AcquisitionFunctional categories•Recall that last time we talked about functional categories and the higher abstract syntactic structure of sentences in general as well as in the context of L1A and L2A.•Today we’ll start off by looking at a proposal made by Anne Vainikka and Martha Young-Scholten which concerns the course of acquisition of these functional categories.Vainikka (1993/4), L1A•Recall that this is the structure of an adult clause. This is where kids end up.•Notice the form of the pronoun: It is in nominative case (like I, he, they), a special case form reserved for SpecAgrP in finite clauses (cf. me, him, them or my, his, …).AgrAgrAgrPCCCPthatsheDPTTTPV DPVVPwilleatlunchVainikka (1993/4), L1A•Very early on, kids are observed to use non-nominative subjects almost all the time (90%) like:•My make a house–Nina (2;0)•The fact that the subject is non-nominative can be taken as an indication that it isn’t in SpecAgrP.AgrAgrAgrPCCCPthatsheDPTTTPV DPVVPwilleatlunchVainikka (1993/4), L1A•Vainikka’s proposal (following others as well) is that children who do this are in a VP stage, where their entire syntactic representation of a sentence consists of a verb phrase.myDPV DPVVPmakea houseVainikka (1993/4), L1A•As children get older, they start using nominative subjects•I color me–Nina (2;1)•But interestingly, they do not use nominative subjects in wh-questions•Know what my making?–Nina (2;4)AgrAgrAgrPIDPTTTPV DPVVPcolormeVainikka (1993/4), L1A•I color me–Nina (2;1)•The nominative subject tells us that the kid has at least AgrP in their structure.•Know what my making?–Nina (2;4)•Normally wh-movement implies a CP (wh-words are supposed to move into SpecCP).AgrAgrAgrPIDPTTTPV DPVVPcolormeVainikka (1993/4), L1A•Know what my making?–Nina (2;4)•However, if there is no CP, Vainikka hypothesizes that the wh-word goes to the highest specifier it can go to—SpecAgrP. Which means that the subject can’t be there, and hence can’t be nominative.AgrAgrAgrPmyDPTTTPVDPiVVPmakingwhattiVainikka (1993/4), L1A•Finally, kids reach a stage where the whole tree is there and they use all nominative subjects, even in wh-questions.AgrAgrAgrPCCCPthatsheDPTTTPV DPVVPwilleatlunchVainikka (1993/4)•So, to summarize the L1A proposal: Acquisition goes in (syntactically identifiable stages). Those stages correspond to ever-greater articulation of the tree.–VP stage:•No nominative subjects, no wh-questions.–AgrP stage:•Nominative subjects except in wh-questions.–CP stage:•Nominative subjects and wh-questions.Vainikka & Young-Scholten’s primary claims about L2A•Vainikka & Young-Scholten take this idea and propose that it also characterizes L2A… That is…•L2A takes place in stages, grammars which successively replace each other (perhaps after a period of competition).•The stages correspond to the “height” of the clausal structure.Vainikka & Young-Scholten•Vainikka & Young-Scholten (various publications) look at naturalistic L2A (migrant workers in Germany with different L1 backgrounds, including Turkish [SOV], Korean [SOV], Spanish [SVO], and Italian [SVO]).•Vainikka & Young-Scholten explore the development of L2 phrase structure in some detail—and also have chosen speakers that can be informative concerning the possible transfer of headedness parameter.V&YS—headedness transfer•Cross-sectional: 6 Korean, 6 Spanish, 11 Turkish. Longitudinal: 1 Spanish, 4 Italian.•In at least the early part of the VP stage, speakers seem to produce sentences in which the headedness matches their L1 and not German.L1 L1 head head-final VPs in L2Korean/Turkish final 98Italian/Spanish (I) initial 19Italian/Spanish (II) initial 64V&YS—headedness transfer•VP-i: L1 value transferred for head-parameter, trees truncated at VP.•VP-ii: L2 value adopted for head-parameter, trees still truncated at VPL1 VPs V-initial V-finalBongiovanni I 20 13 (65%) 7Salvatore I 44 35 (80%) 9Jose S 20 15 (75%) 5Rosalinda S 24 24 (100%) 0Antonio S 68 20 48 (71%)Jose S 37 23 14 (38%)Lina I 24 7 17 (71%)Salvatore I 25 6 19 (76%)Predictions•Different parts of the tree have different properties associated with them, and we want to think about what we would predict we’d see (if Vainikka & Young-Scholten are right) at the various stages.AgrAgrAgrPCCCPDPTTTPV DPVVPPredictions•T/Agr (=INFL):–Modals and auxiliaries appear there–Verbs, when they raise, raise to there.–Subject agreement is controlled there•C–Complementizers (that, if) appear there–Wh-questions involve movement to CPAgrAgrAgrPCCCPDPTTTPV DPVVPPredictions•So, if there is just a VP, we expect to find:–No evidence of verb raising.–No consistent agreement with the subject.–No modals or auxiliaries.–No complementizers.–No complex sentences (embedded sentences)–No wh-movement.AgrAgrAgrPCCCPDPTTTPV DPVVPV&YS L2A—VP stage•At the VP stage, we find lack of–verb raising (INFL and/or CP)–auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL)–an agreement paradigm (INFL)–complementizers (CP)–wh-movement (CP)stage L1 Aux Mod DefaultVP Kor 1 1 68VP Tur 0 1 75VP-i It 0 0 34 (65)VP-ii It 0 0 29 (63)VP-i Sp 8 5 74VP-ii Sp 1 1 57All came from Rosalinda (Sp.); three instances of wolle ‘want’ and five with is(t) ‘is’—evidence seems to be that she doesn’t control IP yet.V&YS L2A—VP stage•At the VP stage, we find lack of–verb raising (INFL and/or CP)–auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL)–an agreement paradigm (INFL)–complementizers (CP)–wh-movement (CP)•Antonio (Sp): 7 of 9 sentences with temporal adverbs show adverb–verb order (no raising); 9 of 10 with negation showed neg–verb order.•Turkish/Korean