CAS LX 400 Second Language AcquisitionParametersClusteringThe null subject parameterSlide 5White (1985, 1986)Slide 7Al-Kasey & Pérez-Leroux 1998Slide 9Slide 10Slide 11Slide 12Slide 13So…Binding Theory: once moreBinding Theory parameter: the domain for anaphorsMore advances in BTSlide 18Slide 19Slide 20Slide 21Slide 22-LD, +LD-finite, +LD±finiteSlide 24L2 research on BTMacLaughlin 1998Slide 27Slide 28Slide 29Slide 30SoKanno 1996 and Japanese case marker omissionJapanese case-marker omissionKanno 1996Slide 35What the Japanese II students saw…Slide 37Slide 38Slide 39Slide 40The poor Japanese II students…The experimentKanno’s resultsUG in L2ASlide 45Week 4b. UG and L2A:Binding domains, null subjectsCAS LX 400Second Language AcquisitionParameters•Last time we looked at the V-to-T parameter that is responsible for the differences between French (where the adverbs cannot go between the subject and the verb but can go between the verb and the object) and English (where the situation is exactly reversed.•In the studies we discussed, we found very little that would indicate that L2’ers ever manage to “set this parameter” in a way different from the setting in their L1.Clustering•One reason to be suspicious of the V-to-T parameter and any purported “re-setting” of the parameter is that the same parameter setting (that is the movement of V to T or the lack of such movement) is supposed to be responsible for both of the adverb placement facts. However, what L2’ers look like they do is to retain the order that their L1 allows and additionally allow the order that the L2 allows—the two orders are not mutually exclusive for L2’ers like they seem to be for “L1’ers”.The null subject parameter•Adult languages differ in whether they require overt subjects or not.•English does:–*Go to the movies tonight.•Italian and Spanish do not:–Vado al cinema stasera. (Italian)–Voy al cine esta noche. (Spanish)‘(I) go to the movies tonight.’The null subject parameter•There is a significant cluster of properties that seems to go along with be a “null subject” (a.k.a. “pro drop”) language..–Subject pronouns can be omitted in tensed clauses.•(Generally are except to indicate contrast)–Expletive subjects are null. (it rains).–Subjects may be postposed. (ha telefonato Gianni)–There is no that-trace effect.•(*Who did you say that left?)–Subject-verb agreement is “rich” or uniform.White (1985, 1986)•Compared two groups of subjects learning English:–32 native speakers of (Latin American) Spanish and 2 native speakers of Italian–37 native speakers of Québec French•Did a test of grammaticality judgments, as well as a question formation test:–Mary believes that Fred will call his mother.–Who does Mary believe the Fred will call?–Mary believes that Fred will call his mother.–Who does Mary believe will call his mother?White (1985, 1986)•The results weren’t all that dramatic—the NSL1’ers will quite a bit more likely to accept a sentence with a missing subject (35% vs. 8%), but with respect to judging overt pronoun subjects, and SV vs. VS order, both groups did about the same. It doesn’t really seem like “the whole parameter” was transferred…?•NSL1’ers were also a lot more likely to produce a that-trace violation (71% vs. 42%), though nonNSL1’ers still produced quite a number.Al-Kasey & Pérez-Leroux 1998•Another, more recent study looking at the possible clustering of properties in L2A of Spanish by English speakers.•Observations: English SSL students are known to make errors in which they will (inappropriately) “overuse” subjects, using “too many” subject pronouns or even fabricating expletives (es ‘is’, hay ‘there-are’, el ‘he’). This is a fairly predictable “transfer” since English requires overt subjects.Al-Kasey & Pérez-Leroux 1998•Another error that English SSL students seem to make frequently is like this: (Lee 1987, Al-Kasey & Weston 1992)…y la lee…and it-acc-fem-sing reads‘…and reads it.’•Students will quite systematically misinterpret la as being a subject (not an object which it “obviously” is to any native Spanish speaker, because it is actually marked as being an object).Al-Kasey & Pérez-Leroux 1998•A study was put together in order to look at correlates of the null subject parameter and to see if they all more or less appear together or not.•Specifically Al-Kasey & Pérez-Leroux looked at places where English and Spanish differ with respect to null subjects (i.e. places where a subject pronoun is optional, places where a subject pronoun is inappropriate, and places where an initial pronoun isn’t a subject).Al-Kasey & Pérez-Leroux 1998•There was pretty clear evidence of transfer of the subject properties of English to the IL (Spanish-to-be)—an overuse of subjects, a tendency to suppose that overt subjects can be expletive subjects. The more advanced learners recovered, became more native-speaker-like.Al-Kasey & Pérez-Leroux 1998•The use of null subjects seemed to appear first for expletive (meaningless) subjects (i.e. for things like rains), and a little bit later for silent but meaningful subjects (like you, etc.).•There is clearly an implicational relation; if you have null meaningful subjects, you have null expletive subjects.•The two properties are at least connected.Al-Kasey & Pérez-Leroux 1998•Moreover, the levels of null subject production achieved by the “advanced majors” were basically the same as the levels exhibited by the native speakers.•The correlation and the success suggested to Al-Kasey & Pérez-Leroux that we are in fact looking at connected properties, a parameter being set. The time lag might make us a little bit uneasy, but it is a correlation.So…•The V-to-T parameter from last time seems to be hard to “re-set”—perhaps it even can’t be re-set.•The null subject parameter has given us less than clear-cut results—there seems to be some relation between the properties we attribute to the parameter, but they don’t move directly together.Binding Theory: once more1) John saw himself.2) *Himself saw John.3) *John said Mary saw himself.4) *John said himself saw Mary.5) *John saw him.6) John said Mary saw him.7) John said he saw Mary.•Binding Theory. Principle A: Anaphors (like himself) need an “earlier” antecedent within its binding domain. Principle B: Pronouns (like him) cannot