language attrition

LANGUAGE ATTRITIONLANGUAGE ATTRITION

MultMultii d diimensmensiional phonemenononal phonemenon PsycholPsycholiingunguiiststiic,neurolc,neuroliingunguiiststiic and socc and sociiololiingunguiiststiic study attrc study attriittiionon PathologPathologiical cases are not cal cases are not iinvolvednvolved In thIn thiis research: Focus on L1 attrs research: Focus on L1 attriittiion that occurs on that occurs iin L2 n L2

envenviironmentronment People who moved to another country and use the socıetal People who moved to another country and use the socıetal

language of that countrylanguage of that country WWiith no or lth no or liittle contact wttle contact wiith L1th L1

Can nonCan non--pathologpathologiical attrcal attriittiion of L1 be seen as on of L1 be seen as an outcome of acquan outcome of acquiirriing another language?ng another language?

Can nonCan non--pathologpathologiical attrcal attriittiion of L1 be seen as on of L1 be seen as an outcome of acquan outcome of acquiirriing another language?ng another language?

L1 attrL1 attriittiion occurs on occurs iin bn biilliingual envngual enviironment ronment but thbut thiis does not mean that all L2 speakers s does not mean that all L2 speakers wwiill lose thell lose theiir L1r L1

AttrAttriittiion on iin L1 depends on the frequency of n L1 depends on the frequency of L1 usL1 usee

L1 attrL1 attriittiion should not be seen as a total on should not be seen as a total loss of L1 knowledge but rather as a loss of L1 knowledge but rather as a convergence or shconvergence or shiift towards an L2ft towards an L2

AttrAttriiters move away from L1 structures and ters move away from L1 structures and approxımate L2 structuresapproxımate L2 structures

L1 attrL1 attriittiion occurs on occurs iin bn biilliingual envngual enviironment ronment but thbut thiis does not mean that all L2 speakers s does not mean that all L2 speakers wwiill lose thell lose theiir L1r L1

AttrAttriittiion on iin L1 depends on the frequency of n L1 depends on the frequency of L1 usL1 usee

L1 attrL1 attriittiion should not be seen as a total on should not be seen as a total loss of L1 knowledge but rather as a loss of L1 knowledge but rather as a convergence or shconvergence or shiift towards an L2ft towards an L2

AttrAttriiters move away from L1 structures and ters move away from L1 structures and approxımate L2 structuresapproxımate L2 structures

SelSeleectctiivenessvenessSelSeleectctiivenessveness

LexLexiical knowledgecal knowledge PhonologyPhonology MorphosyntaxMorphosyntax CertaCertaiin aspects of ln aspects of liingunguiiststiic system c system

are more susceptare more susceptiible to attrble to attriittiionon Compared to morphosyntax and Compared to morphosyntax and

phonology,lexphonology,lexiical attrcal attriittiion on iis prevalent s prevalent iin L1 attrn L1 attriiters.ters.

LexLexiical knowledgecal knowledge PhonologyPhonology MorphosyntaxMorphosyntax CertaCertaiin aspects of ln aspects of liingunguiiststiic system c system

are more susceptare more susceptiible to attrble to attriittiionon Compared to morphosyntax and Compared to morphosyntax and

phonology,lexphonology,lexiical attrcal attriittiion on iis prevalent s prevalent iin L1 attrn L1 attriiters.ters.

These forecasts indicate general These forecasts indicate general trends, such as whether the trends, such as whether the temperatures are expected to be temperatures are expected to be warmer or colder than normal.warmer or colder than normal.

These forecasts indicate general These forecasts indicate general trends, such as whether the trends, such as whether the temperatures are expected to be temperatures are expected to be warmer or colder than normal.warmer or colder than normal.

attrition in the morpho-syntactic module of grammar has attrition in the morpho-syntactic module of grammar has beenbeen documented in various domains such as documented in various domains such as ::

word order (Schaufeli, 1996),word order (Schaufeli, 1996), relative clauserelative clause formation (Seliger, 1989),formation (Seliger, 1989), case morphology (Larmouth, 1974; Polinsky, 1997), case morphology (Larmouth, 1974; Polinsky, 1997), TheThe aspectual system (Montrul, 2002; Polinsky, 1997)aspectual system (Montrul, 2002; Polinsky, 1997) the pronominal system (Soracethe pronominal system (Sorace 2000). 2000).

One One iimportant fmportant fiindndiing all these researches foundng all these researches found: : attrattriittiion on iis selects selectiive.ve.

redundancy reductionredundancy reductionprincipleprinciple

reduction process is associated with some form of reduction process is associated with some form of ‘markedness’ in‘markedness’ in

the sense that those forms that are less marked in the L2 are the sense that those forms that are less marked in the L2 are more likely to replace moremore likely to replace more

marked forms in the L1, whereas the less marked forms in marked forms in the L1, whereas the less marked forms in the L1 appear to be morethe L1 appear to be more

resistant to attrition. In this account, grammatical forms resistant to attrition. In this account, grammatical forms which are more complexandwhich are more complexand havehave

a narrow linguistic distribution are considered marked.a narrow linguistic distribution are considered marked.

It It iis preds prediicted that null subject cted that null subject will not be affected by will not be affected by attrition. However, the distributionattrition. However, the distribution of null and overt subjects of null and overt subjects will be subject to attrition. According to this view, due to L2 will be subject to attrition. According to this view, due to L2 EnglishEnglish influence, L1 Italian attriters (near-native L2 English influence, L1 Italian attriters (near-native L2 English speakers) will overgeneralizespeakers) will overgeneralize overt pronouns to contexts in overt pronouns to contexts in which monolingual Italians would use a null subject.which monolingual Italians would use a null subject.

That is, overt pronouns will become optionally unspecified for That is, overt pronouns will become optionally unspecified for (Topic Shift) and thus(Topic Shift) and thus will occur in [-Topic Shift] contexts. will occur in [-Topic Shift] contexts. Sorace (2000, p. 723) interprets this as ‘loss ofSorace (2000, p. 723) interprets this as ‘loss of r restrictions in estrictions in the distribution of overt and null pronouns’ in L1 Italian due the distribution of overt and null pronouns’ in L1 Italian due to L2to L2 English. English.

DEFINITION:DEFINITION:attrition/loss in one linguistic system is considered to be a attrition/loss in one linguistic system is considered to be a

direct consequence of interference from the other linguistic direct consequence of interference from the other linguistic system of the bilingual.system of the bilingual.

From this standpoint, the following definition of L1 attrition From this standpoint, the following definition of L1 attrition is adopted: L1 attrition is the restructuring and is adopted: L1 attrition is the restructuring and incorporation of L2 elements/rules into the L1 grammar as incorporation of L2 elements/rules into the L1 grammar as reflected in a speaker’s acceptance of syntactically deviant reflected in a speaker’s acceptance of syntactically deviant L1 sentences under the influence of L2 rules and L1 sentences under the influence of L2 rules and constraints (Pavlenko, 2000, p. 179; Seliger, 1996, p. 606).constraints (Pavlenko, 2000, p. 179; Seliger, 1996, p. 606).

the Activation Thresholdthe Activation Threshold HypothesisHypothesis

The notion of inhibition wasThe notion of inhibition was originally proposed originally proposed to account for the distinction between the loss to account for the distinction between the loss and inaccessibility ofand inaccessibility of

linguistic information in various memorylinguistic information in various memory disorders.disorders. The notion of inhibition is nowThe notion of inhibition is now

discussed under the Activation Thresholddiscussed under the Activation Threshold Hypothesis, which essentially specifies theHypothesis, which essentially specifies the

relation between the frequency of use of a relation between the frequency of use of a linguistic item and its activation andlinguistic item and its activation and

availability to the language user.availability to the language user.

The more an item is activated, the lower its The more an item is activated, the lower its activationactivation threshold is. The threshold of threshold is. The threshold of activation raises if the item is inactive, i.e. activation raises if the item is inactive, i.e. unselected (andunselected (and

disused). It is more difficult to (re)activate an item disused). It is more difficult to (re)activate an item with a high activation threshold. Inwith a high activation threshold. In

other words, when a particular linguistic item has a other words, when a particular linguistic item has a high activation threshold, morehigh activation threshold, more

activating impulses are required to reactivate it activating impulses are required to reactivate it (Paradis, 1997).(Paradis, 1997).

2. Syntactic property under investigation2. Syntactic property under investigation2.1. 2.1. Binding in Binding in EnglishEnglish (a) John believes that [(a) John believes that [hehe is intelligent]. is intelligent].(b) John kissed [(b) John kissed [hishis wife]. wife].(c) Nobody believes that [(c) Nobody believes that [hehe is intelligent]. is intelligent]. •The overt embedded subject ‘he’ can be coreferential (a) The overt embedded subject ‘he’ can be coreferential (a) or be bound (c) by the matrix subject.or be bound (c) by the matrix subject.

Is she John’s wife or somebody else’s wife?Is she John’s wife or somebody else’s wife?

1. 1. Bound variable interpretationBound variable interpretation

XX believes that believes that xx is intelligent. is intelligent.2. 2. Disjoint interpretationDisjoint interpretation

XX believes that believes that yy is intelligent. is intelligent.

The statement (c) is ambiguous between bound and The statement (c) is ambiguous between bound and disjoint readings:disjoint readings:

‘‘nobody considers himself/herself to benobody considers himself/herself to be intelligent.’intelligent.’

‘‘nobody considers nobody considers a a particular person in the discourse to particular person in the discourse to be intelligent.’ be intelligent.’

2.1.1 Binding in Turkish2.1.1 Binding in Turkish

Two overt pronominals and a null pronoun: ‘Two overt pronominals and a null pronoun: ‘o’ o’ and ‘and ‘kendisi’ ‘s/he’, kendisi’ ‘s/he’, ‘self’ ‘self’ and and pro pro respectively.respectively.

(7) O(7) O//kendi-sikendi-si//pro Londra’ya git-tipro Londra’ya git-ti

S/he self-3SG pro London-DAT go-PSTS/he self-3SG pro London-DAT go-PST

‘ ‘S/he went to London’S/he went to London’

(8) Burak o-nu /kendi-si-ni /pro beğen-iyor(8) Burak o-nu /kendi-si-ni /pro beğen-iyor

Burak s/he-ACC self-3SG-ACC pro like-PRGBurak s/he-ACC self-3SG-ACC pro like-PRG

‘ ‘Burak likes him /self /pro’Burak likes him /self /pro’

Subject position can be occupied by overt pronouns and null pronoun.

Binding possibilities of overt and null pronouns in embedded Binding possibilities of overt and null pronouns in embedded subject positions.subject positions.

(9a) Burak [o-nun zeki ol-duğ-u]-nu düşün-üyor.(9a) Burak [o-nun zeki ol-duğ-u]-nu düşün-üyor. Overt ‘o’Overt ‘o’

Burak s/he-GEN intelligent be-NOM-3SGPOSS-ACC think-PRGBurak s/he-GEN intelligent be-NOM-3SGPOSS-ACC think-PRG

(9b) Burak [kendi-si-nin zeki ol-duğ-u]-nu düşün-üyor.(9b) Burak [kendi-si-nin zeki ol-duğ-u]-nu düşün-üyor. Overt ‘kendisi’Overt ‘kendisi’

Burak self-3SG-GEN intelligent be-NOM-3SGPOSS-ACC think-PRGBurak self-3SG-GEN intelligent be-NOM-3SGPOSS-ACC think-PRG

(9c) Burak [(9c) Burak [pro pro zeki ol-duğ-u]-nu düşün-üyor.zeki ol-duğ-u]-nu düşün-üyor. Null Null propro

Burak pro intelligent be-NOM-3SGPOSS-ACC think-PRGBurak pro intelligent be-NOM-3SGPOSS-ACC think-PRG

‘ ‘Burak thinks that [he/self/Burak thinks that [he/self/pro is intelligent.pro is intelligent.]]

TThe overt pronoun he overt pronoun ‘‘oo’’ can never can never be bound by the matrix subject. It only be bound by the matrix subject. It only allows a disjoint reading. In contrast, the overtallows a disjoint reading. In contrast, the overt pronoun pronoun ‘‘kendisikendisi’’ and and null null pronoun ‘pronoun ‘propro’’ can be bound by the matrix subject or have disjoint readings can be bound by the matrix subject or have disjoint readings..

Turkish overt pronoun ‘Turkish overt pronoun ‘o’o’ does not pattern similarly with its English conterpart does not pattern similarly with its English conterpart ‘‘s/he’ s/he’ in embedded subject positions.in embedded subject positions.

Difference btw English & Turkish overt pronoun binding is Difference btw English & Turkish overt pronoun binding is illustrated once more!illustrated once more!

(12a) John said (12a) John said IPIP[he would come.][he would come.] (12b) John (12b) John DPDP[o-nun gel-eceğ-i]-ni söyledi.[o-nun gel-eceğ-i]-ni söyledi.

(13a) John kissed [his wife.](13a) John kissed [his wife.] (13b) John [o-nun karı-sı]-nı öp-tü.(13b) John [o-nun karı-sı]-nı öp-tü.

Research QuestionsResearch Questions DDo native Turkisho native Turkish speakers maintain the contrast speakers maintain the contrast

between the L1 and L2 overt pronouns with respect to between the L1 and L2 overt pronouns with respect to theirtheir binding properties? binding properties?

DDo native Turkish speakers maintain the contrast o native Turkish speakers maintain the contrast between the twobetween the two overt pronominals in L1 Turkish (overt pronominals in L1 Turkish (oo and and kendisikendisi))??

DDo native Turkish speakers maintain L1 knowledge o native Turkish speakers maintain L1 knowledge regarding bindingregarding binding properties of the null pronoun despite properties of the null pronoun despite extensive input from the non-pro-drop L2? extensive input from the non-pro-drop L2?

PredictionsPredictions Only the L1Only the L1 properties that have properties that have similarsimilar forms in the L2 forms in the L2

(hence in(hence in competitioncompetition with the L2 forms)willwith the L2 forms)will undergo undergo attritionattrition..

L1 elements that have noL1 elements that have no corresponding forms in the L2 corresponding forms in the L2 will not be vulnerable to attrition as they will not be inwill not be vulnerable to attrition as they will not be in competition with the L2 elements.competition with the L2 elements.

The studyThe study1.1. ParticipantsParticipants

• Twenty-four native Turkish speakers who Twenty-four native Turkish speakers who reached the ultimate grammar in L2 reached the ultimate grammar in L2 EnglishEnglish

• The participants, aged between 29 and The participants, aged between 29 and 772.2.

• The length of stay ranged from 10 to 43 The length of stay ranged from 10 to 43 yearsyears. (. (North America (Canada or the US)North America (Canada or the US) ))

• EEffects of attrition are reported to start ffects of attrition are reported to start even after eight years (Olshtain & even after eight years (Olshtain &

Barzilay, 1991),Barzilay, 1991),• LLength of stay was defined in threeength of stay was defined in three levels: levels:

10–19, 20–29, 30 years and above10–19, 20–29, 30 years and above

Almost all Almost all of them had their first English exposure at schools of them had their first English exposure at schools in Turkey.in Turkey.

Emigrated to North America, learned English at schools and Emigrated to North America, learned English at schools and working environment.working environment.

EExcept for social interactions with other Turks, they used xcept for social interactions with other Turks, they used EnglishEnglish extensively in their daily lifeextensively in their daily life..

In the area of language attrition (as in In the area of language attrition (as in language acquisition), it is important to language acquisition), it is important to establish aestablish a baseline to which any language baseline to which any language change can be compared. To establish this change can be compared. To establish this baseline, 30 nativebaseline, 30 native Turkish speakers, aged Turkish speakers, aged between 20 and 70 were tested. This between 20 and 70 were tested. This group includedgroup included people who have been people who have been living in Turkey since birth and who had living in Turkey since birth and who had some knowledge ofsome knowledge of English English

TestsTests

The tests included a written interpretation The tests included a written interpretation task, a truth-value judgement task and atask, a truth-value judgement task and a picture identification–listening taskpicture identification–listening task..

Test 1. Written interpretation taskTest 1. Written interpretation task

This test was adopted from Kanno (1997). It This test was adopted from Kanno (1997). It included 48 items with 24 referential andincluded 48 items with 24 referential and 24 24 quantified antecedents, where each category quantified antecedents, where each category had 12 overt and 12 null pronouns. In thishad 12 overt and 12 null pronouns. In this test, participants were given a Turkish test, participants were given a Turkish sentence like (14) and asked to select sentence like (14) and asked to select possiblepossible antecedent(s) for the embedded antecedent(s) for the embedded subject pronoun. Forsubject pronoun. For example, in (14), example, in (14), participants were expected to circle the participants were expected to circle the option (b) (i.e. disjoint reading)option (b) (i.e. disjoint reading) because because the the overt pronoun overt pronoun ««oo»» cannot be bound by the cannot be bound by the matrix subject in Turkishmatrix subject in Turkish

(14) Burak(14) Burakii [o-nun* [o-nun*i/ki/k sinema-ya gid-eceg-i]- sinema-ya gid-eceg-i]-

ni soyle-dini soyle-di Burak s/he-GEN cinema-DAT go-NOM-Burak s/he-GEN cinema-DAT go-NOM-

3SGPOSS-ACC say-PST3SGPOSS-ACC say-PST ‘‘BurakBurakii said (that) [s/he* said (that) [s/he*i/ki/k would go to the would go to the

movies]’movies]’ Soru (question): Sizce bu cümleye göre Soru (question): Sizce bu cümleye göre

kim sinemaya gidecek olabilir? (According kim sinemaya gidecek olabilir? (According to to this sentence, who could be the person this sentence, who could be the person that would go to the movies?)that would go to the movies?)

(a) Burak ?(a) Burak ? (b) Baska bir kisi (some other person)(b) Baska bir kisi (some other person) ? ? (c) Hem (a) hem (b) (Both (a) and (b)(c) Hem (a) hem (b) (Both (a) and (b) ? ?

Test 2. Truth-value judgement task Test 2. Truth-value judgement task (story task)(story task)

Unlike the first test which includedUnlike the first test which included isolated isolated sentences, this test involved judging the sentences, this test involved judging the truth value of sentences within atruth value of sentences within a particular particular context. In this task, participants were context. In this task, participants were given 12 short English storiesgiven 12 short English stories..

Participants are asked to judge the Participants are asked to judge the subsequent Turkish sentence as true or subsequent Turkish sentence as true or false according to the context given in the false according to the context given in the storystory..

Story. Mary and John went to a restaurant. Mary Story. Mary and John went to a restaurant. Mary ordered seafood and John ordered aordered seafood and John ordered a pizza. The pizza. The bill came to 50 dollars. John complained that the bill came to 50 dollars. John complained that the bill was high but Marbill was high but Mary didn’t agree.y didn’t agree.

Target sentence to be judged.Target sentence to be judged. Mary o-nun restoran-ı pahalı bul-dug-u-nu söyle-diMary o-nun restoran-ı pahalı bul-dug-u-nu söyle-di Mary s/he-GEN restaurant-ACC expensive find-Mary s/he-GEN restaurant-ACC expensive find-

NOM-3SGPOSS-ACC say-PSTNOM-3SGPOSS-ACC say-PST ‘‘MaryMaryii said (that) s/he* said (that) s/he*i/ki/k found the restaurant found the restaurant

expensive’expensive’

IIf the participants answer as true, this f the participants answer as true, this means that theymeans that they understand the disjoint understand the disjoint reading but if they say false, that suggests reading but if they say false, that suggests that they understandthat they understand the bound reading for the bound reading for the overt pronoun the overt pronoun ««oo»», an option that is , an option that is not allowed in the nativenot allowed in the native Turkish grammar. Turkish grammar. However, in English, the embedded However, in English, the embedded subject pronoun can be bound bysubject pronoun can be bound by the the matrix subject Mary. Thus, any response matrix subject Mary. Thus, any response in that direction might suggest L2 Englishin that direction might suggest L2 English effects.effects.

Test 3. Picture identification–Test 3. Picture identification–listening tasklistening task

This test is also a truth value judgment This test is also a truth value judgment tasktask

IInstead of stories, it involves listening and nstead of stories, it involves listening and picturepicture identification. identification.

PParticipants were asked to listen to a articipants were asked to listen to a series of Turkishseries of Turkish sentences, involving sentences, involving pronouns and judge the corresponding pronouns and judge the corresponding colour picture in front ofcolour picture in front of them as true or them as true or falsefalse..

They were presented They were presented the picture and the picture and they they heardheard the sentence simultaneously, the sentence simultaneously, participantsparticipants decided whether or not the decided whether or not the picture they saw matched the sentence picture they saw matched the sentence they heard.they heard.

This test included 24 sentences (eight This test included 24 sentences (eight different pictures, each repeated threedifferent pictures, each repeated three times) The items included 16 overt and 8 times) The items included 16 overt and 8 nullnull pronouns. pronouns.

Participants hear.Participants hear.(16) Ahmet Sarı o-nun iyi sarkı soyle-dig-i-(16) Ahmet Sarı o-nun iyi sarkı soyle-dig-i-ni soyle-dini soyle-diAhmet yellow s/he-GEN well song tell-Ahmet yellow s/he-GEN well song tell-NOM-3SGPOSS-ACC say-PASTNOM-3SGPOSS-ACC say-PAST‘‘Ahmet SarıAhmet Sarıii said that s/he* said that s/he*i/ki/k sings well’ sings well’

In this example, the picture depicts that In this example, the picture depicts that Ahmet Sarı (Mr Yellow) himself sings. TheAhmet Sarı (Mr Yellow) himself sings. The Turkish sentence that the participants hear Turkish sentence that the participants hear cannot be expressing this because the overtcannot be expressing this because the overt pronoun pronoun ««oo»» is obligatorily disjoint from the is obligatorily disjoint from the sentential subject. If participants think that thesentential subject. If participants think that the picture and the sentence match, i.e. if they picture and the sentence match, i.e. if they say true for this item, then they must besay true for this item, then they must be assuming that the overt pronoun assuming that the overt pronoun ««oo»» is is bound by the matrix subject, which would be bound by the matrix subject, which would be aa wrong answer. If, on the other hand, they wrong answer. If, on the other hand, they choose false, this suggests that they know choose false, this suggests that they know thatthat « «oo»» has to have a sentence-external has to have a sentence-external referent. referent.

In comparison to the first two untimed tests, In comparison to the first two untimed tests, in this task, more ‘on-line’in this task, more ‘on-line’ processing was processing was involved as participants heard target involved as participants heard target sentences in real time durationsentences in real time duration and made and made their judgements in a short time period. The their judgements in a short time period. The motivation for including suchmotivation for including such a task came a task came from the claims thafrom the claims that t interference between the interference between the two languages of atwo languages of a bilingual is more likelbilingual is more likely y during on-line language processing. Thus, during on-line language processing. Thus, includingincluding a listening task might provide an a listening task might provide an opportunity to investigate these claims in theopportunity to investigate these claims in the present study.present study.

Referential-Quantified-Disjoint-Referential-Quantified-Disjoint-BoundBound

o Berfin ònun` agladigini soylediBerfin ònun` agladigini soyledio Berfin `kendisinin` agladigini soyledi.Berfin `kendisinin` agladigini soyledi.o Berfin _ agladigini soyledi.Berfin _ agladigini soyledi.

o Kimse ònun` gelecegini soylemedi.Kimse ònun` gelecegini soylemedi.o Kimse `kendisinin` gelecegini soylemedi.Kimse `kendisinin` gelecegini soylemedi.o Kimse _ gelecegini soylemedi.Kimse _ gelecegini soylemedi.

Written Interpretation Task -ò`Written Interpretation Task -ò`

The overt pronoun ò` in the embedded The overt pronoun ò` in the embedded subject position cannot be bound by the subject position cannot be bound by the matrix subject irrespective of whether the matrix subject irrespective of whether the antecedent is referential or quantified.antecedent is referential or quantified.

o Berfin ònun` calistigini soyledi.Berfin ònun` calistigini soyledi.o Kimse ònun` calisdigini soylemedi.Kimse ònun` calisdigini soylemedi.

o Berfin said that `she` is working.Berfin said that `she` is working.


In the context of referential antecedents, the In the context of referential antecedents, the attrition group, like the native control attrition group, like the native control subjects, hardly allowed for the bound subjects, hardly allowed for the bound reading of ò`.reading of ò`.

With respect to the disjoint reading, in both With respect to the disjoint reading, in both referential and quantified antecedent referential and quantified antecedent contexts, the attrition and the control groups contexts, the attrition and the control groups correctly allowed the disjoint reading for the correctly allowed the disjoint reading for the pronoun ò` to a higher extent than the other pronoun ò` to a higher extent than the other readings.readings.


Unlike the English pronoun, the Turkish Unlike the English pronoun, the Turkish overt pronoun `o` cannot have any reading overt pronoun `o` cannot have any reading other than disjoint. However, the attrition other than disjoint. However, the attrition group, by group, by allowing more ambiguous allowing more ambiguous (bound and disjoint) (bound and disjoint) readings for this readings for this pronoun, diverged from the control group.pronoun, diverged from the control group.

Written Interpretation Task -Written Interpretation Task -`kendisi``kendisi`

Recall that the pronominal `kendisi` is Recall that the pronominal `kendisi` is potentially ambiguous between bound and potentially ambiguous between bound and disjoint readings. disjoint readings.

Therefore, the groups were expected to assign Therefore, the groups were expected to assign ‘ambiguous’ (bound and disjoint) interpretations ‘ambiguous’ (bound and disjoint) interpretations more often than the other interpretations.more often than the other interpretations.

Berfin `kendisinin` agladigini soylediBerfin `kendisinin` agladigini soyledi Kimse `kendisinin` agladigini soylemedi.Kimse `kendisinin` agladigini soylemedi.


In the attrition group, the pronoun In the attrition group, the pronoun `kendisi` received more ‘bound-only’ `kendisi` received more ‘bound-only’ interpretations.interpretations.

the control group did not allow the the control group did not allow the ‘disjoint-only’ reading for `kendisi` at all.‘disjoint-only’ reading for `kendisi` at all.

The rate of the ‘disjoint-only’ option was The rate of the ‘disjoint-only’ option was higher in the attrition grouphigher in the attrition group


Overall, the attrition group, like the native Overall, the attrition group, like the native controls, appeared to know that the form controls, appeared to know that the form `kendisi` could take both bound or disjoint `kendisi` could take both bound or disjoint reference. reference.

The bound interpretation was more salient for The bound interpretation was more salient for the attrition group. The difference we observe the attrition group. The difference we observe between controls and the attrition group between controls and the attrition group might suggest that might suggest that native speakers were native speakers were more aware of the ambiguity that is more aware of the ambiguity that is associated with the form `kendisi`.associated with the form `kendisi`.


Schaufeli (1996, p. 166) suggests, this Schaufeli (1996, p. 166) suggests, this might be due to the fact that the control might be due to the fact that the control group has more experience with various group has more experience with various rules and sentence types and therefore rules and sentence types and therefore ‘‘allow themselves more often to allow themselves more often to abandon the most common abandon the most common interpretationsinterpretations.’.’

AttritersAttriters

While the overt pronoun `o` received more While the overt pronoun `o` received more disjoint interpretationsdisjoint interpretations, the overt , the overt pronoun `kendisi` received more pronoun `kendisi` received more bound bound interpretationsinterpretations..

Written Interpretation Task -`Null Written Interpretation Task -`Null Pronoun`Pronoun`

The null pronoun in the embedded subject The null pronoun in the embedded subject position is ambiguous between bound and position is ambiguous between bound and disjoint readings irrespective of whether disjoint readings irrespective of whether the antecedent is referential or quantified.the antecedent is referential or quantified.

o Berfin _ gelecegini soyledi.Berfin _ gelecegini soyledi.o Kimse _ gelecegini soylemedi.Kimse _ gelecegini soylemedi.


they assigned pro a higher rate of ‘bound-they assigned pro a higher rate of ‘bound-only’ interpretations in referential contexts, only’ interpretations in referential contexts, and allowed both ‘bound-only’ and and allowed both ‘bound-only’ and ‘ambiguous’ interpretations equally often in ‘ambiguous’ interpretations equally often in quantified contexts.quantified contexts.


Similar to the native controls, the attrition Similar to the native controls, the attrition group has the knowledge of binding group has the knowledge of binding options for pro. That is, L1 attriters options for pro. That is, L1 attriters maintained that maintained that pro is potentially pro is potentially ambiguous between the two readings.ambiguous between the two readings.

Written Interpretation Task - Written Interpretation Task - SummarySummary

While the overt pronoun `o` was most While the overt pronoun `o` was most often assigned the disjoint reading, pro often assigned the disjoint reading, pro and `kendisi` received mostly bound or and `kendisi` received mostly bound or ambiguous readings.ambiguous readings.

Furthermore, we saw that pro and Furthermore, we saw that pro and `kendisi` were treated similarly for the `kendisi` were treated similarly for the most part as they were both assigned most part as they were both assigned either ambiguous or bound interpretations. either ambiguous or bound interpretations.

Results of Truth-value Judgement Task(Story Task)

Overt Pronoun “O”

• L1 attriters allowed more bound interpretations than native control group in the context of referential antecedents.

• In the context of quantified antecedents controls allowed less bound readings.

• These results indicate they diverged from native control group.

(Burak onun zeki olduğunu düşünüyor.) (Kimse onun zeki olduğunu düşünmüyor.)

Overt Pronoun “Kendisi”Overt Pronoun “Kendisi”

There is no significant differences in any There is no significant differences in any of the readings, in either referential or of the readings, in either referential or quantified contexts.quantified contexts.

Kendisi received more bound Kendisi received more bound interpretations for both groups.interpretations for both groups.

Similar to native controls, attriters treat Similar to native controls, attriters treat the overt pronoun “kendisi” and “o” the overt pronoun “kendisi” and “o” differently.differently.

(Burak kendisinin zeki olduğunu düşünüyor.) (Kimse kendisinin zeki olduğunu düşünmüyor.)

Null PronounNull Pronoun

There is no significant differences in any There is no significant differences in any of the readings, in either referential or of the readings, in either referential or quantified contexts.quantified contexts.

Therefore, it can be said that null Therefore, it can be said that null pronoun was mostly interpreted as a pronoun was mostly interpreted as a bound pronoun.bound pronoun.

(Burak zeki olduğunu düşünüyor.) (Kimse zeki olduğunu düşünmüyor.)

Results of Picture Identification-Listening TaskResults of Picture Identification-Listening Task Note that participants were tested with only referential contexts.Note that participants were tested with only referential contexts.

Overt Pronoun “O”

•As in the previous two task before, more disjoint interpretation was preferred.

•However, attriters allowed more bound readings than native controls.

•Once again,it can be said that “disjointment” requirement of “o” pronoun is not obeyed by attriters, possibly due to interference from English.

Overt pronoun “kendisi”Overt pronoun “kendisi”

Similar to Test 2, “kendisi” received more bound Similar to Test 2, “kendisi” received more bound readings by both groups. The percentage of readings by both groups. The percentage of disjoint reading was considerably lower than disjoint reading was considerably lower than that of bound readings.that of bound readings.

Nevertheless, the difference was larger for Nevertheless, the difference was larger for attrition group.attrition group.

Recall that “kendisi” received more disjoint Recall that “kendisi” received more disjoint readings in Task 2 as more disjoint readings in Task 2 as more disjoint interpretation was made available through interpretation was made available through strong contextual clues so that attriters had strong contextual clues so that attriters had access to both bound and disjoint readings access to both bound and disjoint readings easily.easily.

However, most importantly, attriters still treat However, most importantly, attriters still treat “kendisi” as a bound pronoun.“kendisi” as a bound pronoun.

Null pronounNull pronoun

Both groups interpreted Both groups interpreted propro as a as a bound pronoun, which was similar to bound pronoun, which was similar to what was observed for “kendisi”.what was observed for “kendisi”.

Furthermore, attriters’ preference for Furthermore, attriters’ preference for bound reading for bound reading for propro was was considerably higher than the controls, considerably higher than the controls, similar to the findings for “kendisi”.similar to the findings for “kendisi”.

In conclusion, both groups mostly treated “kendisi” and In conclusion, both groups mostly treated “kendisi” and pro pro as a bound pronoun.as a bound pronoun.

With regard to pronoun “o”, despite more preference With regard to pronoun “o”, despite more preference for disjoint interpretation by both groups, attriters for disjoint interpretation by both groups, attriters incorrectly allowed more bound readings than the incorrectly allowed more bound readings than the native controls.native controls.

This task was intended to see whether attrition traits This task was intended to see whether attrition traits were different in automatic and controlled tasks. were different in automatic and controlled tasks. (online language processing)(online language processing)

Consistent results suggest that binding judgments of Consistent results suggest that binding judgments of L1 attriters are not the artifacts of the testing method L1 attriters are not the artifacts of the testing method but reliable manifestations of their language but reliable manifestations of their language competence.competence.

To summarize “kendisi” and To summarize “kendisi” and pro pro was mostly treated as was mostly treated as a bound pronoun by both groups while there was a a bound pronoun by both groups while there was a tendency to have disjoint interpretation with pronoun tendency to have disjoint interpretation with pronoun “o” .“o” .

However, attriters still tended to have bound However, attriters still tended to have bound interpretation for “kendisi” and interpretation for “kendisi” and pro pro as they could not as they could not always recognize the ambiguity involved in the always recognize the ambiguity involved in the readings of these pronominals.readings of these pronominals.

Although both groups preferred a disjoint reading for Although both groups preferred a disjoint reading for “o”, attriters allowed more bound interpretations than “o”, attriters allowed more bound interpretations than the controls.the controls.

Due to L2 influence, L1 attriters are found to allow Due to L2 influence, L1 attriters are found to allow coindexation between the overt embedded subject coindexation between the overt embedded subject pronoun“o” and the subject of the matrix clause. (an option pronoun“o” and the subject of the matrix clause. (an option in English, but not in Turkish)in English, but not in Turkish)

However, when the embedded subject position is occupied However, when the embedded subject position is occupied with “kendisi” and with “kendisi” and propro, attriters do not seem to have any , attriters do not seem to have any problems with bound or ambiguous interpretations to these problems with bound or ambiguous interpretations to these pronouns. pronouns.

Therefore, results from all three tasks suggest that while Therefore, results from all three tasks suggest that while attriters have difficulty with the preservation of the binding attriters have difficulty with the preservation of the binding properties of overt pronoun “o”, they maintain referential properties of overt pronoun “o”, they maintain referential properties of “kendisi” and properties of “kendisi” and propro. .

An analysis was conducted to find out the effect An analysis was conducted to find out the effect “length of stay”. However, there was no real main “length of stay”. However, there was no real main effect “length of stay” in any of the tests for the attrition effect “length of stay” in any of the tests for the attrition group.group.

It means that time spent in L2 environment was not It means that time spent in L2 environment was not relevant for the level of performance in pronoun relevant for the level of performance in pronoun binding.binding.

In other words, those stayed in L2 country longer do In other words, those stayed in L2 country longer do not necessarily show more attrition than who stayed not necessarily show more attrition than who stayed less.less.

Analysis of the Factor “Length of Stay”

DISCUSSIONDISCUSSION

These results are expected given theThese results are expected given the Activation Activation Threshold HypothesisThreshold Hypothesis. This hypothesis holds that the . This hypothesis holds that the accessibility of a linguistic item or a syntactic rule is accessibility of a linguistic item or a syntactic rule is use-dependent. In other words, if a linguistic item is use-dependent. In other words, if a linguistic item is not used or stimulated, its activation threshold will be not used or stimulated, its activation threshold will be higher. In the context of bilinguals, L1 and L2 are in higher. In the context of bilinguals, L1 and L2 are in competition.competition.

When L1 has a corresponding linguistic item in L2, the When L1 has a corresponding linguistic item in L2, the actively used L2 element will interfere with L1 disused actively used L2 element will interfere with L1 disused element. Consequently, it will be subject to attrition element. Consequently, it will be subject to attrition under L2 influence.under L2 influence.

In the context of overt pronoun of “o”, the same In the context of overt pronoun of “o”, the same prediction held true. Under L2 influence, L1 attriters prediction held true. Under L2 influence, L1 attriters treat “o” as identical to its counterpart in English.treat “o” as identical to its counterpart in English.

More specifically, the definition of L2 English binding More specifically, the definition of L2 English binding domain is selected over the L1 Turkish binding domain domain is selected over the L1 Turkish binding domain due to suppression of L1 by active L2 system.due to suppression of L1 by active L2 system.

In contrast with overt “o” pronoun, attriters appeared In contrast with overt “o” pronoun, attriters appeared to maintain the L1 knowledge concerning these to maintain the L1 knowledge concerning these pronouns, as predicted by the pronouns, as predicted by the Activation Threshold Activation Threshold HypothesisHypothesis..

When an L1 element has no equivalent forms in L2, When an L1 element has no equivalent forms in L2, the L1 is not in competition with L2. Thus, no attrition the L1 is not in competition with L2. Thus, no attrition or interference occurs in such contexts.or interference occurs in such contexts.

In the study, “kendisi” and In the study, “kendisi” and propro have no analoguous have no analoguous English counterparts. Therefore, the binding principles English counterparts. Therefore, the binding principles of these pronouns are not subject to inhibition despite of these pronouns are not subject to inhibition despite extensive L2 influence.extensive L2 influence.

ConclusionConclusion

This study examined the attrition of binding principles This study examined the attrition of binding principles of Turkish overt and null pronouns under L2 English of Turkish overt and null pronouns under L2 English influence.influence.

Due to extensive L2 exposure, L1 loses some aspects Due to extensive L2 exposure, L1 loses some aspects of the native grammar. However, this loss is selective of the native grammar. However, this loss is selective and also predictable to some extent.and also predictable to some extent.

In other words, the selective nature of attrition In other words, the selective nature of attrition phenomenon can be predicted under the phenomenon can be predicted under the Activation Activation Threshold HypothesisThreshold Hypothesis which anticipates attrition in L1 which anticipates attrition in L1 properties that are in competition with L2 properties properties that are in competition with L2 properties with a lower activation threshold.with a lower activation threshold.

When, the competition is not relevant, L2-induced L1 When, the competition is not relevant, L2-induced L1 attrition does not occur.attrition does not occur.

language attrition

Documents