Week 14. Language Week 14. Language disordersdisorders

and course overviewand course overview

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic Linguistic

TheoryTheory

DissociationsDissociations

Language is developmentally Language is developmentally dissociable from other cognitive dissociable from other cognitive functions.functions.

Specific Language ImpairmentSpecific Language Impairment Cover term for situation where language Cover term for situation where language lags behind in otherwise normal cognitive lags behind in otherwise normal cognitive developmentdevelopment

Williams SyndromeWilliams Syndrome Cognitive impairment, but language Cognitive impairment, but language developing relatively normally.developing relatively normally.

SLISLI

Language is slower to emergeLanguage is slower to emerge Trouble with some—but not all—Trouble with some—but not all—inflectional morphologyinflectional morphology

Some genetic component, seems Some genetic component, seems to run in families.to run in families.

SLI and OISLI and OI Optional infinitives in normally developing Optional infinitives in normally developing children has the appearance of a children has the appearance of a maturational constraint.maturational constraint.

In principle, it might be delayed in some In principle, it might be delayed in some populations. In a minor way by environmental populations. In a minor way by environmental factors, but perhaps in a more significant factors, but perhaps in a more significant way due to genetic factors.way due to genetic factors.

Given the association of SLI and apparent Given the association of SLI and apparent problems with agreement morphology, perhaps problems with agreement morphology, perhaps what is happening in SLI is that the OI what is happening in SLI is that the OI stage simply lasts longer.stage simply lasts longer. Rice & Wexler (1996) explore this—in part to see Rice & Wexler (1996) explore this—in part to see if this can serve as a testable “marker” to allow if this can serve as a testable “marker” to allow for diagnosis of SLI.for diagnosis of SLI.

Rice & Wexler (1996)Rice & Wexler (1996) Subjects: 37 5yo SLI, 45 5yo ND, 40 3yo NDSubjects: 37 5yo SLI, 45 5yo ND, 40 3yo ND Methods: spontaneous & elicitedMethods: spontaneous & elicited Success on -Success on -ss, , -ed-ed, , bebe, , dodo::

About half of AM, same or worse than LMAbout half of AM, same or worse than LM Success on -Success on -inging, plural -, plural -ss, , in/onin/on

As good as AM, LM (which are as good as each As good as AM, LM (which are as good as each other)other)

Conclusion: It’s not just a delay of Conclusion: It’s not just a delay of inflection. It’s related to tense, as we inflection. It’s related to tense, as we might expect of an extended optional might expect of an extended optional infinitive stage.infinitive stage. Plural -Plural -ss vs. 3sg - vs. 3sg -ss differ. Can’t be salience. differ. Can’t be salience.

Rice, Noll, and Grimm Rice, Noll, and Grimm (1997)(1997)

German: Same finiteness German: Same finiteness contingency as with ND kidscontingency as with ND kids

SLISLI

4;0-4;0-4;84;8 +Fin+Fin -Fin-Fin

NDND

2;1-2;1-2;72;7 +Fin+Fin -Fin-Fin

V2V2 239239 22 V2V2 604604 1111

VfinaVfinall99 7272 VfinaVfina

ll2222 3737

Wexler, SchWexler, Schütze, Rice ütze, Rice (1998)(1998)

Testing subject case (ATOM).Testing subject case (ATOM).

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Rice, Wexler, Rice, Wexler, Redmond (1999)Redmond (1999)

Judgment task on Judgment task on agreementagreement (“Language good/not so (“Language good/not so good”).good”).

AA= measure of = measure of discrimination, 1=perfect.discrimination, 1=perfect.

BA=bad agreement, DI=dropped BA=bad agreement, DI=dropped inging..

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Pragmatics v. syntaxPragmatics v. syntax

If SLI is a very specific deficit in the If SLI is a very specific deficit in the syntactic/computational model, it also syntactic/computational model, it also provides an opportunity to test some of the provides an opportunity to test some of the explanations that have relied on explanations that have relied on independent development of a pragmatics independent development of a pragmatics component.component. Null subjects: Kids assign “very strong topic” Null subjects: Kids assign “very strong topic” too liberally and drop subjects with finite too liberally and drop subjects with finite verbs.verbs.

Schaeffer et al. (2001)Schaeffer et al. (2001) Principle B: Kids allow “guises” (coreferential Principle B: Kids allow “guises” (coreferential but not coindexed references), resulting in but not coindexed references), resulting in apparent violations of Principle B.apparent violations of Principle B.

Borgeson (2004)Borgeson (2004)

Null subjects Null subjects (Schaeffer et al. 2001)(Schaeffer et al. 2001)

Studied subject-verb agreement, Studied subject-verb agreement, subject case, and null subjects.subject case, and null subjects.

Bare Bare stemstem

Non-nom Non-nom subjectsubjectss

Null subjectsNull subjects

SLISLI(4yo)(4yo)

33%33% 18%18% 16% 16% (with bare stem)(with bare stem)

2-7% 2-7% (with inflected (with inflected stem)stem)

NDLM NDLM (3yo)(3yo)

39%39% 16%16% 16-34%16-34%

NDAM NDAM (4yo)(4yo)

0%0% 0%0% 0%0%

Borgeson (2004)Borgeson (2004) SLI kids (vocab. Match, 5-6yo ND)SLI kids (vocab. Match, 5-6yo ND)

Principle P errors (MB points to her):Principle P errors (MB points to her): SLI: 28%SLI: 28% ND: 42% ND: 42%

Principle B errors (e.b. points to her):Principle B errors (e.b. points to her): SLI: 20%SLI: 20% ND: 0% ND: 0%

Also explored the effects of bias in the Also explored the effects of bias in the contexts, and found ND kids were driven by contexts, and found ND kids were driven by the bias all the time for Pr.P errors, but the bias all the time for Pr.P errors, but the SLI kids were much less so. Bias played the SLI kids were much less so. Bias played no role for Pr.B. errors.no role for Pr.B. errors. But cf. van der Lely & Stollwerck (1997). SLI 9-But cf. van der Lely & Stollwerck (1997). SLI 9-12yo. Match/mismatch. Appear to take X-12yo. Match/mismatch. Appear to take X-selfself to be to be any self-directed action (chance on B tickles B any self-directed action (chance on B tickles B mismatch for mismatch for B says M is tickling himselfB says M is tickling himself). Chance ). Chance on on (B says) M is tickling him(B says) M is tickling him (mismatch: self). (mismatch: self). Results on Results on e.b. washes hime.b. washes him difficult to interpret; difficult to interpret; SLI kids didn’t do very well. Guasti: problem with SLI kids didn’t do very well. Guasti: problem with quantifiers? As for difference: task?quantifiers? As for difference: task?

SLI as Agreement SLI as Agreement problem?problem?

Clahsen et al. report German SLI kids quite Clahsen et al. report German SLI kids quite adept with tense marking, and quite bad at adept with tense marking, and quite bad at agreement marking.agreement marking. Also found in English (Clahsen et al.), Greek Also found in English (Clahsen et al.), Greek (Tsimpli & Stavrakaki 1999). But not in Italian (Tsimpli & Stavrakaki 1999). But not in Italian (Cipriani et al. 1998).(Cipriani et al. 1998).

Not expected if SLI=EOI. Not really clear to Not expected if SLI=EOI. Not really clear to me what the source of difference is between me what the source of difference is between Wexler, Rice, et al.’s results and Clahsen et Wexler, Rice, et al.’s results and Clahsen et al.’s results.al.’s results. RNG suggest difference may arise in data RNG suggest difference may arise in data interpretation, both in contingency analysis and interpretation, both in contingency analysis and what was counted as what (participles, V2), or even what was counted as what (participles, V2), or even in subject selection. in subject selection.

Plus, quite possibly SLI>EOI.Plus, quite possibly SLI>EOI.

Wexler, Schaeffer, Bol Wexler, Schaeffer, Bol (2004)(2004)

Agr: /t/ = [-1, +sg/-past], /Ø/ = [+sg], /n/= []Agr: /t/ = [-1, +sg/-past], /Ø/ = [+sg], /n/= [] T: /Ø/ = [ ], /te/=[+past]T: /Ø/ = [ ], /te/=[+past] Schwa is inserted following phonological rulesSchwa is inserted following phonological rules

presentpresent pastpast

ikik werkwerk 1sg1sg ikik werk-werk-tete 1sg1sg

jijjij werk-werk-tt 2sg2sg jijjij werk-werk-tete 2sg2sg

hij/hij/zij/hetzij/het

werk-werk-tt 3sg3sg hij/hij/zij/hetzij/het

werk-werk-tete 3sg3sg

wijwij werk-werk-enen

1pl1pl wijwij werk-werk-tete--nn

1pl1pl

julliejullie werk-werk-enen

2pl2pl julliejullie werk-werk-tete--nn

2pl2pl

zijzij werk-werk-enen

3pl3pl zijzij werk-werk-tete--nn

3pl3pl

Wexler, Schaeffer, Bol Wexler, Schaeffer, Bol (2004)(2004) Agr: /t/ = [-1, +sg/-past], /Ø/ = [+sg], /n/= []Agr: /t/ = [-1, +sg/-past], /Ø/ = [+sg], /n/= []

T: /Ø/ = [ ], /te/=[+past]T: /Ø/ = [ ], /te/=[+past]

Root infinitives are expected whenever Agr is missing Root infinitives are expected whenever Agr is missing and T is not past: and T is not past: werk-Ø-nwerk-Ø-n.. (Predicts more RIs in English than in Dutch)(Predicts more RIs in English than in Dutch)

Theoretical question about morphology: does [-past] Theoretical question about morphology: does [-past] mean “+present” or “not +past”?mean “+present” or “not +past”?

Makes different predictions about what kinds of Makes different predictions about what kinds of “errors” kids will make during OI stage.“errors” kids will make during OI stage.

Suppose subject is 3sg, and T is missing. T is Suppose subject is 3sg, and T is missing. T is spelled out as Ø. Agr is spelled out either as Ø (if spelled out as Ø. Agr is spelled out either as Ø (if -past=+present) or -past=+present) or t t (if -past=not +past). Latter (if -past=not +past). Latter will look like present tense—if past tense was will look like present tense—if past tense was intended, it will look like a tense error.intended, it will look like a tense error. So: we can decide this theoretical question on the basis of So: we can decide this theoretical question on the basis of whether kids in Dutch make bare-stem errors with 3sg whether kids in Dutch make bare-stem errors with 3sg subjects.subjects.

Wexler, Schaeffer, Bol Wexler, Schaeffer, Bol (2004)(2004) Agr: /t/ = [-1, +sg/-past], /Ø/ = [+sg], Agr: /t/ = [-1, +sg/-past], /Ø/ = [+sg],

/n/= []/n/= [] T: /Ø/ = [ ], /te/=[+past]T: /Ø/ = [ ], /te/=[+past]

Dutch is V2. We expect that it’s going to Dutch is V2. We expect that it’s going to turn out like German, finite verbs in second turn out like German, finite verbs in second position, nonfinite verbs in final position.position, nonfinite verbs in final position.

ExceptExcept: Sometimes a form might still : Sometimes a form might still looklook finite, even if T or Agr is missing.finite, even if T or Agr is missing.

So: The predictions are much more So: The predictions are much more complicated.complicated.

We can also use this to test whether it is T We can also use this to test whether it is T or Agr (or perhaps both) that is crucial in or Agr (or perhaps both) that is crucial in making the verb raise to C in V2 languages.making the verb raise to C in V2 languages.

Wexler, Schaeffer, Bol Wexler, Schaeffer, Bol (2004)(2004) Found: SLI kids producing 15% RIs between ages 4 and 8. Found: SLI kids producing 15% RIs between ages 4 and 8.

About matched (19%) ND kids holding MLU at 3.About matched (19%) ND kids holding MLU at 3. Finiteness/V2 contingency very strong. 1% and 2% in the Finiteness/V2 contingency very strong. 1% and 2% in the

off-diagonal for ND, 0.2% and 5% in the off-diagonal for off-diagonal for ND, 0.2% and 5% in the off-diagonal for SLI. Shows that it’s Agr responsible for V to C (not T).SLI. Shows that it’s Agr responsible for V to C (not T).

Past tense contexts rare: errors in both ND and SLI: -t, -Past tense contexts rare: errors in both ND and SLI: -t, -Ø, (a handful, 4-6) and -en (1). Actually a bit ambiguous Ø, (a handful, 4-6) and -en (1). Actually a bit ambiguous about which interpretation of [-past] wins here. But De about which interpretation of [-past] wins here. But De Jong (1999) reports lots ot Jong (1999) reports lots ot tt errors, “not +past” actually errors, “not +past” actually wins.wins.

““Not +past”Not +past” PredictionsPredictions ““+present”+present”

+A-T+A-T -A+T-A+T AdultAdult ContextContext +A-T+A-T -A+T-A+T

ØØ enen ØØ 1sg pres1sg pres ØØ enen

tt enen tt 2/3sg pres2/3sg pres ØØ enen

enen enen enen pl, prespl, pres enen enen

ØØ tenten tete 1sg, past1sg, past ØØ tenten

tt tenten tete 2/3sg past2/3sg past ØØ tenten

enen tenten tenten pl, pastpl, past enen tenten

enen enen enen infinitiveinfinitive enen enen

Williams SyndromeWilliams Syndrome

The other side of the The other side of the dissociation.dissociation.

Severe cognitive deficit, Severe cognitive deficit, probably traceable to problems probably traceable to problems with visuospatial processing.with visuospatial processing.

But language function is But language function is comparatively very good.comparatively very good. InflectionInflection Binding theoryBinding theory PassivesPassives

Zukowski (2001)Zukowski (2001) Looked in detail at several structures in WS, and Looked in detail at several structures in WS, and found much that matched ND kids.found much that matched ND kids.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Zukowski (2001)Zukowski (2001) A few things did differentiate WS kidsA few things did differentiate WS kids

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Acquisition of Acquisition of semanticssemantics

Relatively recently, there has been an Relatively recently, there has been an increased interest in the acquisition of increased interest in the acquisition of semantics.semantics.

One popular topic has been investigating One popular topic has been investigating children’s knowledge of sentences like:children’s knowledge of sentences like: The guy didn’t deliver two pizzas.The guy didn’t deliver two pizzas.

For adults, this can mean:For adults, this can mean: There are 2 pizzas that the guy didn’t deliverThere are 2 pizzas that the guy didn’t deliver

(E.g., after delivering the rest of his pizzas, he had (E.g., after delivering the rest of his pizzas, he had 2 left)2 left)

It’s not the case that the guy delivered 2 It’s not the case that the guy delivered 2 pizzaspizzas

(E.g., he delivered 4 pizzas, or 1)(E.g., he delivered 4 pizzas, or 1)

QRQR The availability of the two readings The availability of the two readings is generally accounted for in terms is generally accounted for in terms of of Quantifier RaisingQuantifier Raising (QR): (QR): A quantificational DP moves (covertly) to A quantificational DP moves (covertly) to adjoin to the IP.adjoin to the IP.

If there are two quantificational DPs, If there are two quantificational DPs, they can do this adjunction in either they can do this adjunction in either order.order.

The relative structural positions The relative structural positions determine their relative scope determine their relative scope unambiguously.unambiguously.

[Not][Not]kk [2 pizzas] [2 pizzas]ii [The guy did t [The guy did tii deliver t deliver tkk ] ] [2 pizzas][2 pizzas]ii [Not] [Not]kk [The guy did t [The guy did tii deliver t deliver tkk ] ]

Musolino’s (2000) OOIMusolino’s (2000) OOI

Musolino (2000) found that kids Musolino (2000) found that kids seem not to seem not to reversereverse scope scope relations found in the surface relations found in the surface form (the form (the Observation of Observation of IsomorphismIsomorphism).). Every horse didn’t jump over the Every horse didn’t jump over the fence.fence.

The detective didn’t find some guysThe detective didn’t find some guys The smurf didn’t buy every orange.The smurf didn’t buy every orange.

Musolino & Lidz (2002)Musolino & Lidz (2002) The detective didn’t find 2 guys.The detective didn’t find 2 guys.

TVJT: Dramatic preference on the part TVJT: Dramatic preference on the part of kids (4yo) for the surface scope.of kids (4yo) for the surface scope.

Linear order?Linear order? Or structure (c-command?)Or structure (c-command?)

Tested kids on the same thing in Kannada Tested kids on the same thing in Kannada (where negation is at the end). Same (where negation is at the end). Same result: It’s c-command that matters.result: It’s c-command that matters.

For a while, this was thought to be For a while, this was thought to be an aspect of children’s an aspect of children’s competencecompetence. . Their grammar, e.g., lacked QR.Their grammar, e.g., lacked QR.

Gualmini (2003)Gualmini (2003) By manipulating the context, however, By manipulating the context, however, Gualmini (2003) showed that kids could Gualmini (2003) showed that kids could access the “inverse scope” access the “inverse scope” interpretation. It just has to do what interpretation. It just has to do what would be a sensible/felicitous thing to would be a sensible/felicitous thing to say.say. Grover orders 4 pizzas from the Troll, who Grover orders 4 pizzas from the Troll, who supposed to deliver them all to Grover. But supposed to deliver them all to Grover. But the Troll drives too fast and loses 2.the Troll drives too fast and loses 2.

The Troll didn’t deliver some pizzas.The Troll didn’t deliver some pizzas. 90% 90% acceptaccept

The Troll didn’t lose some pizzas.The Troll didn’t lose some pizzas. 50% accept50% accept One points out a discrepancy between the One points out a discrepancy between the expectations and what actually happened, one expectations and what actually happened, one doesn’t.doesn’t.

Hulsey, Hacquard, Fox, Hulsey, Hacquard, Fox, & Gualmini (2004)& Gualmini (2004)

The Question-Answer Requirement The Question-Answer Requirement on TVJ on TVJ tasks: The test sentence must be tasks: The test sentence must be understood as an answer to the “question understood as an answer to the “question under discussion.”under discussion.” Will the Troll deliver all of the pizzas?Will the Troll deliver all of the pizzas? Yes (the Troll will deliver them all)Yes (the Troll will deliver them all) No (the Troll will not deliver them all)No (the Troll will not deliver them all) #There are some pizzas delivered by the Troll.#There are some pizzas delivered by the Troll.

““Isomorphism” isn’t even really a default.Isomorphism” isn’t even really a default. Tested passives (when compared to actives, Tested passives (when compared to actives, teases apart isomorphism and QAR):teases apart isomorphism and QAR):

Some pizzas were not delivered.Some pizzas were not delivered. 94% (adult 100%)94% (adult 100%) Some pizza were not lost.Some pizza were not lost. 43% (adult 93%)43% (adult 93%)

Kids and QR, Lidz et Kids and QR, Lidz et al. (2003)al. (2003)

(BUCLD 28) More direct test of (BUCLD 28) More direct test of whether kids have QR by looking at whether kids have QR by looking at constructions where QR is necessary constructions where QR is necessary in order to get the right in order to get the right interpretation.interpretation. Quantifier-variable bindingQuantifier-variable binding

Kermit kissed every dancer before she went on Kermit kissed every dancer before she went on stagestage

Antecedent-Contained Deletion (ACD)Antecedent-Contained Deletion (ACD) Miss Red jumped over every frog that Miss Miss Red jumped over every frog that Miss Black did.Black did.

Quantifier-variable Quantifier-variable bindingbinding

Subject QNP (QR not necessary)Subject QNP (QR not necessary) Every dancerEvery dancer kissed Kermit before kissed Kermit before sheshe went on stage. went on stage.

Object QNP (QR required)Object QNP (QR required) Kermit kissed Kermit kissed every dancerevery dancer before before sheshe went on stage. went on stage.

Kids about 4;6. Acted like Kids about 4;6. Acted like adults, yes where yes was adults, yes where yes was required, no where no was required, no where no was required.required.

ACDACD VP ellipsis involves interpreting an “empty VP ellipsis involves interpreting an “empty VP” as a copy of the “audible VP” (or VP” as a copy of the “audible VP” (or leaving an identical VP unpronounced).leaving an identical VP unpronounced). John bought a tape and Mary did too.John bought a tape and Mary did too.

ACD: the elided VP is ACD: the elided VP is insideinside the audible the audible one.one. MR jumped over every frog that MB did.MR jumped over every frog that MB did.

Audible: jumped over every frog that MB did [VP]Audible: jumped over every frog that MB did [VP] Elided: jumped over … what?Elided: jumped over … what?

Infinite regress: MR jumped over every frog that Infinite regress: MR jumped over every frog that MB jumped over every frog that MB jumped over MB jumped over every frog that MB jumped over every from that…every from that…

QR solves the problem, though:QR solves the problem, though: [Every frog that MB [jumped over t]][Every frog that MB [jumped over t]]ii

MR [jumped over MR [jumped over ttii].].

ACDACD

MB jumped over every frog that MR MB jumped over every frog that MR diddid QR: relative clause readingQR: relative clause reading No QR: coordinated reading?No QR: coordinated reading?

MB jumped over every frog and MB did too.MB jumped over every frog and MB did too.

Kids about 4;5 act basically like Kids about 4;5 act basically like adults.adults.

So, they must have QR. Whatever OOI So, they must have QR. Whatever OOI is about, it isn’t about kids is about, it isn’t about kids lacking QR from their grammar.lacking QR from their grammar.

Musolino & Lidz (2003)Musolino & Lidz (2003)

Adults can be made to act like kids Adults can be made to act like kids with respect to isomorphism too, in with respect to isomorphism too, in fact.fact. Cookie Monster didn’t eat two slices of Cookie Monster didn’t eat two slices of pizza.pizza.

Try a context where Try a context where bothboth interpretations are true…interpretations are true… E.g.: CM gets 3, but eats 1.E.g.: CM gets 3, but eats 1.

……justifications given seemed to be justifications given seemed to be isomorphic (75% vs. 7.5% reverse, the isomorphic (75% vs. 7.5% reverse, the rest unclear).rest unclear).

EntailmentsEntailments E.g., Minai, Meroni, & Crain (2004):E.g., Minai, Meroni, & Crain (2004):

John has a black dog > John has a dogJohn has a black dog > John has a dog Every boy has a black dog > Every boy has a dogEvery boy has a black dog > Every boy has a dog Nobody has a black dog < Nobody has a dogNobody has a black dog < Nobody has a dog Every black dog caught a cicada < Every dog caught a Every black dog caught a cicada < Every dog caught a cicadacicada

Nobody caught every black dog > Nobody caught every Nobody caught every black dog > Nobody caught every dogdog

Can be used as an argument for an innateness Can be used as an argument for an innateness hypothesis vs. constructional analogy.hypothesis vs. constructional analogy.

Kids (mean 4;10), 95% on #2. 90% on #4. 89% on Kids (mean 4;10), 95% on #2. 90% on #4. 89% on #5.#5. Nobody could feed every (big) koala bearNobody could feed every (big) koala bear

Notice that this is a bit early—weren’t Chien & Notice that this is a bit early—weren’t Chien & Wexler (1990) relying on kids’ inability to do Wexler (1990) relying on kids’ inability to do quantifiers?quantifiers?

Language attritionLanguage attrition

It is a very common phenomenon It is a very common phenomenon that, having learned an L2 and that, having learned an L2 and having become quite proficient, having become quite proficient, one will still “forget” how to one will still “forget” how to use it after a period of non-use.use it after a period of non-use.

While very common, it’s not very While very common, it’s not very surprising—it’s like calculus. If surprising—it’s like calculus. If L2 is a skill like calculus, we’d L2 is a skill like calculus, we’d expect this.expect this.

L1L1 attrition attrition Much more surprising is the fact that Much more surprising is the fact that sometimes under the influence of a sometimes under the influence of a dominant L2, dominant L2, skill in the skill in the L1L1 seems to go seems to go..

Consider the UG/parameter model; a kid’s Consider the UG/parameter model; a kid’s LAD faced with PLD, automatically sets LAD faced with PLD, automatically sets the parameters in his/her head to match the parameters in his/her head to match those exhibited by the linguistic input. those exhibited by the linguistic input. L1 is effortless, fast, uniformly L1 is effortless, fast, uniformly successful… biologically driven, not successful… biologically driven, not learning in the normal sense of learning learning in the normal sense of learning a skill.a skill.

So how could it suffer So how could it suffer attritionattrition? What ? What are you left with?are you left with?

UG in L2AUG in L2A We’ve looked at the questions We’ve looked at the questions concerning whether when learning a concerning whether when learning a second language, one can adapt the second language, one can adapt the “parameter settings” in the new “parameter settings” in the new knowledge to the target settings knowledge to the target settings (where they differ from the L1 (where they differ from the L1 settings), but this is even more settings), but this is even more dramatic—it would seem to actually be dramatic—it would seem to actually be altering the altering the L1L1 settings. settings.

It behooves us to look carefullier at It behooves us to look carefullier at this; do attrited speakers seem to this; do attrited speakers seem to have changed parameter settings?have changed parameter settings?

ItalianItalianEnglishEnglish Italian is a “null subject” languageItalian is a “null subject” language that allows the subject to be dropped that allows the subject to be dropped in most cases where in English we’d use in most cases where in English we’d use a pronouna pronoun (Possible to use a pronoun in Italian, but (Possible to use a pronoun in Italian, but it conveys something pragmatic: contrastive it conveys something pragmatic: contrastive focus or change in topic)focus or change in topic)

English is a “non-null-subject” English is a “non-null-subject” languagelanguage that that does notdoes not allow the allow the subject to be dropped out, pronouns are subject to be dropped out, pronouns are required (even sometimes “meaningless” required (even sometimes “meaningless” like like itit or or therethere). Not required that a ). Not required that a pronoun signal a change in topic.pronoun signal a change in topic.

Italian, null subjectsItalian, null subjects Q: Q: Perchè Maria è uscite?Perchè Maria è uscite?‘Why did M leave?’‘Why did M leave?’

A1: A1: LeiLei ha deciso di fare una ha deciso di fare una passeggiatapasseggiata..

A2: A2: Ha deciso di fare une passenggiataHa deciso di fare une passenggiata..‘She decided to take a walk.’‘She decided to take a walk.’

Monolingual Italian speaker would say Monolingual Italian speaker would say A2, but English-immersed native Italian A2, but English-immersed native Italian speaker will optionally produce (and speaker will optionally produce (and accept) A1. (Sorace 2000)accept) A1. (Sorace 2000)

Reverse errors Reverse errors unattestedunattested

Q: Q: Perchè Maria è uscite?Perchè Maria è uscite?‘Why did Maria leave?’‘Why did Maria leave?’

A: A: *Perchè*Perchè ØØ è venuto a prederlaè venuto a prederla..‘Because (Gianni) came to pick her ‘Because (Gianni) came to pick her up.’up.’

That is, they don’t That is, they don’t forget how to forget how to use null subjectsuse null subjects so much as they so much as they broadenbroaden the contexts in which they the contexts in which they cancan use overt pronouns. use overt pronouns.

Postverbal subjectsPostverbal subjects

Q: Q: Chi ha starnutito?Chi ha starnutito? ‘Who ‘Who sneezed?’sneezed?’

A1: A1: Gianni ha starnutito.Gianni ha starnutito. A2: A2: Ha starnutito Gianni.Ha starnutito Gianni.

Native speakers would say A2 due Native speakers would say A2 due to the narrow focus; attrited to the narrow focus; attrited speakers will produce/allow A1 as speakers will produce/allow A1 as well. well.

L1 attritionL1 attrition It seems that the acceptability of It seems that the acceptability of overt pronouns (in the L1 “attriters”) overt pronouns (in the L1 “attriters”) broadens compared to their L1, the broadens compared to their L1, the acceptability of null pronouns becomes acceptability of null pronouns becomes more restricted.more restricted.

Pronouns in a null subject language are Pronouns in a null subject language are markedmarked—they are restricted to —they are restricted to particular discourse contexts ([+topic particular discourse contexts ([+topic shift], according to Sorace).shift], according to Sorace).

What seems to happen is that the What seems to happen is that the pronouns revert to the unmarked case pronouns revert to the unmarked case ([±topic shift] like in English).([±topic shift] like in English).

L1 attritionL1 attrition

Same goes for postverbal subjectsSame goes for postverbal subjects—it is a marked option for —it is a marked option for languages, and the L1 seems to be languages, and the L1 seems to be retreating to the unmarked.retreating to the unmarked.

Like with pronouns, it seems to Like with pronouns, it seems to be not a question of be not a question of grammaticality but a question of grammaticality but a question of felicity.felicity.

L1 attritionL1 attrition Certain areas of the L1 grammar are more Certain areas of the L1 grammar are more susceptible to this kind of attrition susceptible to this kind of attrition then others.then others.

Sorace notes that the observed cases of Sorace notes that the observed cases of attrition of this sort seem to be the attrition of this sort seem to be the ones involved with discourse and ones involved with discourse and pragmatics, not with fundamental pragmatics, not with fundamental grammatical settings. (The attrited grammatical settings. (The attrited Italian is still a null-subject language, Italian is still a null-subject language, for example—null subjects are still for example—null subjects are still possible and used only in places where possible and used only in places where null subjects should be allowed).null subjects should be allowed).

L1 attritionL1 attrition

So, we’re left with a not-So, we’re left with a not-entirely-inconsistent view of entirely-inconsistent view of the world.the world.

Parameter settings in L1 appear Parameter settings in L1 appear to be safe, but the discourse-to be safe, but the discourse-pragmatic constraints seem to pragmatic constraints seem to be somehow susceptible to high be somehow susceptible to high exposure to conflicting exposure to conflicting constraints in other languages.constraints in other languages.

Language mixingLanguage mixing((SpanishSpanish--EnglishEnglish))

No, yo sí brincaba en el trampolineNo, yo sí brincaba en el trampoline when I was when I was a senior.a senior.‘No, I did jump on the trampoline when I was a ‘No, I did jump on the trampoline when I was a senior.’senior.’

La consulta eraLa consulta era eight dollars.eight dollars.‘The office visit was eight dollars.’‘The office visit was eight dollars.’

Well, I keep starting some.Well, I keep starting some. Como por un mes Como por un mes todos los días escribo y ya dejo.todos los días escribo y ya dejo.‘Well, I keep starting some. For about a month ‘Well, I keep starting some. For about a month I write everything and then I stop.’I write everything and then I stop.’

But it isn’t random…But it isn’t random… *El viejo man*El viejo man The old manThe old man *The old hombre*The old hombre El hombre viejoEl hombre viejo *The viejo hombre*The viejo hombre

*She sees lo.*She sees lo.

Certain mixes are not considered to Certain mixes are not considered to be possible by fluent bilinguals.be possible by fluent bilinguals.

How can we characterize what mixes How can we characterize what mixes are possible vs. impossible?are possible vs. impossible?

Prior effortsPrior efforts Several proposals have been offered to Several proposals have been offered to account for what are good mixes and what account for what are good mixes and what aren’t, but it appears to be a hard problem. aren’t, but it appears to be a hard problem. Very famous attempt by Poplack (1980, 1981):Very famous attempt by Poplack (1980, 1981):

The equivalence constraint.The equivalence constraint. Codes will tend Codes will tend to be switched at points where the surface to be switched at points where the surface structure of the languages map onto each structure of the languages map onto each other.other.

The free morpheme constraint.The free morpheme constraint. A switch may A switch may occur at any point in the discourse at which occur at any point in the discourse at which it is possible to make a surface constituent it is possible to make a surface constituent cut and still retain a free morpheme.cut and still retain a free morpheme.

PoplackPoplack Looking at the constraints on code-Looking at the constraints on code-switching of this sorts can help us switching of this sorts can help us understand the understand the naturenature of (at least of (at least fluent) bilingual language fluent) bilingual language representation.representation.

One odd thing about Poplack’s constraints One odd thing about Poplack’s constraints is that it implies that part of UG is is that it implies that part of UG is dedicated to dedicated to mixingmixing. The Free Morpheme . The Free Morpheme Constraint and Equivalence Constraint are Constraint and Equivalence Constraint are only constraints on mixing two grammars. only constraints on mixing two grammars. Is UG built specifically for bilinguals?Is UG built specifically for bilinguals?

Problems for PoplackProblems for Poplack

Equivalence and Free Morpheme Constraints:Equivalence and Free Morpheme Constraints: Accounts for Accounts for *estoy *estoy eateatiendoiendo, but leaves , but leaves unexplained:unexplained: The studentsThe students habian visto la pelicula italienhabian visto la pelicula italien.. *The student had*The student had visto la pelicua italien.visto la pelicua italien. *Los estudiantes habian*Los estudiantes habian seen the Italian movie.seen the Italian movie.

MoMotratartrataroa de nin kiroa de nin kirescatarescataroa n oa n PocajontasPocajontasRef-Ref-treattreat-vsf about this 3s-3os--vsf about this 3s-3os-rescuerescue-vsf -vsf in P.in P.‘It deals with the one who rescues P.’‘It deals with the one who rescues P.’

Problems for Poplack?Problems for Poplack?

*El no*El no wants to gowants to go *He doesn’t*He doesn’t quiere irquiere ir..

**NoNo nitekititocnitekititoc notnot 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’)working’)

AmoAmo estoy trabajando estoy trabajandonotnot be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’working’

Problems for PoplackProblems for Poplack

*Tú*Tú tikoas tikoas tlakemetltlakemetl 2sg 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl- 2sg 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsfnsf(‘You will buy clothes’)(‘You will buy clothes’)

ElEl kikoas tlakmetlkikoas tlakmetlhe 3S-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsfhe 3S-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf‘He will buy clothes’‘He will buy clothes’

MacSwan 1999MacSwan 1999

Perhaps the most currently Perhaps the most currently comprehensive and promising account, comprehensive and promising account, building on recent developments in building on recent developments in syntactic theory.syntactic theory.

One of the basic premises is that One of the basic premises is that languagelanguage parameters are properties of parameters are properties of lexical itemslexical items (not of a language-wide (not of a language-wide grammar). grammar). E.g., verb-movement is due E.g., verb-movement is due to a property of the tense morpheme to a property of the tense morpheme in French, not shared by the tense in French, not shared by the tense morpheme in English.morpheme in English.

MacSwan 1999MacSwan 1999

The broad (“minimalist”) approach The broad (“minimalist”) approach to grammar takes language to to grammar takes language to consist of two primary components.consist of two primary components.

Computational systemComputational system (builds (builds trees), trees), language invariantlanguage invariant..

LexiconLexicon, , language particularlanguage particular. . Functional elements of the lexicon Functional elements of the lexicon encode the parameters of variation.encode the parameters of variation.

MacSwan 1999MacSwan 1999

MacSwan’s proposal is that MacSwan’s proposal is that there are no there are no constraints on code mixing over and above constraints on code mixing over and above constraints found on monolingual sentencesconstraints found on monolingual sentences.. (His only constraint which obliquely refers to (His only constraint which obliquely refers to code mixing is the one we turn to next, roughly code mixing is the one we turn to next, roughly that within a word, the language must be that within a word, the language must be coherent.)coherent.)

We can determine what are possible mixes by We can determine what are possible mixes by looking at the properties of the looking at the properties of the (functional elements) of the lexicons of (functional elements) of the lexicons of the two mixed languages.the two mixed languages.

MacSwan 1999MacSwan 1999

The model of The model of code mixing is then code mixing is then just like monolingual speechjust like monolingual speech—the —the only difference being that the only difference being that the words and functional elements are words and functional elements are not always drawn from the lexicon not always drawn from the lexicon belonging to a single language.belonging to a single language.

Where requirements Where requirements conflictconflict between languages is where mixing between languages is where mixing will be prohibited.will be prohibited.

Clitics, bound Clitics, bound morphemesmorphemes

Some lexical items in some Some lexical items in some languages are languages are cliticsclitics, they depend , they depend (usually phonologically) on (usually phonologically) on neighboring words. Similar to the neighboring words. Similar to the concept of concept of bound morphemebound morpheme..

JohnJohn’s’s book. book. I shouldI shouldn’tn’t go. go.

Clitics essentially Clitics essentially fusefuse with with their host.their host.

Clitics, bound Clitics, bound morphemesmorphemes

Clitics generally cannot be Clitics generally cannot be stressed.stressed. *John*John’S’S bookbook *I*I couldcouldN’TN’T go.go.

Clitics generally form an Clitics generally form an inseparable unit with their host.inseparable unit with their host. ShouldShouldn’tn’t I go? I go? Should I not go?Should I not go? *Should I*Should I n’t n’t go?go?

Spanish Spanish nono

It turns out that Spanish It turns out that Spanish nono appears appears to be a clitic (despite spelling to be a clitic (despite spelling conventions).conventions).

¿Qué no dijo Juan?¿Qué no dijo Juan? ‘What didn’t J ‘What didn’t J say?’say?’

*¿Qué sólo leyó Juan?*¿Qué sólo leyó Juan? (‘What did J (‘What did J only read?’)only read?’)

*¿Qué meramente leyó Juan?*¿Qué meramente leyó Juan?(‘What did J merely read?’)(‘What did J merely read?’)

*Juan no ha*Juan no ha nono hecho la tarea.hecho la tarea.(‘J hasn’t (‘J hasn’t notnot done the task.’) done the task.’)

Nahuatl Nahuatl amoamo

In Nahuatl, In Nahuatl, amoamo ‘not’ does not ‘not’ does not appear to be a clitic.appear to be a clitic.

Amo nio Amo nio amoamo niktati nowelti.niktati nowelti.Not 1s-go Not 1s-go notnot 1s-3Os-see my- 1s-3Os-see my-sistersister‘I’m not going to ‘I’m not going to not not see my see my sister.’sister.’

Spanish-Nahuatl mixingSpanish-Nahuatl mixing **NoNo nitekititocnitekititoc notnot 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’)working’)

AmoAmo estoy trabajandoestoy trabajandonotnot be be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not .3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’working’

Now, we can begin to make sense of Now, we can begin to make sense of the difference in possible mixes at the difference in possible mixes at the point of negation between the point of negation between Spanish and Nahuatl.Spanish and Nahuatl.

MacSwan 1999MacSwan 1999

MacSwan proposes essentially that MacSwan proposes essentially that it is not it is not possible to code-mix within a (word-like) possible to code-mix within a (word-like) phonological unitphonological unit. Essentially a restriction . Essentially a restriction on what are “pronouncable” trees.on what are “pronouncable” trees. Idea: phonology operates as a set of ordered rules Idea: phonology operates as a set of ordered rules which are ordered differently in different languageswhich are ordered differently in different languages—you can’t run both sets of rules at once, hence the —you can’t run both sets of rules at once, hence the result if you tried would be unpronounceable.result if you tried would be unpronounceable.

Since Spanish Since Spanish nono fuses with the following fuses with the following verb, it can’t be followed by a Nahuatl verb.verb, it can’t be followed by a Nahuatl verb.

Since Nahuatl Since Nahuatl amoamo does not fuse with the does not fuse with the following verb, it is free to be followed by following verb, it is free to be followed by a Spanish verb.a Spanish verb.

English-SpanishEnglish-Spanish

This also explains Spanish-English This also explains Spanish-English (well, Spanish-(well, Spanish-anythinganything))

*El no *El no wants to gowants to go

What about English-Spanish?What about English-Spanish? *He doesn’t*He doesn’t quiere irquiere ir..

*He doesn’t wants to go.*He doesn’t wants to go.

AgreementAgreement

In languages that code agreement between In languages that code agreement between subject and verb, it also appears that subject and verb, it also appears that mixing is only possible where the agreement mixing is only possible where the agreement relationship is not disrupted.relationship is not disrupted.

*He doesn’t*He doesn’t quiere irquiere ir..

English negation:English negation: agreement appears on agreement appears on dodo.. Spanish negation:Spanish negation: agreement appears on the agreement appears on the verb.verb.

You can’t have You can’t have extraextra agreement: one agreement: one subject, one agreement. They need to subject, one agreement. They need to matchmatch..

AgreementAgreement **YoYo nikoas tlakemetlnikoas tlakemetl II 1s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf1s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf(‘I will buy clothes’)(‘I will buy clothes’)

**TúTú tikoas tlakemetltikoas tlakemetl youyou 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf(‘You will buy clothes’)(‘You will buy clothes’)

ÉlÉl//EllaElla kikoas tlakemetlkikoas tlakemetlHeHe//SheShe 3s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf3s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf‘He/She will buy clothes’‘He/She will buy clothes’

AgreementAgreement NiNi-k-koa-s ‘I will buy’-k-koa-s ‘I will buy’ TiTi-k-koa-s ‘You will buy’-k-koa-s ‘You will buy’ ØØ-k(i)-koa-s ‘He/she wlll buy’-k(i)-koa-s ‘He/she wlll buy’

Also relevant: Also relevant: Spanish marks and agrees Spanish marks and agrees with with gendergender but Nahuatl does not but Nahuatl does not distinguish masculine from feminine.distinguish masculine from feminine.

Spanish pronouns have gender Spanish pronouns have gender specification. The Nahuatl verb does not. specification. The Nahuatl verb does not. They can only be compatible (match) if They can only be compatible (match) if there is no Nahuatl agreement morpheme.there is no Nahuatl agreement morpheme.

Spanish-Catalan-GreekSpanish-Catalan-Greek

SpanishSpanish and and CatalanCatalan both have two both have two genders, genders, masculinemasculine and and femininefeminine..

GreekGreek has three genders, has three genders, masculinemasculine, , femininefeminine, , neuterneuter..

Predicts:Predicts: Mixing subjects and Mixing subjects and verbs between the three languages verbs between the three languages is only possible between the is only possible between the gender-compatible languages.gender-compatible languages.

Spanish-Catalan-GreekSpanish-Catalan-Greek

YoYo vull mengar el dinar (S-C)vull mengar el dinar (S-C) JoJo queiro comer la cena (C-S)queiro comer la cena (C-S) **EgoEgo vull mengar el dinar (G-C)vull mengar el dinar (G-C) **EgoEgo queiro comer la cena (G-S)queiro comer la cena (G-S) ……

Mixing and L2A?Mixing and L2A?

Code mixing as discussed so far is generally Code mixing as discussed so far is generally a property of the speech of a property of the speech of fluent bilingualsfluent bilinguals (often (often native bilingualsnative bilinguals) and reflects ) and reflects properties of universal language knowledge.properties of universal language knowledge.

We can now return to our old question and We can now return to our old question and ask: ask: Does the knowledge of second language Does the knowledge of second language learners also have the restrictions on code learners also have the restrictions on code mixing?mixing? To the extent that this is “part of To the extent that this is “part of UG”, is this aspect of UG active for L2’ers? UG”, is this aspect of UG active for L2’ers? For the future—I’m not aware of studies on For the future—I’m not aware of studies on L2A.L2A.