Week 11. Parameter settings and transfer

1
GRS LX 700Language Acquisition andLinguistic
Theory

• Week 11.Parameter settings and transfer

2
Parameters

• Languages differ in the settings of parameters
  (and in the pronunciations of the words, etc.).
• To learn a second language (if the knowledge is
  comparable to that held by a native speaker of
  the target language) is to learn the parameter
  settings for that language.
• Where do you keep the parameters from the second,
  third, etc. language? You dont have a single
  parameter set two different ways, do you?
• Almost certainly not. Also parameter resetting
  doesnt mean monkeying with your L1 parameter
  settings, it means setting your L2 parameter to
  its appropriate setting.

3
Four views on the role of L1 parameters

• UG is still around to constrain L2/IL, parameter
  settings of L1 are adopted at first, then
  parameters are reset to match L2.
• UG does not constrain L2/IL but L1 does, L2 can
  adopt properties of L1 but cant reset the
  parameters (except perhaps in the face of
  brutally direct evidence, e.g., headedness).
• IL cannot be described in terms of parameter
  settingsit is not UG-constrained.
• UG works the same in L1A and L2A. L1 shouldnt
  have any effect.

4
Some parameters that have been looked at in L2A

• Pro drop (null subject) parameter
• empty subjects allowed? Spanish yes, English no
• Head parameter
• head-complement order in X-bar structure
  Japanese head-final, English head-initial
• ECP/that-trace effect
• Who did you say that t left? English yes,
  Dutch no
• Subjacency/bounding nodes
• English DP and IP, Italian/French DP and CP
• Verb movement
• Binding theory parameters

5
Verb movement and negation

• French moves (tensed) verbs to T.
• Jean (ne) mange pas du chocolat.
• Jean (n)est pas bête.
• English leaves verbs (but auxiliaries) in VP
• John does not eat chocolate.
• John is not dumb.
• So French has set the V-to-T parameter on,
  English has set it off (except for be and have).

6
Verb movement and adverbs

• This also predicts adverb order.
• In English, you can never have an adverb between
  the verb and its object.
• John eats often chocolate.
• John often eats chocolate.
• In French, you put adverbs between the verb and
  the object.
• Jean mange souvent du chocolat.
• Jean souvent mange du chocolat.

7
Interlanguage and UG

• A major question were asking isAre IL grammars
  constrained by UG?
• That is, are people, as they learn a second
  language, allowed to posit rules/constraints in
  the IL that do not conform to UGthat is, that
  could not appear in any natural (native) language?

8
Why parameters seem to be a good place to look

• One crucial property of the parameters (in the
  Principles and Parameters model) is that a single
  setting of the parameter can have effects in
  several places in the grammar of a language.
• So verb-movement (V to T), which is set to yes
  in French, is responsible for
• The relative position of negation and the finite
  verb
• The relative position of manner adverbs and the
  finite verb

9
Why parameters seem to be a good place to look

• In general, we have to say that (full) knowledge
  of the L2 is going to involve setting the
  parameters to the appropriate settings for the
  target language.
• So, we can also look for the cluster of effects
  that are supposed to arise from a single
  parameter setting.
• Is it the case that once a second language
  learner gets the verb-adverb order right, s/he
  also gets the verb-negation order right? If only
  one kind of verb (finite vs. nonfinite) moves to
  T, is it the finite verb?

10
White (1991)

• White observes that even sticking to adverbs,
  there is a small cluster of properties tied to
  the verb raising parameter
• In French (where V moves to T)
• S Adv V order is disallowed
• S V Adv Obj order is allowed.
• In English (where V does not move to T)
• S Adv V order is allowed
• S V Adv Obj order is disallowed.

11
White (1991)

• Given this, it should be sufficient for a learner
  to learn the one which is allowed (e.g., in
  English that S Adv V order is allowed)the V-to-T
  parameter can then be set (to off for English),
  and then the impossibility of the one which is
  disallowed (e.g., S V Adv Obj order in English)
  should follow automatically if theyve set the
  parameter in their IL.

12
White (1991)

• Whites study involved native speakers of French
  learning English.
• Her subjects were children in grades 5 (average
  age 11) and 6 (average age 12) with very little
  prior English exposure and have very little
  English exposure outside the classroom.
• The children entered a 5-month intensive ESL
  program where their schooling was devoted
  entirely to ESL.

13
White (1991)

• The subjects were divided into two groups, based
  on whether the ESL instruction included specific
  teaching on English adverb placement (the other
  group was taught question-formation instead).
• Three months in, students took a pretest on
  adverb placement, after which the adverb group
  was trained on adverbs. After the teaching
  period, students took a test, then another at the
  end of the ESL program (about 5 weeks later).
  Finally, the (originally) 5th graders were
  retested a year later.

14
White (1991)

• Grammaticality judgment Cartoon story with
  captions if student thought caption was
  incorrect, they drew arrows to repair the word
  order.
• Preference task Students were given a sentence
  in two possible orders and asked to respond if
  both were good, neither was good, or only one
  (and which one) was good.
• Manipulation task Students were given cards with
  words on them and told to line them up to form a
  sentence then asked if they could form another
  with the same cards, until they couldnt continue.

15
White (1991) results

• Grammaticality judgment task
• Adverb group went from very high acceptance to
  SVAO to very low (native-speaker-like) levels at
  the first post-test, and remained there for the
  second one. The question group remained high
  throughout.
• Adverb group when from moderate use of SAV to
  high (nearly native-speaker-like) levels at the
  first post-test, and remained there for the
  second one. The question group remained at
  moderate use throughout.

16
Resultsjudgments

• The effect of instruction was pretty dramatic in
  the first and second post-tests. Explicit
  instruction helped. (SVAO score, SAV score)
  (Preference tasksame).

17
White (1991) results

• A couple of things to notice
• The question group was getting basically positive
  evidence only (adverb position was not explicitly
  taught). And they didnt fare well on the tests.
• The adverb group was getting explicit negative
  evidence and it seemed to help a lot.
• Even the adverb group, while rejecting SVAO,
  would not accept SAV as often/reliably as the
  native speakersan apparent failure of predicted
  clustering.
• White suggested essentially that for L2ers verb
  raising is optional, but this doesnt really get
  at the SVAO result.

18
The one-year-later test

• A startling result when testing those kids who
  were helped so dramatically by instruction the
  knowledge they gained didnt last. Again, it
  doesnt feel like a new parameter setting.
  (SVAO score)

19
White (1991)

• In fact, White also observed that while her
  Adverb group correctly ruled out SVAO sentences
  in English after explicit instruction, they
  seemed to have incorrectly generalized this to
  also rule out SVAPP
• Mary walks quickly to school.
• Mary quickly walks to school.
• A 1992 article by Schwartz and Gubala-Ryzak
  discusses this and points out that this is not
  something that is possible in a natural language
  via parameter settingthis behavior cant be the
  result of mis-set parameters, it must be some
  kind of prescriptive rule. White, in her
  response, basically agrees with respect to her
  particular subjects.

20
White (1991)

• In any event, Whites (1991) study didnt show
  the strong support for parameter setting that it
  might have.
• Whites study also seems to show that negative
  evidence seems to only have a very short-term
  effect on learning.
• This leads us (and later White 1992 too) to
  guess that what the kids were learning was
  prescriptive rule-type knowledge, and not some
  kind of reorganization of their grammatical
  system (by setting a parameter).

21
Types of input

• What White (1991) was trying to test was the
  effects of different kinds of input negative
  input via explicit instruction on adverbs vs.
  positive input via exposure (without
  concentrating on adverbs specifically). In her
  positive evidence (question) group, very little
  advance was madeis positive evidence
  ineffectual?
• White speculated that the kids in the question
  condition might not have actually heard many
  adverbs, after listening to some tapes of the
  classes. Perhaps they just didnt have enough
  positive evidence?

22
Flooding

• White and Trahey set out to test this by getting
  together another group of students and subjecting
  them to a input flood of adverb materialno
  explicit teaching of adverbs, but lots of
  examples of proper adverb placement in English.
  Then they ran basically the same tests on the
  kids as in the other experiment, including the
  one year later experiment. (Trahey 1996)

23
Flooding resultspreference task

• The effect of the input flood appears to have
  been an increase in the flood groups use of
  SAVO, but no real change in anything else (in
  particular SVAO).

24
Flooding

• The flooding experiment seems to have shown
• That the knowledge gained by flooding seems to be
  more persistent than the knowledge gained by
  explicit instruction (i.e. adverb group).
• That acceptance of SAVO and rejection of SVAO
  appear to be independentthe flooding group
  learned that SAVO was allowed and retained this
  knowledge, but still didnt reject SVAO (actually
  a well-known persistent error in L2 English from
  French). This isnt expected if the knowledge
  is a parameter setting that is supposed to have
  both effects.

25
Asymmetry?

• In earlier research, White actually did some
  tests going both directions, and found that
  native English speakers learning French (that is,
  going the other way) appear to catch on to the
  allowability of SVAO, whileas weve seennative
  French speakers learning English seem to hang on
  to SVAO indefinitely. Again, if this is a binary
  parameter, this appears to be a bit unexpectedis
  it easier to set one way than another?

26
Hawkins et al. (1993)

• Hawkins et al. (1993) looked at this a little bit
  more closely (with the assistance of advances in
  theoretical syntax since Whites original study),
  looking in particular at English speakers
  learning French.
• In particular, the question Hawkins et al. were
  asking was Do English speakers learning French
  really manage to set the V-to-T parameter, given
  that it seems to be so difficult the other way?

27
Hawkins et al. (1993)

• They found some evidence for a staged
  progression, where
• The least advanced of their subjects could
  correctly place the verb with respect to negation
  (but not with respect to adverbs)
• The more advanced subjects could correctly place
  the verb with respect to both negation and
  adverbs.
• The rate correct for tous all placement (cf.
  The students all went home) was lower than for
  the other two.

28
Hawkins et al. (1993)

• Hawkins et al. suggest that this is compatible
  with a view in which the English speakers never
  really do set the V-to-T parameter to on, but
  instead rely on other mechanisms by which the
  English speakers can fake French.

29
Hawkins et al. (1993)

• First stage L2ers seem to have the relative
  position of negation (pas) and the verb correct.
• Hypothesis They are treat pas it as if it were
  attached to the verb to begin with, rather than
  in the canonical negation slot hence the verb
  will always appear to its left), regardless of
  whether the verb raises.
• Some evidence Ne mange pas-t-il de accepted
  (vs. grammatical Ne mange-t-il pas de) Ne voir
  pas son amie est un supplice pour lui accepted
  (vs. grammatical Ne pas voir).
• And This means the relative position of verbs
  and adverbs is not necessarily predicted to be
  correct. This basically has nothing to do with
  verb movement in the IL.

30
Hawkins et al. (1993)

• Second stage English speakers start to allow
  SVAO order in French (without the difficulty
  encountered by French speakers in disallowing
  it).
• Hypothesis It is a generalization of Heavy NP
  Shift, already possible in English, which allows
  postposing of heavy NPs, such as
• The boy ate quicklythe hot soup his mother
  had made especially for him.
• The boy ate quickly it.
• Thats a way to get a grammatical SVAO sentence
  in English under special circumstances. So,
  perhaps these L2ers are shifting the object
  rightward (not moving the verb to T).
• Evidence(?) About 40 of I group accept both
  SVAO and SAVO.

31
How are we doing?

• It seems like the case for a UG-constrained IL
  grammar (full access) is not very strong at
  this point, despite White and Traheys best
  efforts. Weve seen several things which did not
  seem to set a parameter value (explicit
  negative evidence, positive evidence even if in a
  flood), one of which was so temporary as to
  suggest that the knowledge was basically
  prescriptive. Weve seen that even in cases where
  it looked like a parameter value was set,
  closer inspection revealed that it didnt act
  parameter-likeit didnt show the cluster of
  properties.
• We have yet to really see any reason to believe
  that a parameter can be set in L2A.

32
Parameters

• This clustering aspect of parametric settings is
  very importantif a L2ers IL shows one symptom
  of a parameter setting but fails to show others,
  then this is quite good evidence that the
  parameter was not set, but that there is
  something else going on
• or, alternatively, that something else is
  blocking the other symptoms which should
  correlate.

33
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.

34
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.
• (And 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.

35
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 that Fred will call?
• Mary believes that Fred will call his mother.
• Who does Mary believe will call his mother?

36
Null subject parameter

• Spanish (NS) L1 learning English (NS)
• An error constituting transfer of NS would be
  omitting a subject in an English sentence, which
  requires a subject.
• English (NS) L1 learning Spanish (NS)
• Transfer of NS? Trickierhave to look for
  context where Spanish would definitely drop the
  subject, and see if English speakers incorrectly
  retain the subject. Even then, does that mean the
  Spanish learner doesnt have the parameter down,
  or just hasnt worked out the pragmatics of where
  a subject should be dropped?

37
Null subject parameterWhite (1985), GJ task

• Percent correct at identifying ungrammatical (U)
  as ungrammatical and grammatical (G) as
  grammatical.
• Spanish is NS, French is NS, English NS
• Probable methodological problems with VS, SV, and
  that-trace sentences.
• VS order best with unaccusatives and needs a
  discourse context. For that-t sentences,
  vocabulary not controlled for and 100 could be
  achieved by a yes-machine.

Sentence type Spanish French
Subjectless U 61 89
Subjectful G 90 97
VS U 91 96
SV G 81 85
that-trace U 23 35
other mmts G 79 79
38
Null subject parameterWhite (1985), Q formation
correct that-trace other errs
Spanish (n22) 17 71 12
French (n30) 20 42 38
Spanish (NS) learning English (NS) were more
likely to make that-trace errors.
Elizabeth believes that her sister will be
late. Who does Elizabeth believe (that) t will
be late?
39
Null subject parameter

• So, these NS Spanish speakers accepted
  subjectless English sentences around 40 of the
  time (vs. 10 for French speakers), they produced
  that-trace errors 70 of the time (vs. 40 for
  French speakers).
• There is some effect at least of the NS setting
  of the L1.
• Is it transfer of the parameter value? Well, if
  so, there should be clusteringis there?
• Seems like noVS rejected by both groups. Error
  in methodology? Should have been unaccusative?
  Not actually a consequence of the NS parm after
  all?

40
Null subject parameterPhinney (1987)

• English-gtSpanish and Spanish-gtEnglish
• Perhaps questionable methodology (written, exam
  in one case, class composition assignment in the
  other, Spanish speakers had English in
  schoolperhaps not entirely learned as an adult,
  English speakers only had exposure in college),
  but

41
Null subject parameterPhinney (1987)
omission of pronoun subjects ESL1 ESL2 SSL1 SSL2
referential 13 6 83 65
pleonastic 56 76 100 100

• Omission of pleonastic pronoun subjects.
• cant be omitted in English, must be omitted in
  Spanish.
• English-gtSpanish (SSL) always omitted pleonastic.
• Spanish-gtEnglish (ESL) sometimes omitted
  pleonastic.
• Spanish Carrying over NS from L1.
• English Not carrying over NS from L1.

42
Null subject parameterPhinney (1987)
ESL1 ESL2 SSL1 SSL2
referential 13 6 83 65
pleonastic 56 76 100 100

• Why would NS be transferred and not NS?
• Perhaps there is a default (first setting) of the
  null subject parameter NS. (cf. last week)
• Learners of a NS language need to change that
  parameter.
• Learners of a NS language already have it
  right.

43
Null subject parameterPhinney (1987)
ESL1 ESL2 SSL1 SSL2
referential 13 6 83 65
pleonastic 56 76 100 100

• If NS is the default, occurrence of overt
  pleonastic pronouns could serve as evidence that
  the language is NS the non-default (marked)
  value can be learned.
• Since the more obvious is the subject missing?
  predicts a default the other wayassume -NS
  until contrary evidence arrives.

44
A supplement White, Travis, Maclachlan (1992)

• wh-question formation Malagasy-gtEnglish L2ers.
• Malagasy subject-object asymmetry from English
  appears to be reversed (which can be explained by
  reference to the syntax of this VOS language)
• Who does Rasoa believe t will be buying rice?
• Who was that t will be buying rice believed by
  Rosoa
• In fact only the subject can be extracted in
  simple wh-questions
• Who t buys rice for the children?
• What does the man buy t for the children?
• What is bought t for the children by the man?

45
WTM 1992
E M
ltComplex DPs
ltAdjuncts
ltSubject CP v
ltSubject DP
ltObject CP v
ltObject DP v
Subject t /v v
Object t v

• Question Do M-gtE L2ers get the English
  restrictions?
• The restrictions differ in both directions just
  learning object extraction is ok in English wont
  be enough.

46
WTM 1992

• 38 adult M speakers taking English.
• Broken by course level and professor ratings into
  high intermediate (18) and low intermediate (20).
• Grammaticality judgment task, and question
  formation task
• Sam believes that Ann stole his car.
• What does Sam believe the claim that Ann stole?
• What does Sam believe that Ann stole?

47
WTM 1992

• Results High intermediates were nearly as good
  as the controls at accepting grammatical
  sentences and rejecting ungrammatical ones (and
  avoiding violations when forming questions).
• One place a big difference appeared is in
  accepting/producing that-trace violations
  (compared to controls) in production, yet in GJ
  task, controls actually accepted about 30 of the
  that-trace violationsso maybe this is a
  preference issue (controls prefer not to violate
  that-trace, L2ers havent got that preference
  yet)

48
WTM 1992 conclude

• Carrying over the settings from L1 wont explain
  how the Malagasy speakers get the English
  grammaticality facts so closely (since the
  pattern is reversed, in places, but not
  everywhere).
• The idea There is still some access to UGthe
  options concerning what kinds of languages there
  can be re wh-extraction are still around.

49
Word order parameters

• Japanese is head-final (SOVIC)
• CP IP S VP O V I C
• English is head-initial (CSIVO)
• CP C IP S I VP V O
• This is a parameter by which languages differbut
  it should be pretty obvious to the L2 learner.

50
Word order parametersClahsen and Muysken (1986)

• Arguing for a non-UG-based view of L2A L1A of
  German and L2A of German are different.
• (L1) kids get SOV order right away.
• L2 learners coming from Romance use SVO order
  (not just V2), but this isnt even transfer,
  since L2 learners coming from Turkish also use
  SVO order (not SOV).
• To the extent that people learn the SOV German
  order, its due to (unnatural) rules transforming
  underlying SVO structures to the SOV forms.

51
Word order parameters (UG)Clahsen Muysken

• Used naturalistic production data.
• They suggest that L2 learners extract the
  canonical order (SVO) and stick with that
  (later learning to move non-finite verbs to the
  end).
• White But how do they arrive at the canonical
  order? How can they tell that the Adv-V-S-O order
  is non-canonical?

52
Word order parameters (UG?)Clahsen Muysken

• L2 learners do seem to have assumed SVO,
  producing things like Adv-SVO, SVFinO,
  canonical order??
• Most languages are uniform with respect to
  headednessbut German isnt. CP is head initial,
  while VP is head-final (IP could be either).
• German has mixed headedness (CSIOV)
• CP C IP S I VP O V
• Learner of German could easily assume German is
  head-initialthat is, misanalyze it as SVO.

53
So

• The V-to-T parameter seems to be hard to
  re-setperhaps it even cant be re-set.
• The null subject parameter has given us less than
  striking resultsthey dont move directly
  together.
• Possible that except for obvious differences in
  word order, misanalysis (failure to re-set)
  occurs.

54
Binding Theory once more

• John saw himself.
• Himself saw John.
• John said Mary saw himself.
• John said himself saw Mary.
• John saw him.
• John said Mary saw him.
• 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 have an earlier antecedent within its
  binding domain.
• Parameter Binding domain sentence containing

55
Binding Theory parameter the domain for anaphors

1. Sam believes that Harry overestimates
   himself
2. Sam-wa Harry-ga zibun-o tunet-ta to
   it-taSam-top Harry-nom self-acc pinch-past-that
   say-pastSam said that Harry pinched (him)self.

56
More advances in BT

• This parameter of binding domain has been studied
  rather extensively in both theoretical
  linguistics and second language acquisition.
• Eventually, it was noticed that anaphors which
  seem to be able to get their referent
  long-distance tend also to be
  monomorphemicthis is particularly clear for
  languages that have both kinds of anaphors, like
  Dutch zich (LD) and zichzelf (local), Norwegian
  seg (LD) and seg selv (local), etc.

57
More advances in BT

• One thing this tells us is that local vs.
  long-distance is not a parameter differentiating
  languagesits some kind of parameter
  differentiating anaphors, even in the same
  language. Some languages only have one kind
  (e.g., English, which has only complex
  pronounself anaphors), but some languages have
  both.

58
More advances in BT

• One fact about LD anaphors which seems to be
  pretty robust is that LD anaphors are
  subject-orientedthey can get their reference
  from a long-distance subject, but not from
  anything else outside of their clause.

59
More advances in BT

• English himself (type 1)
• Fredi asked Johnj about himselfi,j.
• Russian sebja self (type 2)
• Ivani sprosil Borisaj o sebjai,j.
• Ivani asked Borisj about selfi,j.
• Japanese zibun self (type 3)
• Johni wa Maryj ni zibuni,j no ayasin o mise-ta.
• Johni showed Maryj pictures of selfi,j.

60
More advances in BT

• So there are two things about LD anaphors that
  differentiate them from local anaphors pretty
  reliably
• LD anaphors are monomorphemic and
  subject-oriented
• Local anaphors are neither.

61
More advances in BT

• The last differentiation has to do with the
  distance a LD anaphor can go to find its
  referent. It turns out that some languages with
  LD anaphors differentiate finite and nonfinite
  (with an infinitive) clauses, and LD anaphors
  cannot look outside a finite clause, only outside
  a nonfinite clause. Examples follow.

62
-LD, LD-finite, LDfinite

• English himself (type 1)
• Fredi believes Johnj to have hurt himselfi,j.
• Fredi believes that Johnj hurt himselfi,j.
• Russian sebja self (type 2)
• SaSai poprosila Marinuj narisovat
  sebjai,j.Sashai asked Marinaj to draw selfi,j.
• SaSai prosit, Ctoby Marinaj narisovala
  sebjai,j.Sashai requests that Marinaj draw
  selfi,j.
• Japanese zibun self (type 3)
• Alicei wa Suej ga zibuni,j o aisite iru to omotte
  iruAlicei thinks that Suej loves selfi,j.

63
More advances in BT

• It turns out that this difference (sensitivity to
  finiteness) is a language-by-language
  differencea language with a LD anaphor only has
  one kind of LD anaphor. This is a parameter which
  differentiate languages.
• Incidentally, there is a theoretical explanation
  for why LD parameters are both monomorphemic and
  subject-oriented (roughly, they connect not to a
  prior noun phrase, but to a verb which agrees
  with its subject).

64
L2 research on BT

• There has been quite a bit of research into
  L2ers knowledge of BT, and it also provides an
  area with clustered properties.
• As expected, L2ers werent always perfect
  learning English,
• many achieved (correct) type 1 (local) binding,
• many others (generally an effect of transfer)
  spoke English as if it were a type 3 (LDfin)
  language.
• some seemed to show an effect of finite on
  whether an anaphor could be long distancesounds
  a bit like type 2 (LD-fin).

65
MacLaughlin 1998

• In an experiment to try to test this question
  explicitly, MacLaughlin looked at speakers of
  type 3 languages (5 native speakers of Chinese,
  10 native speakers of Japanese) learning English
  (type 1) in various settings. What she was
  specifically looking to do is to classify each
  learner as type 1, type 2, or type 3 to see
  in particular if there are any that show up as
  type 2.

66
MacLaughlin 1998

• The significance of seeing a L2er with a type 2
  system is that it is neither a property of the L1
  (hence it couldnt have arisen due to transfer
  from the L1) nor a property of the L2 (hence it
  couldnt have arisen simply due to positive
  evidence from the L2). Rather, it is an option
  made available by UG but taken by neither the L1
  nor L2. This is a strong type of evidence for the
  availability of UG in the L2A process, since it
  shows that the parameter options are still
  accessible.

67
MacLaughlin 1998

• The test itself was of the form
• Tom thinks that John hates himself
• Himself can be John Agree___ Disagree___
• Himself can be Tom Agree___ Disagree___
• Several types of sentences were tested, including
  sentences with embedded finite clauses and
  embedded infinitival clauses with both subjects
  and non-subjects as potential antecedents.

68
MacLaughlin 1998

• Learners responses were categorized and learners
  were assigned to types according to whether
  they met either 80 or 100 expectations.

Type 1 (E) Type 1 (E) Type 2 (R) Type 2 (R) Type 3 (J) Type 3 (J) Other Other
80 100 80 100 80 100 80 100
E 18 16 0 1 0 0 0 1
L2 6 4 7 4 2 5 0 2
C 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 1
J 3 2 6 3 1 4 0 1
69
MacLaughlin 1998

• There are two parameters relevant to the type
  that a learner is assigned to We can see that
  type 2 is a not surprising place for some
  learners to arrive at on the way to the target
  type 1.

NL T 3 T 2 T 1 TL
Anaphor type Anaphor type Anaphor type Anaphor type Anaphor type Anaphor type
Monomorphemic
Polymorphemic
AGR (finite tense blocks LD relation) AGR (finite tense blocks LD relation) AGR (finite tense blocks LD relation) AGR (finite tense blocks LD relation) AGR (finite tense blocks LD relation) AGR (finite tense blocks LD relation)
- -
70
So

• So, weve finally got something that appears to
  be on the UG side
• The parameter of the anaphor and the parameter
  (AGR) concerning the opacity of finite tense seem
  to be able to be re-set and moreover we see the
  predicted intermediate point when only one but
  not the other has been set to the target setting.

71
Whites (2003) critique

• The Type 2 learners are the surprising ones. They
  supposedly consider their anaphors to be
  monomorphemic, but have set the AGR parameter.
• The thing is we dont have any independent
  evidence that the Type 2ers take the anaphors
  to be monomorphemic.
• White notes that monomorphemic anaphors in L1s
  dont show person/number agreement. Do the Type
  2ers use himself, themselves, herself
  correctly? We would expect not, if these are
  really Type 2 learners. A separate study seems to
  indicate that J-gtE learners are quite accurate. A
  full study remains to be done.

72
ECP that-trace effects

• The setting of the head parameter should be
  obvious in the primary data. Does the head come
  before or after the complement?
• The setting of the Null Subject parameter should
  also be obvious. Are there pleonastic pronouns in
  its raining?
• ECP (that-trace) and Subjacency (bounding nodes)
  are parameters which require much more subtle
  evidence in order to be correctly set.

73
ECP that-trace effects

• We know that the positive evidence wont lead a
  learner to the generalization that that is
  disallowed when a subject is extracted from an
  embedded sentence.
• John arrived yesterday.
• Mary said John arrived yesterday.
• Mary said that John arrived yesterday.
• Who arrived yesterday?
• Who did Mary say t arrived yesterday?
• Who did Mary say that t arrived yesterday?

74
ECP that-trace effects

• that-trace is ok in Dutch.
• Wie denk je dat hem gisteren gezien
  heeft?who think you that him yesterday see
  hasWho do you think t saw him yesterday?
• The parameter is supposed to be a property of C
  in Dutch C (dat) is a proper governor, and so a
  trace in subject position in properly governed.
  In English, C (that) is not a proper governor,
  hence the that-trace effect.
• If UG is available, Dutch-gtEnglish learners
  should be able to set the parameter properly on C
  eventually. If not, wed expect that to be
  forever treated like dat.

75
ECP that-trace effects

• Dutch-gtEnglish learners given a preference task
  (how is the sentence with that compared to the
  sentence without that?). (White 1990). Some
  effect.
• They seem to get the differential behavior
  between subjects and objects, not expected based
  on Dutchexcept was this checked??

Control (n30) Control (n30) Control (n30) Dutch group (n62) Dutch group (n62) Dutch group (n62)
that that same that that same
subjects 0 98.5 1.5 6 82.5 11.5
objects 9 81 10 12.5 61 16.5
76
Subjacency and bounding nodes

• A much more subtle parameter is the setting of
  bounding nodes for Subjacency.
• Subjacency A single movement cannot cross two
  bounding nodes.
• English Bounding nodes are DP and IP.
• French/Italian Bounding nodes are DP and CP.

77
Subjacency and bounding nodes

• Whati IP did Mary believeDP the story CP ti?
  that IP John saw ti ?
• Whati IP did Mary wonder CP whetherIP John
  would do ti ?

78
Bounding nodes

• French-gtEnglish Do they learn that IP is a
  bounding node?
• White (1988) Grammaticality judgments from
  intermediate adult learners. Suggests that at
  least one group hasnt quite gotten IP yetbut
  will?

control group 1 group 2
CNP 96 80 81
wh-island 91 65 80
79
Parameters

• So, parameters seem like one of the best places
  to look for evidence that UG still plays a role
  in L2A.
• Languages differ in the value of parameters.
• During L1A, one setting is picked.
• If only L1 can be consulted while learning L2,
  then we might expect only that setting to be
  available. (Transferredand perhaps even kept,
  with additional mechanisms to derive deviations).
• If a L2 learner can reset a parameter (from
  either a transferred setting or a default one),
  then this means that the options are still there.

80
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?