Spanish Object Expression under Incomplete L1 and L2 Acquisition

1. Harvard University November 5, 2007 Spanish Object Expression under Incomplete L1 and L2 Acquisition Silvina Montrul University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

2. Acknowledgements • Center for Advanced Studies, UIUC • Arnold Beckman Award from UIUC Campus Research Board • RAs and colleagues Rebecca Foote Melissa Bowles Silvia Perpiñán Brad Dennison Dan Thornhill Alyssa Martoccio Susana Vidal Lucía Alzaga

3. Reality of Today’s L2 classrooms (Spanish and LCTLs) Two Types of Adult Language Learners • Typical L2 learners (late bilinguals) • Speakers of ethnic-minority languages (early bilinguals) Increasing numbers of heritage language speakers are turning to typical L2 classrooms to learn, regain, or maintain skill in the heritage language.

4. L2 classrooms • Having learners with different linguistic/cultural backgrounds in the same class poses serious challenges for teachers. • How do we make sure that the linguistic and cultural needs and goals of both L2 learners and heritage language learners are met?

5. Heritage Language Practitioners • Hold the belief that, in general, heritage language (HL) learners are a very heterogeneous group (even within a language) • L2 learners and HL learners are different • In many ways, HL learners know “more” than L2 learners who start learning the language from zero. • L2 learners and HL learners should be placed in different classrooms (tracks)

6. Yet • Any pedagogical practice must be informed by a deep understanding of what L2 learners and HL learners have and do not have in common. • Basic systematic empirical research on the linguistic and cognitive abilities of heritage language learners using experimental methods is only just emerging. (HSs have been the domain of sociolinguistics)

7. Lynch (2003), Valdés (1997, 2006) • So far, research on heritage language teaching and learning has proceeded atheoretically. • Heritage Language Acquisition is in need of a theory.

8. Valdés (Valdés et al.2006, p. 119) “Second language acquisition theories, as well as traditions now guiding traditional foreign language instruction have little to say about these students and what they should be taught. Existing research on incipient or developing bilingualism in foreign or second languages is of little relevance to teachers of heritage students. Moreover, views about second language (L2) developmental sequences and second language (L2) proficiency hierarchies can contribute little to the understanding of the instructional needs of this population. Taking on the challenge of maintaining and developing existing language resources among immigrants, refugees, and their children will involve a dramatic shift in focus by the profession. The dimensions of this shift in orientation can perhaps best be appreciated by comparing the characteristics of traditional foreign language students with those of the new target population of immigrant students.”

9. Second Language Acquisition • Current theoretical views/theories of (L1 and) L2 Acquisition are VERY relevant to approach and explain the nature of linguistic knowledge in both L2 learners and heritage speakers. • Heritage language learners afford the field of second language acquisition, and linguistics more generally, a unique opportunity to evaluate, from a different perspective current claims about

10. The basic and essential innate and environmental ingredients for successful, complete language acquisition OR What is a mature “idealized” native speaker? At what age does one become a mature L1 speaker and under what environmental conditions?

11. Adult Bilingualism Late bilingualism or adult L2 acquisition • L2 acquisition after puberty: foundations of the L1 are fully established Early bilingualism • Simultaneous L1 acquisition: 2 languages acquired since birth or before age 3 • Sequential or child L2 acquisition: L2 acquisition before puberty: foundations of the L1 are established

12. Typical Approach to adult SLA Comparison of child L1 with adult L2 Similarities L1 and L2 learners must construct a linguistic system based on input Differences Outcome of L1 and L2 acquisition (i.e., endstate of linguistic competence) are different Child L1: always uniform and complete Adult L2: typically variable and incomplete

13. The Incompleteness Hypothesis(Bley-Vroman 1989; Clahsen & Muysken 1989; Meisel 1997; Hawkins & Chan 1997; Schachter 1990) • L1 and L2 Acquisition are Fundamentally Different • L1 acquisition is guided by Universal Grammar • Past a critical period, L2 learners no longer have access to Universal Grammar • L2 learners use general-problem solving cognitive mechanisms rather than an implicit linguistic mechanism to build a grammatical representation of the L2 Compatible with other cognitive approaches to SLA (e.g., DeKeyser 2000, 2003; Ullman 2001; Paradis 2004).

14. Bottomline Incomplete acquisition and impaired linguistic representations in the L2 are due to a late age of onset of acquisition. Late age of acquisition has consequences for the linguistic, neurological and cognitive mechanisms that subserve fast and efficient language acquisition that typically occurs in childhood.

15. Theories of Full Access(White 2003) Access to Universal Grammar is not subject to a maturational effect. • Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz & Sprouse 1996) • Full Access Hypothesis (Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono 1996) • Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis (Prévost & White 2000) Abstract linguistic knowledge is present but not always accessible due to a production or a processing problem.

16. Incomplete Acquisition 1. Developing grammars (L1, L2, bilingual) 2. Fossilized grammars (L2) Incomplete grammars (fossilized) are common in early bilingualism as well e.g., many bilingual speakers of etnnic-minority or heritage languages fail to acquire age-appropriate linguistic competence in the heritage language (their L1).

17. What are the linguistic characteristics of Heritage Language Acquisition? How does it compare with L1 and L2 acquisition?

18. HS look like L1 learners

19. HS also look like L2 learners

20. L1 acquisition L2 acquisition HL acquisition

21. In GENERAL, HL learners(Valdés 2000, Carreira & Kagan 2007) • Have good oral comprehension of the language • May be able to speak the language to different degrees • Have good pronunciation • Have lexical gaps • Make grammatical errors • Poor to minimal reading and writing skills • Self-identify with their ethnic community • Have a strong interest in learning more about their language

22. Heritage speakers • Received input during the Critical Period • Yet, input in middle-late childhood may have been insufficient to develop full linguistic skills in the heritage language (limited literacy) • Cases of L1 attrition or fossilized L1 acquisition

23. Research questions • Do Spanish heritage speakers have some advantages over post puberty L2 learners? (2) If advantages are found, are these global or selective, i.e., only found in certain grammatical domains and language skills?

24. Au et al. (2002), Knightly et al. (2003) Study of Spanish language overhearers (i.e., HS) and typical late L2 learners Advantages for HS were found in phonology (VOT production) but not in morphosyntax.

25. VOT Results

26. Accent ratings (max 5)

27. Knightly et al. (2003) No differences

28. Other Findings Au et al (2002), Knightly et al (2003) Studied very low proficiency Korean and Spanish heritage speakers and L2 learners. Advantages for HS were found in phonology (VOT production) but not in morphosyntax. Håkansson (1995) Swedish expatriates and L2 learners of Swedish. Swedish expatriates compared to native speakers on V2 order. L2 learners produced above 80% SV order instead of V2. gender agreement: L2 learners outperformed the Swedish expatriates Montrul (2005) Studied advanced, intermediate and low proficiency Spanish L2 learners and heritage speakers’ knowledge of lexico-semantic and syntactic properties of unaccusativity (intransitive verbs) Advantages were found for low proficiency HS. Montrul (2006) Heritage speakers are better than L2 learners with some aspects of the Null Subject parameter (word order, agreement)

29. 3 Features of Spanish Object Expression • Clitic pronouns • Variable word order • Differential object marking

30. 1. Clitic Placement Object clitics precede finite verbs (1) Patricia vio la novela. Patricia saw the soap opera ‘Patricia saw the soap opera.’ (2) Patricia la vio. vs. *Patricia vio la. Patricia it saw ‘Patricia saw it.’

31. Object clitics follow non-finite verbs (3) Ana canta la canción sin entenderla bien. *Ana canta la canción sin la entender bien. ‘Ana sings the song without understanding it well.’ In restructuring contexts, Spanish clitics can climb up to the finite verb or stay low next to the infinitive. (4) Olga lo puede comprar. Olga puede comprarlo. *Olga puede lo comprar ‘Olga can buy it.’

32. 2. Word Order Postverbal Subjects (5) La mujer lo besa. S-Ocl-V Lo besa la mujer. Ocl-V-S ‘The woman kisses him.’ Topicalizations: Clitic Left Dislocations (6) a.Juan tiene las carpetas en la oficina. S-V-O b. Las carpetas las tiene Juan en la oficina. O-cl-V-S ‘Juan has the folders in the office.’

33. 3. Differential Object Marking (DOM) In general, Spanish objects that are [+ specific] and [+animate] are marked with the dative preposition A. (7) Juan vio a María. [+animate, + specific] Juan saw A Maria *Juan vio María ‘Juan saw Maria.’

34. Other objects are unmarked (8) Juan vio el tren. [-animate, +specific] ‘Juan saw the train.’ (9) Juan necesita un abogado. [+ animate, - specific] ‘Juan needs a lawyer.’ (10) El huracán destruyó una ciudad. [-animate, - specific] ‘The hurricane destroyed a city.’

35. Semantic notions like specificity, agentivity, telicity and topicality seem to play a role in explaining the optionality of A with animate and inanimate objects (Aissen 2003; Torrego 1998; Leonetti 2004).

36. Some Theoretical Assumptions • In Romance languages, object clitics head their own functional projections (Uriagereka 1995). • Clitic Left Dislocations are part of the left-periphery of the clause (CP and higher functional projections that interface with pragmatics). • DOM is marked accusative case (Torrego 1998): inherent, semantically based accusative case; the dative preposition is a functional category. Marked objects move outside the VP.

37. Contact Language: English • lacks clitic projections; • has stricter S-V-O order (although it has topicalizations); • does not have DOM.

38. L1 acquisition Clitic pronouns and DOM with animate and specific direct objects are acquired before the age of 3 (López Ornat 1994; Domínguez 2003; Rodríguez-Mondoñedo 2006) Clitic-climbing emerges in Spanish speaking children between 2;00-2;8 (Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Snyder and Sugisaki 2005) Topicalizations emerge soon afterwards, by the age of 3. (Grinstead 2004)

39. L2 Acquisition Beginner and Intermediate L2 learners • make clitic-placement errors (especially if L1 is French) (Liceras 1986, Bruhn-Garavito & Montrul 1996) • have problems interpreting clitics and objects with alternative word orders (VanPatten & Cadierno 1993) • do not recognize DOM in Spanish (Farley & McCollam 2004) Advanced L2 learners • eventually acquire clitics and clitic placement in Spanish (Duffield & White 1999) • have residual problems with topicalizations (Valenzuela 2006)

40. Spanish Heritage Speakers (Silva-Corvalán 1994, Montrul 2004) • Robust control of the object clitic system (accusative and dative structural case) • Omission of DOM in oral production Group % a-omission (*NP) Control 0 Advanced HSs 6 Interm. HSs 21.3

41. Hypotheses Critical Period Position Heritage speakers should show evidence of parameter setting in Spanish, whereas L2 learners should show no evidence of parameter resetting in Spanish. Predictions English-speaking L2 learners should have problems with Spanish clitics, clitic placement, word order, and DOM. Spanish heritage learners should bring knowledge of clitics, clitic placement, word order, and DOM from childhood.

42. No Critical Period Position Parameter resetting is (eventually) possible in L2 learners regardless of age of acquisition Prediction L2 learners and HL learners will have knowledge of Spanish clitics, clitic placement, word order, and DOM. L2 learners may show transfer effects from English as predicted by the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis

43. Method Participants 22 Spanish native speaker (baseline group) 67 US born 2nd generation Mexican speakers (acquired English before age 6) 72 English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish L2 learners and HL learners divided into 3 proficiency groups: Low, Intermediate, Advanced (based on a short proficiency test)

44. Instruments 1. Elicited Production (Oral narrative) clitics, word order, DOM 2. Web-based off-line Grammaticality Judgment Task clitics, ciltic placement, word order and topicalizations, DOM 3. On-line Visual Picture-Sentence Matching Task clitics, word order

45. Proficiency Scores Mean 48.5 SD 1.00 range 45-50 Mean 35.34 SD 9.24 range 16-50 Mean 36.88 SD 8.17 range 15-48

46. Oral Narrative: Clitic production

50. 1. Clitics and Clitic Placement GJT: 90 sentences (45 gram, 45 ungram, 18 sentence types x 5 tokens) Randomized sentences presented with a 5-point Likert scale underneath 1 = totally ungrammatical 5 = completely grammatical