week 10a. l2 morphology v. functional projections grs lx 700 language acquisition and linguistic...

Week 10a. L2 morphology Week 10a. L2 morphology v. functional projectionsv. functional projections

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic Linguistic

TheoryTheory

MorphologyMorphology

In L1A, we observe that kids In L1A, we observe that kids don’t always provide all of the don’t always provide all of the morphology that adults do.morphology that adults do.

Traditionally, it was assumed Traditionally, it was assumed that kids are learning the that kids are learning the morphology and the syntax and morphology and the syntax and that at some point they got it that at some point they got it (say, when they provide correct (say, when they provide correct morphology 90% of the time when morphology 90% of the time when it was required).it was required).

MorphologyMorphology A major recent development in the study A major recent development in the study of how kids come to know the (by now, of how kids come to know the (by now, known to be fabulously complicated, but known to be fabulously complicated, but yet relatively language-independent) yet relatively language-independent) system of syntax was in the observation system of syntax was in the observation that morphological errors are by no that morphological errors are by no means random.means random.

In particular, in a large number of In particular, in a large number of languages, what seems to happen is that languages, what seems to happen is that kids produce nonfinite forms of the kids produce nonfinite forms of the verb—verb—but but along with that comes the along with that comes the syntaxsyntax associated with non-finiteness. associated with non-finiteness.

German and L1AGerman and L1A

So, in German.So, in German. When a 2-year-old When a 2-year-old uses a finite uses a finite verb, it goes in verb, it goes in second position; second position; when a 2-year-old when a 2-year-old uses a nonfinite uses a nonfinite verb it remains verb it remains at the end of the at the end of the sentence (after sentence (after the object).the object).

—

I

IP

DP

DP

V

VP

ateJohnC+I

C

CP

—

—

lunch

Functional categoriesFunctional categories So, even though kids will sometimes use So, even though kids will sometimes use nonfinite verbs, they nonfinite verbs, they know the differenceknow the difference between finite and nonfinite verb and between finite and nonfinite verb and know how the grammar treats each kind. know how the grammar treats each kind. They are using T correctly. They just They are using T correctly. They just sometimes pick the wrong (nonfinite) one.sometimes pick the wrong (nonfinite) one.

Now, adult L2’ers also drop a lot of Now, adult L2’ers also drop a lot of morphology, will produce nonfinite forms…morphology, will produce nonfinite forms…

This raises the question (in the general This raises the question (in the general ballpark of “how much is L2A like L1A?”) ballpark of “how much is L2A like L1A?”) as to whether second language learners as to whether second language learners show this effect as well.show this effect as well.

Functional categoriesFunctional categories Rephrasing a bit, what we’re talking about Rephrasing a bit, what we’re talking about is essentially the is essentially the structural complexity structural complexity of of the learner’s (L1A/L2A) knowledge (at a the learner’s (L1A/L2A) knowledge (at a given point).given point).

It has been pretty well established by It has been pretty well established by theoretical linguistics that theoretical linguistics that adult native adult native languages are quite complexlanguages are quite complex, containing , containing functional phrases like AgrP, TP and CP, functional phrases like AgrP, TP and CP, and there is a lot of support for this idea and there is a lot of support for this idea that most if not all parametric differences that most if not all parametric differences stem from properties of the stem from properties of the abstract abstract functional morphemes (often reflected in functional morphemes (often reflected in surface morphology).surface morphology).

Functional categoriesFunctional categories Verb movement Verb movement (if it conforms to the (if it conforms to the rules of adult native-speaker verb rules of adult native-speaker verb movement, anyway) movement, anyway) serves as serves as evidence for evidence for this complex functional structurethis complex functional structure, since , since the verb the verb moves moves into a functional head (T, into a functional head (T, for example).for example).

The evidence we just reviewed suggests The evidence we just reviewed suggests very strongly that kids learning German very strongly that kids learning German and French produce sentences which comply and French produce sentences which comply with the rules of adult syntax (that make with the rules of adult syntax (that make reference to this complex functional reference to this complex functional structure). structure). Kids seem to “know about” the Kids seem to “know about” the TP and the CP and the rules that pertain TP and the CP and the rules that pertain thereto.thereto.

What is the relation What is the relation between morphology and between morphology and functional structure?functional structure? To the extent that we try to use morphological To the extent that we try to use morphological

realization to realization to diagnosediagnose functional structure, functional structure, the answer to this question is important.the answer to this question is important.

Obviously, it’s not just about the surface Obviously, it’s not just about the surface form:form: A deer always eats my bagel. Deer are funny.A deer always eats my bagel. Deer are funny. A goose always eats my bagel. Geese are funny.A goose always eats my bagel. Geese are funny. A wug always eats my bagel. Wugs are funny.A wug always eats my bagel. Wugs are funny. I cut my bagel. I had cut my bagel. I will cut my I cut my bagel. I had cut my bagel. I will cut my bagel. On Tuesdays, I cut my bagel with a penknife.bagel. On Tuesdays, I cut my bagel with a penknife.

She went to class. She had gone to class. She will She went to class. She had gone to class. She will go to class. On Tuesdays, she goes to class go to class. On Tuesdays, she goes to class sanssans bagel.bagel.

She wrote a letter. She had written a letter. She She wrote a letter. She had written a letter. She will write a letter. On Tuesdays, she writes letters will write a letter. On Tuesdays, she writes letters about bagels.about bagels.

What is the relation What is the relation between morphology and between morphology and functional structure?functional structure? So, there is at the very least an So, there is at the very least an abstractabstract level of morphology, level of morphology, perhaps related to the perhaps related to the distinctions that the surface distinctions that the surface morphology morphology cancan make. make.

Point is: regardless of the Point is: regardless of the surface realization, plurals act surface realization, plurals act plural, finite verbs act finite.plural, finite verbs act finite.

This suggests a kind of separation This suggests a kind of separation between syntax and morphology.between syntax and morphology.

Rich agreement to Rich agreement to syntaxsyntax

There is a longstanding observation, not There is a longstanding observation, not really originating in the acquisition really originating in the acquisition literature, that languages with literature, that languages with rich rich agreement morphologyagreement morphology tend to also be the tend to also be the languages that allow null subjects, move languages that allow null subjects, move the verb to T.the verb to T.

Various attempts have been made to try to Various attempts have been made to try to make this an implicational relationship: make this an implicational relationship: The agreement paradigm The agreement paradigm determinesdetermines the the features in the syntax (e.g., strong features in the syntax (e.g., strong features forcing V to move T). (Vikner, features forcing V to move T). (Vikner, Rohrbacher)Rohrbacher)

This would make acquisition easier—but it also This would make acquisition easier—but it also doesn’t seem to really work. There are verb-raising doesn’t seem to really work. There are verb-raising languages without rich morphology, for one thing.languages without rich morphology, for one thing.

Syntax to morphologySyntax to morphology A different view, perhaps a bit more A different view, perhaps a bit more widely adopted, is that the syntax makes widely adopted, is that the syntax makes available the features and structures available the features and structures upon which the morphology operates.upon which the morphology operates.

We might even think of this as an We might even think of this as an abstract tree that is first built, and abstract tree that is first built, and then “pronounced” in a second step.then “pronounced” in a second step. Distributed morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993, Distributed morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993, see also Schsee also Schütze & Wexler 1996) works ütze & Wexler 1996) works basically this way—the syntactic features basically this way—the syntactic features determine the morphological shape, but as a determine the morphological shape, but as a second step, after syntax is done.second step, after syntax is done.

Morphology and Morphology and functional categoriesfunctional categories

[+3sg +pres] = -s[+3sg +pres] = -s [+past] = -ed[+past] = -ed — — = Ø= Ø

[+masc +3sg +nom][+masc +3sg +nom]play+[3sg+pres]play+[3sg+pres] he plays.he plays.

[+2sg +nom][+2sg +nom]play+[2sg +past]play+[2sg +past] you played.you played.

You may remember this You may remember this from a previous class. from a previous class. And the question is And the question is still relevant: still relevant: But is But is this knowledge built-this knowledge built-in? in? HintHint: no.: no.

[+masc, +3sg, +nom] = [+masc, +3sg, +nom] = hehe

[+masc, +3sg, +gen] = [+masc, +3sg, +gen] = hishis

[+masc, +3sg] = him[+masc, +3sg] = him [+fem, +3sg, +nom] = [+fem, +3sg, +nom] =

sheshe [+fem, +3sg] = her[+fem, +3sg] = her [+1sg, +nom] = I[+1sg, +nom] = I [+1sg, +gen] = my[+1sg, +gen] = my [+1sg] = me[+1sg] = me [+2, +gen] = your[+2, +gen] = your [+2] = you[+2] = you






An important part of how An important part of how this system works is in the this system works is in the “defaulting” behavior:“defaulting” behavior:

If the more conditions for If the more conditions for the more specific rule don’t the more specific rule don’t match the features available match the features available from the syntax, turn to the from the syntax, turn to the next less specific rule.next less specific rule.

This is a means of This is a means of explaining the syncretism in explaining the syncretism in paradigms: multiple paradigms: multiple abstractly different forms abstractly different forms sharing the same surface sharing the same surface form:form: I played. You played. She I played. You played. She

played.played. I play. You play. She plays.I play. You play. She plays.






The morphological paradigms The morphological paradigms differ across languages, as do differ across languages, as do their patterns of syncretism.their patterns of syncretism.

This needs to be This needs to be learnedlearned. The . The building blocks may be building blocks may be available courtesy of UG, but available courtesy of UG, but the patterns themselves have the patterns themselves have to come from the input.to come from the input.

For L1’ers, we don’t see a lot For L1’ers, we don’t see a lot of evidence for incomplete of evidence for incomplete learning of this mapping, they learning of this mapping, they generally have it down as soon generally have it down as soon as we can tell whether they do as we can tell whether they do or not.or not.

Still, there are sometimes Still, there are sometimes default forms (bare verbs) default forms (bare verbs) which we’ve attributed to a which we’ve attributed to a workingworking morphology and a morphology and a deficient deficient syntaxsyntax. (In targeted . (In targeted ways—e.g., missing TP or AgrP ways—e.g., missing TP or AgrP or their features)or their features)






For L2’ers, it’s just as For L2’ers, it’s just as necessary to learn these necessary to learn these paradigms (=morphological paradigms (=morphological rules).rules).

What might happen if, in the What might happen if, in the heat of an argument, the heat of an argument, the morphological component fails morphological component fails to retrieve the more specific to retrieve the more specific rule?rule?

He played the trombone last He played the trombone last night.night.

No! He never plays the No! He never plays the trombone!trombone!

play play [3sg, pres][3sg, pres] [+3sg+pres] = -s[+3sg+pres] = -s [+past] = Ø[+past] = Ø — — = Ø= Ø No! He never play the trombone!No! He never play the trombone!

Functional categoriesFunctional categories

The question we’re about to look at is whether The question we’re about to look at is whether adult second language learners also have the adult second language learners also have the same complex structural knowledge (as native same complex structural knowledge (as native speakers and/or as demonstrated by L1’ers) in speakers and/or as demonstrated by L1’ers) in their IL. Do L2’ers “know about TP” in other their IL. Do L2’ers “know about TP” in other words?words?

Note that if L2’ers can usually produce Note that if L2’ers can usually produce sentences which are grammatical in the TL but sentences which are grammatical in the TL but yet don’t “follow the rules” which are yet don’t “follow the rules” which are associated with that structure (i.e. that only associated with that structure (i.e. that only finitefinite verbs move to T), we do not have verbs move to T), we do not have evidence that their mental representation of evidence that their mental representation of these sentences includes the higher functional these sentences includes the higher functional phrases like TP.phrases like TP.

The responsibilities of The responsibilities of TP/AgrPTP/AgrP

Several studies have found that while Several studies have found that while inflection appears to be relatively inflection appears to be relatively poor, other things that Agr/TP are poor, other things that Agr/TP are responsible for seem to be there.responsible for seem to be there.

% in obligatory % in obligatory contextscontexts

3sg3sg PastPast SupplSuppl. . BeBe

OverOvert t subjsubj..

NomNom V in V in VPVP

Haznedar 2001Haznedar 2001 46.546.5 25.525.5 8989 9999 99.999.9 ——

Ionin & Wexler Ionin & Wexler 20022002

2222 4242 80.580.5 9898 —— 100100

Lardiere 1998a,bLardiere 1998a,b 4.54.5 34.534.5 9090 9898 100100 100100

Prévost and White Prévost and White (1999, 2000)(1999, 2000)

Prévost and White (1999, 2000) investigated Prévost and White (1999, 2000) investigated the question of how other reflexes of the question of how other reflexes of finiteness correlate with overt morphology…finiteness correlate with overt morphology… Essentially: Can Poeppel & Wexler (1993) style Essentially: Can Poeppel & Wexler (1993) style results be obtained by L2’ers?results be obtained by L2’ers?

Like kids do during L1A, second language Like kids do during L1A, second language learners will sometimes omit, and sometimes learners will sometimes omit, and sometimes provide, inflection (tense, subject agreement) provide, inflection (tense, subject agreement) on the verb.on the verb.

Does lack of inflection correlate with the verb Does lack of inflection correlate with the verb being treated as a non-finite form being treated as a non-finite form syntacticallysyntactically??

Prévost and WhitePrévost and White Prévost and White try to differentiate two Prévost and White try to differentiate two possibilities of what their data might show, possibilities of what their data might show, given that second language learners sometimes given that second language learners sometimes use inflected verbs and sometimes don’t.use inflected verbs and sometimes don’t. Impairment Hypothesis. Impairment Hypothesis. The learners don’t really The learners don’t really (consistently) understand the inflection or how to (consistently) understand the inflection or how to use it. use it. Their knowledge of inflection is Their knowledge of inflection is “impaired”.“impaired”. Their trees don’t contain the Their trees don’t contain the functional XPs.functional XPs.

Missing Missing Surface Surface Inflection Hypothesis.Inflection Hypothesis. The The learners will sometimes pronounce finite verbs in learners will sometimes pronounce finite verbs in their infinitive formtheir infinitive form (the verbs (the verbs act act finite, finite, the the functional XP’s are therefunctional XP’s are there, but the learner , but the learner couldn’t find the right inflected form in his/her couldn’t find the right inflected form in his/her lexicon in time, so s/he used the nonfinite form). lexicon in time, so s/he used the nonfinite form). The nonfinite form is essentially a The nonfinite form is essentially a defaultdefault..

Prévost and WhitePrévost and White

Possibility 1 (Possibility 1 (impairmentimpairment) suggests ) suggests basically no correlation between verb basically no correlation between verb movement and inflection.movement and inflection.

Possibility 2 (Possibility 2 (mispronouncing a finite mispronouncing a finite verb by using its nonfinite formverb by using its nonfinite form) ) predicts thatpredicts that When the finite form is pronounced, the When the finite form is pronounced, the verb will definitely be (and act) finite—verb will definitely be (and act) finite—it will move.it will move.

When the nonfinite form is pronounced, it When the nonfinite form is pronounced, it might act finite or nonfinite.might act finite or nonfinite.


P&W looked at spontaneous speech P&W looked at spontaneous speech data from two adults learning L2 data from two adults learning L2 French (from Moroccan Arabic, French (from Moroccan Arabic, after a year) and two adults after a year) and two adults learning L2 German (from Spanish learning L2 German (from Spanish and Portuguese, after 3 months). and Portuguese, after 3 months). Monthly interviews followed for Monthly interviews followed for about 2 years.about 2 years.

Prévost and White Prévost and White found…found… Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in non-finite Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in non-finite

contexts.contexts. That is: It is That is: It is notnot random. random.

When verbs are marked with inflection, they systematically When verbs are marked with inflection, they systematically (overwhelmingly) appear before negation(overwhelmingly) appear before negation (i.e., they move). (i.e., they move).

Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contextsMany of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts ( (usedused finitely, moved).finitely, moved).

Oblig. Fin Oblig. Nonfin

+Fin -Fin -Fin +Fin

A(F) 767 243 278 17

Z(F) 755 224 156 2

A(G) 389 45 76 7

Z(G) 434 85 98 6


P&W’s data supports the hypotheses that:P&W’s data supports the hypotheses that: (These) second language learners (These) second language learners know the know the difference between finite and nonfinite verbsdifference between finite and nonfinite verbs..

They know that finite verbs move, and that They know that finite verbs move, and that nonfinite verbs do not move.nonfinite verbs do not move.

The only real errors they make are essentially The only real errors they make are essentially lexical retrieval errorslexical retrieval errors (errors of (errors of pronunciation), pronouncing verbs which are pronunciation), pronouncing verbs which are abstractly finite in their infinitive form.abstractly finite in their infinitive form.

One question: Why the infinitive? Is it really an One question: Why the infinitive? Is it really an unmarked form universally? Does it depend on what unmarked form universally? Does it depend on what the the citationcitation form is? Is it due to the language- form is? Is it due to the language-particular morphology?particular morphology?

L2A and L1AL2A and L1A

One thing this tells us is that, One thing this tells us is that, despite possible appearances to despite possible appearances to the contrary, the contrary, second language second language learners’ interlanguages are quite learners’ interlanguages are quite systematic and complexsystematic and complex, and the L2 , and the L2 learners have the same kind of learners have the same kind of abstract structural knowledge abstract structural knowledge incorporated into their IL that we incorporated into their IL that we can argue for in the case of L1 can argue for in the case of L1 learners.learners.

L2A and L1L2A and L1 We don’t know really to what extent “UG” We don’t know really to what extent “UG” played a role, based only on this—after played a role, based only on this—after all, we know that the L1 had the full all, we know that the L1 had the full structural complexity of a natural structural complexity of a natural language, including the distinction language, including the distinction (perhaps abstract) between finite and (perhaps abstract) between finite and nonfinite, and including (perhaps nonfinite, and including (perhaps abstract) subject agreement, etc. abstract) subject agreement, etc. There’s no reason that knowledge of the There’s no reason that knowledge of the distinction between finite and nonfinite distinction between finite and nonfinite couldn’tcouldn’t simply carry over (“transfer”) simply carry over (“transfer”) to the IL during L2A.to the IL during L2A.

Morphology ≠ syntaxMorphology ≠ syntax This suggests that morphology is rather This suggests that morphology is rather distinct from syntax. It is possible to distinct from syntax. It is possible to have the syntax right and the morphology have the syntax right and the morphology wrong. And to some extent, morphology is wrong. And to some extent, morphology is not provided by UG, must be learned, and not provided by UG, must be learned, and moreover must be moreover must be retrievedretrieved..

The view of Distributed Morphology under The view of Distributed Morphology under which morphology is a separate system which morphology is a separate system given the task of pronouncing a given the task of pronouncing a syntactic structure (and which allows syntactic structure (and which allows for the sort of defaults we seem to see) for the sort of defaults we seem to see) seems well suited to describe this.seems well suited to describe this.

Morphology ≠ syntaxMorphology ≠ syntax

Various other studies describe a Various other studies describe a similar dissociation; obligatory similar dissociation; obligatory subjects, subject case, and verb subjects, subject case, and verb position are all governed by syntactic position are all governed by syntactic features/parameters attributed to features/parameters attributed to functional projections. And while functional projections. And while L2’ers seem to get these right, they L2’ers seem to get these right, they are inconsistent with the morphology. are inconsistent with the morphology. (See White ch. 6; Lardière, White, (See White ch. 6; Lardière, White, Schwartz, Prévost, …)Schwartz, Prévost, …)

Schwartz (2002)Schwartz (2002) In 2002 at the BUCLD, Bonnie Schwartz In 2002 at the BUCLD, Bonnie Schwartz presented data of this sort looking at the presented data of this sort looking at the gender agreement and definiteness properties gender agreement and definiteness properties of Dutch DPs, with the aim being to of Dutch DPs, with the aim being to determine whether child L2 acquisition was determine whether child L2 acquisition was more like child L1 acquisition or more like more like child L1 acquisition or more like adult L2 acquisition.adult L2 acquisition.

What she found was that in terms of What she found was that in terms of overgeneralizing morphology (overuse of overgeneralizing morphology (overuse of uninflected adjectives), adult L2’ers did uninflected adjectives), adult L2’ers did it, but neither child L1’ers nor child L2’er it, but neither child L1’ers nor child L2’er did. But in terms of word order, both kinds did. But in terms of word order, both kinds of L2’er went through a word order stage not of L2’er went through a word order stage not attested in child L1’ers’ development.attested in child L1’ers’ development.

Schwartz (2002)Schwartz (2002)

Schwartz concluded thatSchwartz concluded that child L2 is like child L1 wrt child L2 is like child L1 wrt morphologymorphology

child L2 is like adult L2 wrt syntaxchild L2 is like adult L2 wrt syntax Again, a dissociation between Again, a dissociation between morphology and syntax.morphology and syntax.

Why? Morphology is surface-evident Why? Morphology is surface-evident and frequent, why is there such and frequent, why is there such difficulty?difficulty?

thoughts re: Schwartz thoughts re: Schwartz (2002)(2002)

Jeff Lidz brought up the question Jeff Lidz brought up the question of whether this might be due not of whether this might be due not so much to morphology, but to a so much to morphology, but to a phonological effect. Either in phonological effect. Either in terms of an input filter (like the terms of an input filter (like the French discussion earlier) or in French discussion earlier) or in terms of a production constraint. terms of a production constraint. Phonological problems could in Phonological problems could in many ways mimic morphological many ways mimic morphological problems.problems.

thoughts re: Schwartz thoughts re: Schwartz (2002)(2002)

Harald Clahsen brought up an interesting Harald Clahsen brought up an interesting point with respect to processing: there point with respect to processing: there are processing results that indicate are processing results that indicate that adult L2’ers “need longer” to that adult L2’ers “need longer” to process incoming data. While I’m not process incoming data. While I’m not sure exactly what studies he had in sure exactly what studies he had in mind, taking that as given, perhaps the mind, taking that as given, perhaps the problem with morphology is that it just problem with morphology is that it just “comes too fast.” In the same kind of “comes too fast.” In the same kind of way that phonological filters might keep way that phonological filters might keep morphological marking out of the “input morphological marking out of the “input data”, processing constraints might also data”, processing constraints might also have this effect.have this effect.

week 10a. l2 morphology v. functional projections grs lx 700 language acquisition and linguistic...

Documents

nonfinite forms

nonfinite verbs

lot of morphology

correct morphology

l2 morphology

kids dont

language learners

language acquisition