1. Explaining the ‘syntax-before-discourse’ phenomenon: Pronominal subject distribution in L1 Greek – L2 Spanish “Hispanic Linguistics Symposium” London-Ontario, Oct 2006 Cristóbal Lozano [ clozan2@yahoo.com ]clozan2@yahoo.com Universidad de Granada http://www.uam.es/cristobal.lozano

2. 1. The phenomenon Observation: Syntax before Discourse.  Syntax: native-like, early acquisition  Discourse: deficits, residual deficits (optionailty) Context: 2 properties of pro-drop parameter:  Pronominals: L1 Eng – L2 Spa: Al-Kasey & Perez- Leroux 1998, Liceras 1989, Liceras & Diaz 1999, Lozano 2002 2003, Montrul & Rodriguez-Louro 2006, Perez-Leroux & al 1999, Perez-Leorux & Glass 1997 1999, Phinney 1987. L1 Spa – L2 Greek: Lozano 2003 L1 Eng – L2 Ital: Sorace & Filiaci 2006 L1 Croat – L2 Ital: Kras 2006 L1 Ital – L2 Spa: Bini 1993 L1 Jap – L2 Eng: Polio 1995  SV inversion: L1 Spa – L2 English: Lozano 2006a, Hertel 2003 L1 Spa – L2 Greek: Lozano 2006b L1 several – L2 Italian: Belletti & Leonini 2004 L1 Quechua – L2 Spa: Camacho 1999  Pronominals: L1 Eng / Ital: Serratrice 2004, Serratrice & al 2004, Tsimpli et al 2004 L1 Ital / Dutch: Pinto 2006 L1 Ital / Ger: Müller & al 2002 L1 Spa / Eng: Paradis & Navarro 2003  Pronominals: L2 Eng – L1 Spa: Montrul 2004, Satterfield 2003 L2 Eng – L1 Greek/Ital: Tsimpli et al 2004  SV inversion: L2 Eng – L1 Catalan: Helland 2004  Pronominals: L1 Spa: Grinstead 2004 L1 Eng: Chien & Wexler 1990, Grodzinsky & Reinhart 1993 [Sorace 2004 for overview] Null pronominal subjects SV inversion L2 acquisition L1 biling L1 attrition L1

3. 2. Explaining the causes  Representational deficits:  Sorace (2004), Sorace & Filiaci (2006): Underspecification of [+interpretable] features at syntax-discourse.  Lozano (2006a, 2006b): Underspecification of [-interpretable] features at syntax.  Processing deficits:  Sorace & Filiaci (2006), Sorace (2005, 2006), in line with Clahsen & Felser (2006). Language processor: deficits when processing syntax-discourse properties.

4. 3. Anaphora resolution Italian: Carminati 2002, 2005 Spanish: Alonso-Ovalle et al 2002 Also operational in other pro-drop langs: Croatian (Kras 2006), Romanian (Geber 2006). Position of Antecedent Stragegy (PAS)  NULL: strong bias towards antecedent in SpecIP (subject position, topic).  OVERT biases towards antecedent in lower position (object position). PAS  structural configuration guides language processor in choosing relevant antecedent.

5. 4. Forward anaphora: PAS Overt ↔ antecedent lower position. Null ↔ antecedent in Spec,IP

6. 5. Position of Antecedent Strategy (PAS) and Avoid Miscommunication Principle (AMP) Topic: Observance of PAS: null selects subject in Spec,IP. [Structurally based] Contrastive Focus: Apparent violation of PAS: overt has selected subject in Spec,IP Observance of AMP: overt is required to avoid ambiguity. [Discursively based]

7. 6. PAS at syntax-discourse interface PAS is at syntax-discourse interface (Sorace & Filiaci 2006)  since violations of PAS and AMP lead to pragmatic anomaly BUT not ungrammaticality.

8. Topic conditionContrastive focus condition Ambiguous. Observance of AMP. Processor can match correct antecedent: Observance of AMP Relaxation of PAS Processor cannot match antecedent due to ambiguity. Observance of PAS Violation of AMP Unambiguous. Observance of PAS. Processor could also match correct antecedent but: Violation of PAS Processor can match antecedent. Observance of PAS (very robust) 7. INTERMEDIATE SUMMARY

9. 8. Spanish and Greek Topic condition: Focus condition: Spanish: Luján 1999, Rigau 1986, Picallo 1994, Alonso-Ovalle & D´Introno 2000, Fernández-Soriano 1989, 1993, 1999, Montalbetti 1984, etc. Greek: Grimshaw et al 1998, Dimitriadis 1996,, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998, Montalbetti 1984, Miltsakaki 2001, etc.

10. 9.Previous studies: L2 Italian Sorace & Filiaci (2006): L1 Eng – L2 Ital (near-natives). Kras (2006): L1 Croat – L2 Ital (near-natives). Null subjects:  Near-natives = natives Null refers to matrix subject in Spec,IP  null encodes topic Overt subjects:  Near-natives ≠ natives Overt refers to matrix object … BUT… Overt may refer to matrix subject (prag anomalous)  violation of PAS  overt incorrectly encodes topic Unidirectionality of results (deficits with OVERT but not with NULL).

11. 10.Previous studies: L2 Spanish L1 Eng  L2 Spa:  Formal licensing properties in place from earlier stages.  Discursive properties are late-acquired or deficit. Al-Kasey & Perez-Leroux 1998, Liceras 1989, Liceras & Diaz 1999, Lozano 2002, 2003, Montrul & Rodriguez-Louro 2006, Perez-Leroux & al 1999, Perez-Leorux & Glass 1997 1999, Phinney 1987.  Unidirectionality is the norm (overuse of overt), but bidirectionality also attested (overuse of overt AND overuse of null): Montrul & Rodriguez-Louro 2006, Perez-Leorux & Glass 1997 Attrition: L2 Eng  L2 Spa  Satterfield (2003): overuse of overt, correct use of null “Cuando ellos vienen aquí, ellos lo pierden” [i.e., el español, su lengua]

12. 11. This study: novelty Previous studies: L1 Eng ≠ L2 Spa L1 Eng ≠ L2 Ital  This study: L1 Greek = L2 Spa Previous L2 studies: near-natives only  This study: developmental Forward anaphora only  To discard effects of antecedent position (forward vs. backward) Antecedent: subject in [Spec,IP]  To discard effects of antecedent position (subject vs object position). Intersentential anaphora (works identically to intrasentential anaphora, Alonso-Ovalle et al 2002).

13. 12. Hypotheses If representational account is correct, then learners (all levels) = natives  since L1 Greek = L2 Spa. If processing account is correct, then learners ≠ natives  Residual deficits expected even at very advanced levels

14. 13. Subjects Spa natives, n=12 Learners: L1 Greek - L2 Spa University of Wisconsin Placement Test NProficiency rangeProficiency mean Interm2260-85%77% Low adv3296-91%89% Upper adv3193-100%95%

15. 14. Stimuli Similar to previous examples (contrastive focus, topic). Paired acceptability judgement, e.g.:  Mi compañera María siempre saca buenas notas en los exámenes, por lo que… (a) los profesores dicen que estudia mucho. -2 -1 0 +1 +2 (b) los profesores dicen que ella estudia mucho. -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Design:  6 topic, 6 focus, 12 distracters  Two versions of test, randomised.  Overt pronoun in sentence (a) 50% of the time (the same for null).  Vocabulary: taken from beginners’ textbook.

16. 15. Result 1: Contrastive Focus condition WITHIN-GROUP ANALYSIS: ALL learners discriminate as natives do, preferring acceptable OVERT to unacceptable NULL. Discrimination intensity increases with proficiency towards the native norm. BETWEEN GROUP ANALYSIS: OVERT: interm≠nativesNULL: upp-advanced=nativeslow-advanced=natives upper-advanced=nativesinterm≠natives CONCLUSION: All learners obey PAS (overt>#null) Between group differences (lower levels)  stregth of PAS develops with proficiency Upp-adv group show native-like behaviour…but is this so? (see next slide). SUMMARY: Overt (contr focus)=native-like (upper-advanced).

17. 16. Result 2: Topic condition CONCLUSION: Learners: relaxation of PAS: #overt may select subject in Spec,IP  violation of PAS and AMP. Natives: slightly mild relaxation of PAS (very weak negative ratings…they should be stronger). See Alonso-Ovalle et al 2002. SUMMARY: Null pronouns (topic): native-like. Overt pronouns: RESIDUAL deficits, they don´t consider it as redundant (advanced groups). WITHIN-GROUP ANALYSIS: Except intermediates, all groups prefer nul to overt, similarly to natives. BUT… BETWEEN GROUP ANALYSIS: OVERT: upp-advanced≠nativesNULL: upp-advanced=natives low-advanced≠nativeslow-advanced=nativesinterm≠natives

18. 17. Conclusion 1  Representational deficits:  In upper-advanced learners, overt pronoun is overspecified: BUT: unexpected, since L1 Greek = L2 Spa:  pronominal inventory in terms of discursive features [Contrastive Focus] / [Topic] encoded in overt / null Kras (2006) results in the same line: L1 Croat = L2 Ital Alternative explanation? Processing deficit

19. 18. Conclusion 2  Processing deficit  Sorace (2005, 2006), Sorace & Filiaci (2006), based on “Shallow Structure Hypothesis” (Clahsen & Felser 2006).  Upper-adv learners: Deficits, relaxed PAS for overt (if redundant)  Overt may select antecedent in Spec,IP when no ambiguity  overt residually encodes topic Native-like behaviour, strict PAS for null and overt (if ambiguous):  Null selects antecedent in Spec,IP  null encodes [topic]  Overt selects antecedent in Spec,IP if ambiguity  overt encodes [contrastive focus] Deficits are just RESIDUAL, as expected, otherwise native-like behaviour at very adv levels. Results seem to initially support Sorace and associates’ proposal: deficits with overt. --- tentative (but provisional) explanation.

20. 19. Conclusion 3 “ Syntax-before-Discourse” phenomenon:  Deficits at the syntax-discourse interface (vulnerability)  Representational deficits (likely)  Processing deficits (more likely) Further questions:  Why overextension of null as well? (bidirectionality has been also attested in L2 Spa)  Why deficits affect processor rather than representations? Perhaps both, i.e., representations are faulty hence processor cannot perform effectively?  Preliminary evidence that discursive properties (like Focus) coulb be in place before their syntactic properties (WOSLAC research group at Univ Autónoma Madrid). Just the tip of the iceberg… More research needed!!!

21. Reference List Al-Kasey, T., Pérez-Leroux, A.-T., 1998. Second language acquisition of Spanish null subjects. In: Flynn, S., Matohardjono, G., O'Neil, W. (eds.), The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition, 161-185. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández-Solera, S., Frazier, L., Clifton, C., 2002. Null vs. overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish. Journal of Italian Linguistics 14, 151-169. Belletti, A., Leonini, C., 2004. Subject inversion in L2 Italian. In: Foster-Cohen, S., Sharwood Smith, M., Sorace, A., Mitsuhiko, O. (eds.), EUROSLA yearbook: Volume 4, 95-118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bini, M., La adqusición del italiano: más allá de las propiedades sintácticas del parámetro pro-drop. In: Liceras, J. (ed.), La lingüística y el análisis de los sistemas no nativos, 126-193. Ottawa: Doverhouse. Camacho, J., 1999. From SOV to SVO: the grammar of interlanguage word order. Second Language Research 15, 115-132. Carminati, M.N., 2002. The processing of Italian subject pronouns. PhD thesis: University of Massachussetts at Amherst. Carminati, M.N., 2005. Processing reflexes of teh feature hierarchy (Person>Number>Gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 115. Chien, Y.-C., Wexler, K., 1990. Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1, 225-295. Clahsen, H., Felser, C., 2006. Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Pscholinguistics 27, 3-42. Fernández-Soriano, O. Strong pronouns in null-subject languages and the Avoid Pronoun Principle. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 228-239. 1989. Fernández-Soriano, O., 1993. La visión paramétrica del lenguaje: más sobre los sujetos y objetos nulos. In: Liceras, J.M. (ed.), La lingüística y el análisis de los sistemas no nativos Ottawa: Dovehouse. Fernández Soriano, O., 1999. El pronombre personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres átonos y tónicos. In: Demonte, V., Bosque, I. (eds.), 1209-1273. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Fernández-Soriano, O., 1993. Sobre el orden de palabras en español. Cuadernos de Filología Hispánica 11, 113-151. Geber, D., 2006. Processing subject pronouns in relation to non-canonical (Quirky) constructions. Ottawa Papers in Linguistics 34, 47-61. Grimshaw, J., Samek-Lodovici, V., 1998. Optimal subjects and subject universals. In: Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M., Psetsky, D. (eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, 193-219. Cambridge, MASS: MIT Press. Grinstead, J., 2004. Subjects and interface delay in child Spanish and Catalan. Language 80, 40-72. Grodzinsky, Y., Reinhart, T., 1993. The innateness of binding and correference. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 69-101. Helland, C., 2004. Attrition and syntactic subjects in Catalan. Paper presented at The Romance Turn, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Madrid, September). Kras, T., 2006. Interface instability in bilingual language acquisition: in search of the causes. Paper to be presented in EUROSLA 2006 (13-16 September, Turkey). Liceras, J.M., 1989. On some properties of the "pro-drop" parameter: looking for missing subjects in non-native Spanish. In: Gass, S.M., Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, 109-133. Cambridge: CUP. Liceras, J.M., Díaz, L., 1999. Topic drop versus pro-drop: null subjects and pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research 15, 1-40. Lozano, C., 2006. The development of the syntax-discourse interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In: Torrens, V., Escobar, L. (eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages, 371-399. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lozano, C., 2006. Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research 22, 1-43. Lozano, C., 2002. The interpretation of overt and null pronouns in non-native Spanish. Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 53-66. Lozano, C. 2003. Universal Grammar and focus constraints: The acquisition of pronouns and word order in non-native Spanish. University of Essex. PhD dissertation. Miltsakaki, E., 2001. On the interpretation of weak and strong pronominals in Greek. Proceedings of the 5th Internatinoal Conference on Greek Linguistics (University Paris 5 Sorbonne, 13-15 Sept 2001). Montrul, S., 2004. Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 125-142. Montrul, S., Rodríguez-Louro, C., 2006. Beyond the syntax of the Null Subject Parameter: A look at the discourse-pragmatic distribution of null and overt subjects by L2 learners of Spanish. In: Torrens, V., Escobar, L. (eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Müller, N., Hulk, A., 2001. Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4, 1-22. Paradis, J., Navarro, S., 2003. Subject realization and cross-linguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: what is the role of input? Journal of Child Language 30, 1-23. Pérez-Leroux, A.T., Glass, W.R., 1999. Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: probabilistic versus generative approaches. Second Language Research 15, 220-249. Pérez-Leroux, A.T., Glass, W.R., 1997. OPC effects on the L2 acquisition of Spanish. In: Pérez-Leroux, A.T., Glass, W.R. (eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish, volume I: Developing Grammars, 149-165. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Pérez-Leroux, A.T., Scott, A.M., Hertel, T., Kellar, V., Glass, W.R., 1999. Sources of knowledge in second language acquisition. Spanish Applied Linguistics 3, 33-63. Phinney, M., 1987. The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. In: Roeper, T., Williams, E. (eds.), Parameter Setting, 221-238. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pinto, M., 2006. Subject pronouns in biliguals: interference or maturation? In: Torrens, V., Escobar, L. (eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages, 331-350. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Polio, C., 1995. Acquiring nothing? The use of zero pronouns by nonnative speakers of Chinese and the implications for the acquisition of nominal reference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 353-377. Satterfield, T., 2003. Economy of interpretation: Patterns of pronoun selection in transitional bilinguals. In: Cook, V. (ed.), Effects of the Second Language on the First, 214-233. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., Paoli, S., 2004. Transfer at teh syntax-pragmatics interface: subjects and objects in Italian-English bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2, 169-186. Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., Paoli, S., 2004. Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax-pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 183-205. Sorace, A., 2004. Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 143-145. Sorace, A., 2006. Possible manifestations of shallow processing in advanced second language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 88-91. Sorace, A., 2005. Selective optionality in language development. In: Cornips, L., Corrigan, K.P. (eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, 55-80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sorace, A., Filiaci, F., 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22, 339-368. Tsimpli, I.M., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., Filiaci, F., 2004. First language attrition and syntactic subjects: a study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 8, 257-277.

22. THANK YOU!