1. Week 5. Second Language Acquisition: introduction GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

2. Scientific study of language What constitutes one’s knowledge of language? What constitutes one’s knowledge of language? How is that knowledge acquired? How is that knowledge acquired? Looking at adult native languages, we’ve found that language is very complex (see LX 522, 523, for example) Looking at adult native languages, we’ve found that language is very complex (see LX 522, 523, for example) Looking at kids, we’ve found that kids seem to learn this complicated system with surprisingly little help from the environment. Looking at kids, we’ve found that kids seem to learn this complicated system with surprisingly little help from the environment.

3. L1 acquisition We posited a genetic predisposition for language, something which guides the kinds of languages kids learn (Universal Grammar): We posited a genetic predisposition for language, something which guides the kinds of languages kids learn (Universal Grammar): Kids learn fast Kids learn fast Kids end up with systems that are more complicated than the input data justifies (they can judge ungrammatical sentences in the same way as other native speakers). Kids end up with systems that are more complicated than the input data justifies (they can judge ungrammatical sentences in the same way as other native speakers). Kids don’t fail to learn language despite differences in environment, and without getting or making use of negative evidence. Kids don’t fail to learn language despite differences in environment, and without getting or making use of negative evidence. Kids seem to go through similar stages, across kids, across languages. Kids seem to go through similar stages, across kids, across languages.

4. But what about L2 acquisition? Adults seem to have a harder time learning language than kids do learning their first language (there may be a “critical period”). Adults seem to have a harder time learning language than kids do learning their first language (there may be a “critical period”). Adult second language learners rarely reach a native-speaker-like level of competence. Adult second language learners rarely reach a native-speaker-like level of competence. Adult second language learners already know a language. Adult second language learners already know a language. Adult second language learners are often given negative evidence (“you don’t say it that way”) when taught in a classroom. Adult second language learners are often given negative evidence (“you don’t say it that way”) when taught in a classroom.

5. L2A seems very different from L1A. Is L2A like learning to play chess? Like learning calculus? Like driving a car? Do we just learn the rules of the language and apply them (sometimes forgetting some of the rules, never quite learning all of them, etc.)? Is L2A like learning to play chess? Like learning calculus? Like driving a car? Do we just learn the rules of the language and apply them (sometimes forgetting some of the rules, never quite learning all of them, etc.)? It’s very tempting to think that’s true. It’s very tempting to think that’s true.

6. Scientific study of language What constitutes one’s knowledge of language? What constitutes one’s knowledge of language? How is that knowledge acquired? How is that knowledge acquired? We can still study these questions in L2A as well and try to determine the answers, whether they are related to the answers we got for L1A or not. We can still study these questions in L2A as well and try to determine the answers, whether they are related to the answers we got for L1A or not. And perhaps surprisingly, they might be. And perhaps surprisingly, they might be.

7. L2 competence Learners of a second language have some kind of (systematic) linguistic knowledge. They have retained their L1 knowledge, and they have knowledge of a sort which approximates (perhaps poorly) the knowledge held by a native speaker of the learner’s L2. Learners of a second language have some kind of (systematic) linguistic knowledge. They have retained their L1 knowledge, and they have knowledge of a sort which approximates (perhaps poorly) the knowledge held by a native speaker of the learner’s L2. This knowledge is often referred to as an interlanguage grammar—not L1, not L2, but something different (…and to what extent this knowledge might be related to or influenced by L1 or L2 is yet to be determined). This knowledge is often referred to as an interlanguage grammar—not L1, not L2, but something different (…and to what extent this knowledge might be related to or influenced by L1 or L2 is yet to be determined).

8. A real-world example, Japanese case-marker omission Adult knowledge is complicated, relies on the Empty Category Principle, which says that an empty category (including a dropped Case marker) must be properly governed. Adult knowledge is complicated, relies on the Empty Category Principle, which says that an empty category (including a dropped Case marker) must be properly governed. The ECP is taken to be responsible for the fact that in Japanese you can drop a Case marker in object position but you cannot drop a Case marker in subject position. The ECP is taken to be responsible for the fact that in Japanese you can drop a Case marker in object position but you cannot drop a Case marker in subject position.

9. Kanno 1996 John ga sono hon o yonda. nom that book acc read ‘John read that book.’ John ga sono hon o yonda. nom that book acc read ‘John read that book.’ John ga sono hon _ yonda. nom that book Ø read ‘John read that book.’ John ga sono hon _ yonda. nom that book Ø read ‘John read that book.’ * John _ sono hon o yonda. Ø that book acc read ‘John read that book.’ * John _ sono hon o yonda. Ø that book acc read ‘John read that book.’

10. Kanno 1996 English speakers (learning Japanese) know the ECP, because they know: English speakers (learning Japanese) know the ECP, because they know: Who did you say Ø t left? Who did you say Ø t left? *Who did you say that t left? *Who did you say that t left? But this is a very different context of use from the use in Case marker drop. The question is: Do English speakers respect the ECP in their interlanguage grammar (toward Japanese)? But this is a very different context of use from the use in Case marker drop. The question is: Do English speakers respect the ECP in their interlanguage grammar (toward Japanese)? A broader way to ask the question: Is the interlanguage grammar constrained by UG? A broader way to ask the question: Is the interlanguage grammar constrained by UG?

11. What is UG anyway? The conception of UG has undergone a number of conceptual shifts… The conception of UG has undergone a number of conceptual shifts… It has always been a means of explaining how kids uniformly and quickly reach the complex knowledge system that language (L1) is. It has always been a means of explaining how kids uniformly and quickly reach the complex knowledge system that language (L1) is. But how? But how? “Blueprint”: The LAD uses UG as a template to acquire rules. UG leads to L1 but UG is not in any way part of L1. “Blueprint”: The LAD uses UG as a template to acquire rules. UG leads to L1 but UG is not in any way part of L1. UG is the common core of language knowledge, the specifics of L1 are stored as parameters in the lexicon. There is no L1 without UG. UG is the common core of language knowledge, the specifics of L1 are stored as parameters in the lexicon. There is no L1 without UG.

12. …but a flawed premise It’s really hard to test this kind of thing. It’s really hard to test this kind of thing. Do English speakers actually know the ECP? Or do they just know that *Who did you say that left? ? Do English speakers actually know the ECP? Or do they just know that *Who did you say that left? ? Blueprint view: The ECP constrained the rules you acquired learning to *Who did you say that left?. There were no rules about case marker drop in English, so the ECP didn’t play a role. If L2’ers obey the ECP wrt case marker drop in Japanese, they re-applied the ECP—from UG—as they learned the new rules. Blueprint view: The ECP constrained the rules you acquired learning to *Who did you say that left?. There were no rules about case marker drop in English, so the ECP didn’t play a role. If L2’ers obey the ECP wrt case marker drop in Japanese, they re-applied the ECP—from UG—as they learned the new rules. Common core view: The ECP holds of Language, including English. It is a general constraint from which *Who did you say that left? is a consequence. The L1 has this constraint, which has different consequences in Japanese. But obeying the ECP wrt case marker drop in Japanese is applying the ECP—from L1. Common core view: The ECP holds of Language, including English. It is a general constraint from which *Who did you say that left? is a consequence. The L1 has this constraint, which has different consequences in Japanese. But obeying the ECP wrt case marker drop in Japanese is applying the ECP—from L1.

13. …but a flawed premise Kanno’s conclusions tacitly rely on the blueprint view: Kanno’s conclusions tacitly rely on the blueprint view: ECP is a property of the LAD, you can only learn an L1 that obeys the ECP. The L1 you learn if you learn English, however, is simply a set of context-specific rules that applies to *Who did you say that left? but has nothing to say about Case marker drop, since there are no Case markers in English. ECP is a property of the LAD, you can only learn an L1 that obeys the ECP. The L1 you learn if you learn English, however, is simply a set of context-specific rules that applies to *Who did you say that left? but has nothing to say about Case marker drop, since there are no Case markers in English. …but the hypothesis of modern theoretical syntax is that ECP is a property of the language knowledge, playing a role in generating/judging/comprehending English. …but the hypothesis of modern theoretical syntax is that ECP is a property of the language knowledge, playing a role in generating/judging/comprehending English.

14. Kanno 1996 Let’s look at the experiment anyway, though… Let’s look at the experiment anyway, though… Kanno tested 26 college students in Japanese II on case particle drop. Kanno tested 26 college students in Japanese II on case particle drop. In an effort to ensure that the students, if successful, will have “gone beyond the input”, she examined what the students would have been exposed to by the textbook up to the point where they took the test, to see if they were taught when not to drop the case markers. In an effort to ensure that the students, if successful, will have “gone beyond the input”, she examined what the students would have been exposed to by the textbook up to the point where they took the test, to see if they were taught when not to drop the case markers.

15. What the Japanese II students saw… 41 cases of object case-marker drop, like: 41 cases of object case-marker drop, like: Enpitsu Ø kudasai ? pencil give ‘Can you give me a pencil?’ Enpitsu Ø kudasai ? pencil give ‘Can you give me a pencil?’ 8 cases of subject case-marker drop, in the exceptional case when it is allowed (with a final emphatic particle—these don’t violate the ECP): 8 cases of subject case-marker drop, in the exceptional case when it is allowed (with a final emphatic particle—these don’t violate the ECP): John Ø sono hon o yonda yo. John that book acc read part ‘John (indeed) read the book.’ (I think) John Ø sono hon o yonda yo. John that book acc read part ‘John (indeed) read the book.’ (I think)

16. What the Japanese II students saw… Certain verbs have nominative case on their objects, and case can be dropped on those objects too… Certain verbs have nominative case on their objects, and case can be dropped on those objects too… John ga kankokugo (ga) dekimasu. John nom Korean nom can-do ‘John can speak Korean.’ John ga kankokugo (ga) dekimasu. John nom Korean nom can-do ‘John can speak Korean.’ 69 of 110 such verbs in the book had the object case marker dropped. 69 of 110 such verbs in the book had the object case marker dropped.

17. What the Japanese II students saw… Japanese allows arguments to be omitted (somewhat like Italian pro drop), so there were many cases with just one argument (the object) with no case marker: Japanese allows arguments to be omitted (somewhat like Italian pro drop), so there were many cases with just one argument (the object) with no case marker: Kami Ø irimasu ka? paper need Q ‘Do you need paper? / Is paper necessary?’ Kami Ø irimasu ka? paper need Q ‘Do you need paper? / Is paper necessary?’

18. What the Japanese II students saw… Worst of all, the topic marker can be dropped, which looks a lot like a subject marker being dropped. Worst of all, the topic marker can be dropped, which looks a lot like a subject marker being dropped. Tanaka-san (wa) itsu kaimasita ka? top when bought Q ‘When did Tanaka buy it?’ ‘As for Tanaka, when did he buy it?’ Tanaka-san (wa) itsu kaimasita ka? top when bought Q ‘When did Tanaka buy it?’ ‘As for Tanaka, when did he buy it?’

19. What the Japanese II students saw… “ga [nom] might be deleted, but with a reduction of the emphasis and focus conveyed by its inclusion.” (No hint that sometimes—even usually—it is not allowed) “ga [nom] might be deleted, but with a reduction of the emphasis and focus conveyed by its inclusion.” (No hint that sometimes—even usually—it is not allowed) “If o [acc] is deleted, [the object] would simply lose a bit of its emphasis and focus. On the other hand, the addition of o would give added emphasis and focus.” “If o [acc] is deleted, [the object] would simply lose a bit of its emphasis and focus. On the other hand, the addition of o would give added emphasis and focus.”

20. The poor Japanese II students… There’s pretty much no way they could have reached the right generalization based on what they were provided. There’s pretty much no way they could have reached the right generalization based on what they were provided. Nom can be dropped from object position Nom can be dropped from object position Top can be dropped from subject position Top can be dropped from subject position Nom subject can be dropped with a particle Nom subject can be dropped with a particle Explicit instruction was only about emphasis. Explicit instruction was only about emphasis. But did they anyway? But did they anyway?

21. The experiment To test this, the sentences used wh-words. Wh-words in general do not allow topic marking, so if the particle is dropped from a subject wh-word, it could not have been a topic drop. To test this, the sentences used wh-words. Wh-words in general do not allow topic marking, so if the particle is dropped from a subject wh-word, it could not have been a topic drop. subject wa wh-phrase Ø verb Q? subject wa wh-phrase Ø verb Q? *wh-subject Ø object acc verb Q? *wh-subject Ø object acc verb Q? pro wh-object Ø verb Q? pro wh-object Ø verb Q? *wh-subject Ø pro verb Q? *wh-subject Ø pro verb Q?

22. Kanno’s missing controls Here’s why wh-subjects were tested: Here’s why wh-subjects were tested: Subject marker ga cannot be dropped in L1J. Subject marker ga cannot be dropped in L1J. Topic marker wa can be dropped in L1J. Topic marker wa can be dropped in L1J. Wh-phrases do not allow wa in L1J. Wh-phrases do not allow wa in L1J. Hence, a wh-subject with no marker, for L1J, would have an illicitly dropped subject marker. Hence, a wh-subject with no marker, for L1J, would have an illicitly dropped subject marker. The first two points follow from the ECP and the general knowledge that things can be dropped. But do the students know that wh-phrases do not allow wa? If not, we’re back to square one. The first two points follow from the ECP and the general knowledge that things can be dropped. But do the students know that wh-phrases do not allow wa? If not, we’re back to square one. Pressed on this point, Kanno points out that students who preferred to drop subject markers in 2-overt-argument cases didn’t in 1-overt-argument cases, and suggested that they should pattern the same if subject markers were freely droppable (e.g., if wa were there and could be dropped). Pressed on this point, Kanno points out that students who preferred to drop subject markers in 2-overt-argument cases didn’t in 1-overt-argument cases, and suggested that they should pattern the same if subject markers were freely droppable (e.g., if wa were there and could be dropped).

23. Kanno’s missing controls Subjects were given controls to test their naturalness rating of dropped case markers in general. Subjects were given controls to test their naturalness rating of dropped case markers in general. But the crucial contrast has to do with the naturalness of overt vs. dropped case markers on wh-words. But the crucial contrast has to do with the naturalness of overt vs. dropped case markers on wh-words. Yet no naturalness measure of an overt case or topic marker on a wh-phrase was obtained. Yet no naturalness measure of an overt case or topic marker on a wh-phrase was obtained. So, we’re left comparing overt case markers on non-wh-words with dropped case markers on wh-words. So, we’re left comparing overt case markers on non-wh-words with dropped case markers on wh-words.

24. The experiment What we would have liked to see: What we would have liked to see: 1. subject wa wh-phrase Ø verb Q? 1. subject wa wh-phrase Ø verb Q? 2. *wh-subject Ø object acc verb Q? 2. *wh-subject Ø object acc verb Q? 3. pro wh-object Ø verb Q? 3. pro wh-object Ø verb Q? 4. *wh-subject Ø pro verb Q? 4. *wh-subject Ø pro verb Q? 5. *wh-subject wa object acc verb Q? 5. *wh-subject wa object acc verb Q? 6. subject wa wh-phrase acc verb Q? 6. subject wa wh-phrase acc verb Q? Allowing us to test: Allowing us to test: 1 vs. 6: preference for acc drop on wh-phrases? 1 vs. 6: preference for acc drop on wh-phrases? 5: control, wa disallowed on wh-phrases? 5: control, wa disallowed on wh-phrases? 1/3 vs 2/4: preference for acc drop over nom drop? 1/3 vs 2/4: preference for acc drop over nom drop?

25. Kanno’s results

26. “UG” in L2A Kanno’s conclusion: L2 learners of Japanese have nevertheless (statistically significantly, as a group) gotten the rule about dropping subject case markers, despite the lack of evidence from the textbook, the instructor, or even English. Kanno’s conclusion: L2 learners of Japanese have nevertheless (statistically significantly, as a group) gotten the rule about dropping subject case markers, despite the lack of evidence from the textbook, the instructor, or even English. That is, they appear to know the ECP. That is, they appear to know the ECP. This shows that L2 learners are able to bring their knowledge of the ECP from L1 to bear on L2A. This shows that L2 learners are able to bring their knowledge of the ECP from L1 to bear on L2A. (But it doesn’t reach Kanno’s conclusion that UG as opposed to L1 is constraining L2A.) (But it doesn’t reach Kanno’s conclusion that UG as opposed to L1 is constraining L2A.)

27. Statistically significantly, as a group… The other thing that is surprisingly often overlooked is that the hypothesis is not about groups, it is about learners. The other thing that is surprisingly often overlooked is that the hypothesis is not about groups, it is about learners. Yet in many studies, results are reported solely in terms of the group. And all this really tells us is that probably some in the group conform to the hypothesis. Yet in many studies, results are reported solely in terms of the group. And all this really tells us is that probably some in the group conform to the hypothesis. What about the performance of individual subjects? What about the performance of individual subjects?

28. Statistically significantly, as a group… To look at the performance by subject, Kanno classified each subject in terms of their preferences (whether that particular subject generally rated ga drop or o drop more favorably). To look at the performance by subject, Kanno classified each subject in terms of their preferences (whether that particular subject generally rated ga drop or o drop more favorably). And, while not 100-0, the subjects overwhelmingly preferred o drop. So the conclusion (that the L2’ers are obeying the ECP) appears to be safe. And, while not 100-0, the subjects overwhelmingly preferred o drop. So the conclusion (that the L2’ers are obeying the ECP) appears to be safe.

29. All I really needed to know I learned in UG “The linkage of concept and sound can be acquired on minimal evidence, so variation [among languages] here is not surprising. However, the possible sounds are narrowly constrained, and the concepts may be virtually fixed. It is hard to imagine otherwise, given the rate of lexical acquisition, which is about a word an hour from ages two to eight, with lexical items typically acquired on a single exposure, in highly ambiguous circumstances, but understood in delicate and extraordinary complexity that goes vastly beyond what is recorded in the most comprehensive dictionary, which, like the most comprehensive traditional grammar, merely gives hints that suffice for people who basically know the answers, largely innately.” Chomsky (2000, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind), p. 120. “The linkage of concept and sound can be acquired on minimal evidence, so variation [among languages] here is not surprising. However, the possible sounds are narrowly constrained, and the concepts may be virtually fixed. It is hard to imagine otherwise, given the rate of lexical acquisition, which is about a word an hour from ages two to eight, with lexical items typically acquired on a single exposure, in highly ambiguous circumstances, but understood in delicate and extraordinary complexity that goes vastly beyond what is recorded in the most comprehensive dictionary, which, like the most comprehensive traditional grammar, merely gives hints that suffice for people who basically know the answers, largely innately.” Chomsky (2000, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind), p. 120.

30. Influence of UG in some form is probably inevitable… Like in L1A, the input is almost certainly degenerate, and the negative evidence there might be isn’t enough to make the subtle complexities of language learnable, and for negative evidence (in the form of correction) to be of any use, L2 learners have to make errors, yet for these subtle complexities, the learners don’t seem to make the crucial errors that would be required to learn them. Like in L1A, the input is almost certainly degenerate, and the negative evidence there might be isn’t enough to make the subtle complexities of language learnable, and for negative evidence (in the form of correction) to be of any use, L2 learners have to make errors, yet for these subtle complexities, the learners don’t seem to make the crucial errors that would be required to learn them. Kanno’s experiment (among others) shows that L2 learners seem to “go beyond the evidence.” Kanno’s experiment (among others) shows that L2 learners seem to “go beyond the evidence.”

31. How is UG “used” in L2A? What is UG really? What is UG really? Probably the simplest view of it is that UG constrains the kinds of languages we can learn. For the moment, assume we’re talking about L1A. Probably the simplest view of it is that UG constrains the kinds of languages we can learn. For the moment, assume we’re talking about L1A. UG says: You can’t learn a language that lacks the ECP. You can’t learn a language that doesn’t respect constraints on movement out of an island… UG says: You can’t learn a language that lacks the ECP. You can’t learn a language that doesn’t respect constraints on movement out of an island…

32. How is UG “used” in L2A? UG shaped your L1, we take that to be essentially beyond dispute in some form… but when you learn L2, you still know L1. UG shaped your L1, we take that to be essentially beyond dispute in some form… but when you learn L2, you still know L1. So, perhaps: UG constrains how you learn L2 (directly, like it constrained your L1) So, perhaps: UG constrains how you learn L2 (directly, like it constrained your L1) Or, perhaps: Your L1 constrains how you learn L2 (indirectly, UG constrains L1, L1 constrains L2) Or, perhaps: Your L1 constrains how you learn L2 (indirectly, UG constrains L1, L1 constrains L2) Or, perhaps: Nothing language-related constrains how you learn L2—it’s like learning chess. Or, perhaps: Nothing language-related constrains how you learn L2—it’s like learning chess.

33. How is UG “used” in L2A? A lot of the early (198X) studies tried to classify their hypotheses about the involvement of UG in L2A in terms of “access”. A lot of the early (198X) studies tried to classify their hypotheses about the involvement of UG in L2A in terms of “access”. Full Access—UG constrains L2A. Full Access—UG constrains L2A. (Partial Access—UG constrains L2A partly.) (Partial Access—UG constrains L2A partly.) No / Indirect Access—UG is not involved in L2A (except insofar as it constrains L1) No / Indirect Access—UG is not involved in L2A (except insofar as it constrains L1)

34. An independent question— what role does L1 play in L2A? Full Transfer—the properties (parameters) of L1 are taken as the “starting point” in L2A. Full Transfer—the properties (parameters) of L1 are taken as the “starting point” in L2A. Partial Transfer—some of the parameters of L1 are taken as the “starting point” in L2A, while some others start in an independent setting. Partial Transfer—some of the parameters of L1 are taken as the “starting point” in L2A, while some others start in an independent setting. No Transfer—the parameter settings of L1 do not affect L2A. No Transfer—the parameter settings of L1 do not affect L2A.

35. Access hypotheses The model these early hypotheses work with is essentially that UG provides a blueprint or a template for languages, which is used to create a concrete instantiation of a language. The model these early hypotheses work with is essentially that UG provides a blueprint or a template for languages, which is used to create a concrete instantiation of a language. If this means something to you: Language as OOP. If this means something to you: Language as OOP. Principles Parm 1: — (A, B) Parm 2: — (A, B, C) … Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: B … UG L1 L1A

36. Access hypotheses Once L1 has been instantiated, the template might become unavailable. In this case, the only available information about what languages are like is what’s instantiated in L1. Once L1 has been instantiated, the template might become unavailable. In this case, the only available information about what languages are like is what’s instantiated in L1. Principles Parm 1: — (A, B) Parm 2: — (A, B, C) … Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: B … UG L1

37. Access hypotheses The No / Indirect access hypothesis supposes that the principles and parameters of L1 (but not the information in UG) are available in forming an instantiation of L2. The No / Indirect access hypothesis supposes that the principles and parameters of L1 (but not the information in UG) are available in forming an instantiation of L2. Principles Parm 1: — (A, B) Parm 2: — (A, B, C) … Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: B … UG L1

38. Access hypotheses The full access hypothesis supposes that the template is still available to instantiate L2 the same way L1 was instantiated. The full access hypothesis supposes that the template is still available to instantiate L2 the same way L1 was instantiated. Principles Parm 1: — (A, B) Parm 2: — (A, B, C) … Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: B … UG L1 L1A Active Principles Parm 1: B Parm 2: A … L2 L2A

39. Access hypotheses A partial access hypothesis supposes that certain parts of the template are no longer available (fixed in the L1 settings) but other parts can still be used to instantiate L2. A partial access hypothesis supposes that certain parts of the template are no longer available (fixed in the L1 settings) but other parts can still be used to instantiate L2. Principles Parm 1: — (A, B) Parm 2: — (A, B, C) … Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: B … UG L1 L1A Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: C … L2 L2A

40. Distinguishing between access hypotheses The no access hypothesis takes L2A to be a general learning process, not constrained by properties of UG. The no access hypothesis takes L2A to be a general learning process, not constrained by properties of UG. As such, we do not expect the IL of second language learners to conform to the specifications of UG. We expect that the IL would be free to exhibit properties unlike any natural language (L1). As such, we do not expect the IL of second language learners to conform to the specifications of UG. We expect that the IL would be free to exhibit properties unlike any natural language (L1). So we look for “wildness” in the IL grammar of second language learners—for indications of grammar which would not qualify as an L1. So we look for “wildness” in the IL grammar of second language learners—for indications of grammar which would not qualify as an L1.

41. Distinguishing between access hypotheses The full access hypothesis, on the other hand, predicts that IL grammars of second language learners, even while not actually the grammar of the target language, will still conform to the restrictions UG places on natural languages. It will operate under the same principles, and it will have parameters which are set to a setting which is possible in natural language. The full access hypothesis, on the other hand, predicts that IL grammars of second language learners, even while not actually the grammar of the target language, will still conform to the restrictions UG places on natural languages. It will operate under the same principles, and it will have parameters which are set to a setting which is possible in natural language.

42. Distinguishing between access hypotheses The partial access hypothesis is the least well-defined. It places itself somewhere between full access and no access. The partial access hypothesis is the least well-defined. It places itself somewhere between full access and no access. We might see that a second language learner’s IL shows evidence of parameter settings different from the L1 (or not, depending on which parts of UG we are hypothesizing L2A access to). We might see that a second language learner’s IL shows evidence of parameter settings different from the L1 (or not, depending on which parts of UG we are hypothesizing L2A access to). We might see evidence of principles not used in L1 but provided for in UG. We might see evidence of principles not used in L1 but provided for in UG. The partial access hypothesis is basically the fallback position, the compromise we need to make if the facts don’t fit into one of the other hypotheses. The partial access hypothesis is basically the fallback position, the compromise we need to make if the facts don’t fit into one of the other hypotheses.

43. Access/Transfer The basic hypotheses out there to explore and evaluate (not including retreats to partial transfer and/or access): The basic hypotheses out there to explore and evaluate (not including retreats to partial transfer and/or access): Full transfer/No access: L2 knowledge is fundamentally different from L1 knowledge, based on L1 knowledge plus conversion rules. Full transfer/No access: L2 knowledge is fundamentally different from L1 knowledge, based on L1 knowledge plus conversion rules. Full transfer/Full access: L2A is as flexible as L1A, with L1 as the starting point. L1 and L2 “distance” should affect ease/course of acquisition. Full transfer/Full access: L2A is as flexible as L1A, with L1 as the starting point. L1 and L2 “distance” should affect ease/course of acquisition. No transfer/Full access: L2A is as flexible as L1A, and the learner’s L1 should not have an effect. No transfer/Full access: L2A is as flexible as L1A, and the learner’s L1 should not have an effect.

44. In this context, UG is probably best thought of as defining a “shape” that language knowledge can take. In this context, UG is probably best thought of as defining a “shape” that language knowledge can take. Parameters define ways in which stored knowledge can conform to the “shape” of UG. Parameters define ways in which stored knowledge can conform to the “shape” of UG. The LAD is a system which analyzes the PLD and sets the parameters. The LAD is a system which analyzes the PLD and sets the parameters. LAD PLD UG Subjacency Binding Theory A note about UG

45. So two languages which differ with respect to one parameter setting might be represented kind of like this. So two languages which differ with respect to one parameter setting might be represented kind of like this. Language A Language B Principles and Parameters

46. Many of the discussions about “UG access” seem to confound these two aspects of the human language capacity. But it could be that the LAD becomes impaired/inactive after L1A while the “shape of language knowledge” is still available for L2A. Many of the discussions about “UG access” seem to confound these two aspects of the human language capacity. But it could be that the LAD becomes impaired/inactive after L1A while the “shape of language knowledge” is still available for L2A. (It could also be that the “shape” of UG is completely determined by LAD—that’s the interpretation that I called “confounded.” It’s not internally inconsistent, but it isn’t a necessary—or even usual—interpretation of UG) (It could also be that the “shape” of UG is completely determined by LAD—that’s the interpretation that I called “confounded.” It’s not internally inconsistent, but it isn’t a necessary—or even usual—interpretation of UG) LAD PLD UG Subjacency Binding Theory Modeling human language capacity

47. In favor of no access… The well-known “critical period” effects seem to point toward a view like no access; adult L2A is much less uniform, typically not fully successful, and appears to involve much more conscious effort. The well-known “critical period” effects seem to point toward a view like no access; adult L2A is much less uniform, typically not fully successful, and appears to involve much more conscious effort. Proponents argue that their observations about differences in the course and end result of L2A (vs. L1A) indicate that principles of UG are not being obeyed (for example, learners positing rules that appeal to linear order, rather than structure, contra Structure Dependency). Proponents argue that their observations about differences in the course and end result of L2A (vs. L1A) indicate that principles of UG are not being obeyed (for example, learners positing rules that appeal to linear order, rather than structure, contra Structure Dependency). Keep in mind that these arguments are really arguments about LAD and not about UG as the “shape of language knowledge” though. Keep in mind that these arguments are really arguments about LAD and not about UG as the “shape of language knowledge” though.

48. For example… Meisel (1997) looked at L1A and L2A of negation in German, French, and Basque. Meisel (1997) looked at L1A and L2A of negation in German, French, and Basque. In L1A in the three languages, negation appears to go through similar stages. In L1A in the three languages, negation appears to go through similar stages. First, it is placed externally (generally initially, sometimes finally), unlike in the adult language First, it is placed externally (generally initially, sometimes finally), unlike in the adult language No(t) I go homeI go home no(t). No(t) I go homeI go home no(t). Then, it appears sentence-internally, in an appropriate position with respect to the tensed verb for the target language (differs by language). Then, it appears sentence-internally, in an appropriate position with respect to the tensed verb for the target language (differs by language). L1A: Once children show evidence of knowing how to use finite verbs, they seem to have no particular trouble with the syntax of negation in the target language. L1A: Once children show evidence of knowing how to use finite verbs, they seem to have no particular trouble with the syntax of negation in the target language.

49. Meisel (1997) For L2A, the consensus opinion from previous studies seems to be that second language learners, regardless of target and first languages seem to go through pretty much invariant stages with respect to negation. For L2A, the consensus opinion from previous studies seems to be that second language learners, regardless of target and first languages seem to go through pretty much invariant stages with respect to negation. First, preverbal or initial negation. First, preverbal or initial negation. Then, more target-like internal negation. Then, more target-like internal negation. Sounds like the L1A sequences; this made people eager to try to apply the same explanations. Sounds like the L1A sequences; this made people eager to try to apply the same explanations. However, almost all of these studies used English as the target language, and in fact some studies seemed to have “missed” the first stage. Bottom line: that “consensus opinion” is pretty suspect. However, almost all of these studies used English as the target language, and in fact some studies seemed to have “missed” the first stage. Bottom line: that “consensus opinion” is pretty suspect.

50. Meisel (1997) Closer investigation reveals that not all second language learners go through an “initial negation” stage, even if the L1 has preverbal negation. Closer investigation reveals that not all second language learners go through an “initial negation” stage, even if the L1 has preverbal negation. And, unlike in L1A, where there is an initial negation stage, it does not seem to disappear at the same time as the control of finite verbs. And, unlike in L1A, where there is an initial negation stage, it does not seem to disappear at the same time as the control of finite verbs. Whereas “initial negation” in L1A is usually sentence-initial (before the subject), “initial negation” in L2A is often preverbal (but after the subject). Whereas “initial negation” in L1A is usually sentence-initial (before the subject), “initial negation” in L2A is often preverbal (but after the subject). That is to say, people were not careful with what they were willing to call “initial negation” when they were jumping on the L2A- sequence-is-like-L1A-sequence bandwagon. That is to say, people were not careful with what they were willing to call “initial negation” when they were jumping on the L2A- sequence-is-like-L1A-sequence bandwagon. Meisel suggests that initial negation is actually a characteristic of a certain kind of learner, a reflection of a strategy that (some) people use in L2A. Meisel suggests that initial negation is actually a characteristic of a certain kind of learner, a reflection of a strategy that (some) people use in L2A.

51. Meisel (1997) Rather than observing structure-dependent negation placement based on [±finite], the results tend to suggest strategies based on linear order (i.e. put negation after the verb). Rather than observing structure-dependent negation placement based on [±finite], the results tend to suggest strategies based on linear order (i.e. put negation after the verb). Meisel concludes that any UG involvement in L2A is much less clear given these differences between L1A and L2A. Meisel concludes that any UG involvement in L2A is much less clear given these differences between L1A and L2A.

52. Concerning this argument Notice that this is primarily an argument about sequence of acquisition. Roughly, the idea is: Because the sequence of L1A and L2A do not match, and assuming L1A is driven by UG, L2A can’t be also driven by UG. Notice that this is primarily an argument about sequence of acquisition. Roughly, the idea is: Because the sequence of L1A and L2A do not match, and assuming L1A is driven by UG, L2A can’t be also driven by UG. In short, this seems to be an argument about whether the (L1) LAD is involved in L2A. It doesn’t really fully reach the question of whether UG constrains L2A. In short, this seems to be an argument about whether the (L1) LAD is involved in L2A. It doesn’t really fully reach the question of whether UG constrains L2A. To show the UG does not constrain L2A, we should be looking for IL grammars that are UG-illicit (regardless of how they are arrived at). To show the UG does not constrain L2A, we should be looking for IL grammars that are UG-illicit (regardless of how they are arrived at). This question will recur through much upcoming discussion… This question will recur through much upcoming discussion…

53. To argue for full access… Threads of argumentation: Threads of argumentation: Second language learners obey certain universal principles which (appear to) work differently in the TL than in the learners’ L1. Second language learners obey certain universal principles which (appear to) work differently in the TL than in the learners’ L1. (E.g., Kanno 1996 discussed earlier…) (E.g., Kanno 1996 discussed earlier…) Second language learners’ IL knowledge show evidence of a parameter setting different from their L1, indicating that the parametric options are still available Second language learners’ IL knowledge show evidence of a parameter setting different from their L1, indicating that the parametric options are still available

54. In favor of full access… A simple example of thread two, from Flynn (1996), is L2A between Japanese and English. A simple example of thread two, from Flynn (1996), is L2A between Japanese and English. Japanese and English differ in their setting of the “head parameter”, which indicates whether the object comes before the verb (Japanese, SOV, head-final) or after the verb (English, SVO, head- initial). Japanese and English differ in their setting of the “head parameter”, which indicates whether the object comes before the verb (Japanese, SOV, head-final) or after the verb (English, SVO, head- initial). L2 J-->E learners appear to very quickly set this IL parameter correctly, suggesting that they know that both head-initial and head-final are possible settings for this parameter, although their L1 parameter is committed to head-final. L2 J-->E learners appear to very quickly set this IL parameter correctly, suggesting that they know that both head-initial and head-final are possible settings for this parameter, although their L1 parameter is committed to head-final.

55. In favor of full access… Flynn on Subjacency (thread one): Flynn on Subjacency (thread one): In Japanese, wh-words are not “moved” to the beginning of a wh-question; Japanese is a “wh- in-situ” language. Its wh-words appear in the same position that the trace “appears” in English. In Japanese, wh-words are not “moved” to the beginning of a wh-question; Japanese is a “wh- in-situ” language. Its wh-words appear in the same position that the trace “appears” in English. Assumption: Subjacency is concerned only with displacement of wh-words. It is a principle which says that a wh-word cannot be displaced out of certain kinds of islands (conjunctions, embedded questions, complex noun phrases, …). Assumption: Subjacency is concerned only with displacement of wh-words. It is a principle which says that a wh-word cannot be displaced out of certain kinds of islands (conjunctions, embedded questions, complex noun phrases, …).

56. In favor of full access… Thus, Subjacency does not seem to rule out any wh-questions in Japanese. It is possible to ask questions like: Thus, Subjacency does not seem to rule out any wh-questions in Japanese. It is possible to ask questions like: ‘You met the man that gave what to Mary?’ ‘You met the man that gave what to Mary?’ Cf. *What i did you meet the man that gave t i to Mary? Cf. *What i did you meet the man that gave t i to Mary? Flynn takes this to mean that Subjacency is essentially “inactive” in Japanese. It does not play a role in wh-question formation in Japanese. Flynn takes this to mean that Subjacency is essentially “inactive” in Japanese. It does not play a role in wh-question formation in Japanese.

57. In favor of full access… Supposing that Subjacency is not active in Japanese, Flynn considers L2A of English by Japanese speakers. Supposing that Subjacency is not active in Japanese, Flynn considers L2A of English by Japanese speakers. Would these second language learners nevertheless obey Subjacency in English? Would these second language learners nevertheless obey Subjacency in English? Do they still have access to this principle provided by UG even though it is not used in their L1? Do they still have access to this principle provided by UG even though it is not used in their L1? Flynn’s experiments seem to indicate that Japanese speakers learning L2 English do obey Subjacency, and concludes that they must therefore still have access to UG during L2A. Flynn’s experiments seem to indicate that Japanese speakers learning L2 English do obey Subjacency, and concludes that they must therefore still have access to UG during L2A.

58. Getting at the “IL grammar” What do the L2 learners know? What do the L2 learners know? *Productions: We don’t have a great deal of success learning about the structure of linguistic knowledge in the native speaker domain by looking just at productions. Things aren’t different for L2 learners. *Productions: We don’t have a great deal of success learning about the structure of linguistic knowledge in the native speaker domain by looking just at productions. Things aren’t different for L2 learners. No information on what is ungrammatical—at best, information on what is dispreferred/avoided. No information on what is ungrammatical—at best, information on what is dispreferred/avoided. Performance errors happen, but that doesn’t indicate a lack of competence. Performance errors happen, but that doesn’t indicate a lack of competence.

59. Grammaticality judgments One way of testing people’s (whole) competence is to ask them to rate sentences in their second language. One way of testing people’s (whole) competence is to ask them to rate sentences in their second language. Who did you say that bought John dinner? 1-bad2-a little weird3-natural Who did you say that bought John dinner? 1-bad2-a little weird3-natural I wonder what will John wear tomorrow. 1-bad2-a little weird3-natural I wonder what will John wear tomorrow. 1-bad2-a little weird3-natural

60. GJ tasks aren’t perfect, though… As in any experiment, you may have biases… As in any experiment, you may have biases… Some people are hesitant to take an extreme position, may never rate a sentence 1 or 3. Some people are hesitant to take an extreme position, may never rate a sentence 1 or 3. Some people may rate the sentences based on how much sense it makes, rather than on the syntactic structure. And it’s hard to correct for that, because if you ask someone what’s wrong with Some people may rate the sentences based on how much sense it makes, rather than on the syntactic structure. And it’s hard to correct for that, because if you ask someone what’s wrong with What did you laugh after John bought for Sue? What did you laugh after John bought for Sue? (or how to correct it), even native speakers won’t be able to say. (or how to correct it), even native speakers won’t be able to say.

61. GJ tasks But we have the same trouble with kids too… We can try to employ the same kinds of tricks with adults… But we have the same trouble with kids too… We can try to employ the same kinds of tricks with adults… acting out a sentence acting out a sentence identifying which picture best depicts the subject matter of the sentence identifying which picture best depicts the subject matter of the sentence judging whether a sentence is true or false of a scene. judging whether a sentence is true or false of a scene. answering an ambiguous question to see wh-word scope. answering an ambiguous question to see wh-word scope. …

62. Locating the source of the errors Suppose that an adult L2 learner of E. rates Suppose that an adult L2 learner of E. rates What did you laugh after John bought for Sue? What did you laugh after John bought for Sue? as natural. Does that mean they don’t know Subjacency? Well, not necessarily. They may also not understand how to make complex clauses, adverbial clauses, etc. Well, not necessarily. They may also not understand how to make complex clauses, adverbial clauses, etc. One can only really say that people know or don’t know a principle of UG once they have the appropriate structures to apply them to. One can only really say that people know or don’t know a principle of UG once they have the appropriate structures to apply them to.

63. “How involved is UG in L2A?” Very (UG constrains IL) vs. not (L1 constrains IL) Very (UG constrains IL) vs. not (L1 constrains IL) To figure out which is right, we need to look at UG constraints or parameters which are not used in the learner’s L1. If there is something that holds in all languages, say, the  -criterion, showing that L2 learners respect the  -criterion doesn’t tell us whether that is because UG required it or because their L1 does. To figure out which is right, we need to look at UG constraints or parameters which are not used in the learner’s L1. If there is something that holds in all languages, say, the  -criterion, showing that L2 learners respect the  -criterion doesn’t tell us whether that is because UG required it or because their L1 does.

64. Two possible things to look at Parameter settings which vary between L1 and L2… Parameter settings which vary between L1 and L2… English: Bounding nodes for Subjacency are DP and IP. English: Bounding nodes for Subjacency are DP and IP. Italian/French: Bounding nodes for Subjacency are DP and CP. Italian/French: Bounding nodes for Subjacency are DP and CP. Universal principles which are inapplicable in L1 but apply in L2… Universal principles which are inapplicable in L1 but apply in L2… The ECP as used to control case marker drop in Japanese The ECP as used to control case marker drop in Japanese

65. “Universal principles inapplicable in L1?” As our theories of syntax develop, finding such things becomes harder and harder, since the goal of theoretical syntax is in general to say “All languages are really the same except for some very surface-y phenomena.” As our theories of syntax develop, finding such things becomes harder and harder, since the goal of theoretical syntax is in general to say “All languages are really the same except for some very surface-y phenomena.”

66. wh-movement Circa 1981, English moved its wh-words, Japanese didn’t, so Subjacency wasn’t relevant for Japanese. Circa 1981, English moved its wh-words, Japanese didn’t, so Subjacency wasn’t relevant for Japanese. However, since then, the proposals have changed—all languages move their wh-words to SpecCP, just some do it after SS. However, since then, the proposals have changed—all languages move their wh-words to SpecCP, just some do it after SS. Evidence has appeared which shows that under the right conditions, Japanese does respect Subjacency. Evidence has appeared which shows that under the right conditions, Japanese does respect Subjacency. Thus: Looking at whether Japanese speakers learning English respect Subjacency or not still hasn’t necessarily gotten away from L1. Thus: Looking at whether Japanese speakers learning English respect Subjacency or not still hasn’t necessarily gotten away from L1.

67. Atrophied options? The L2A literature has historically taken a fairly old, conservative view of UG. It tends to assume that UG provides options from which languages choose, and that something that a language doesn’t choose might become unavailable as a choice later. The L2A literature has historically taken a fairly old, conservative view of UG. It tends to assume that UG provides options from which languages choose, and that something that a language doesn’t choose might become unavailable as a choice later. That is, the underlying assumption seems to be that English speakers don’t know the ECP, really. That Japanese speakers don’t know Subjacency. That is, the underlying assumption seems to be that English speakers don’t know the ECP, really. That Japanese speakers don’t know Subjacency. Modern syntacticians just don’t think of syntax as working this way anymore. This kind of view is a little bit closer to what people still mostly believe about certain aspects of phonology, though. More in a bit… Modern syntacticians just don’t think of syntax as working this way anymore. This kind of view is a little bit closer to what people still mostly believe about certain aspects of phonology, though. More in a bit…

68. Parameters The bottom line is: it’s going to be hard to make a convincing case that you’ve got a principle of UG which is not known (utilized) by an L1 speaker. Perhaps, if you are lucky, you might find something plausible now, but advances in syntactic theory will do everything they can to undermine your position. The bottom line is: it’s going to be hard to make a convincing case that you’ve got a principle of UG which is not known (utilized) by an L1 speaker. Perhaps, if you are lucky, you might find something plausible now, but advances in syntactic theory will do everything they can to undermine your position. However, languages do differ in the values of the parameters (e.g., Subjacency bounding nodes). Thread two is the way to go. However, languages do differ in the values of the parameters (e.g., Subjacency bounding nodes). Thread two is the way to go.

69. Parameters We can also look at aspects of parameter setting in L2A. We can also look at aspects of parameter setting in L2A. Part transfer (what settings get adopted as part of the initial state of the the second language learner’s interlanguage grammar?), part accessibility/involvement of UG (can second language learners “reset” these parameters? If so, the lists of options provided by UG are still available—that is, UG is available/involved). Part transfer (what settings get adopted as part of the initial state of the the second language learner’s interlanguage grammar?), part accessibility/involvement of UG (can second language learners “reset” these parameters? If so, the lists of options provided by UG are still available—that is, UG is available/involved).

70. Phonological parameters Describing adult native-speaker phonological grammars requires abstract structures not unlike the structures required for syntax. Describing adult native-speaker phonological grammars requires abstract structures not unlike the structures required for syntax. Just like for syntax, differences between languages can be characterized in terms of phonological parameters. Just like for syntax, differences between languages can be characterized in terms of phonological parameters. And in this domain, there might actually be something like “phonological options not used in the L1” to talk about. And in this domain, there might actually be something like “phonological options not used in the L1” to talk about.

71. Some basic concepts There is a fairly well-defined set of possible sounds that languages make use of. There is a fairly well-defined set of possible sounds that languages make use of. Languages differ in which of these sounds play a role in the language. Languages differ in which of these sounds play a role in the language. For example, some languages have a sound like the English v, some don’t. For example, some languages have a sound like the English v, some don’t. The “unit of sound” is the segment. The “unit of sound” is the segment.

72. Some basic concepts There are a lot of different things that go into determining a segment. There are a lot of different things that go into determining a segment. Place of articulation Place of articulation Voicing Voicing Manner of articulation Manner of articulation Aspiration Aspiration Tenseness/laxness of tongue Tenseness/laxness of tongue …

73. Segment distinctions /p/ vs. /t/ vs. /k/ : place of articulation /p/ vs. /t/ vs. /k/ : place of articulation /p/ vs. /b/, /t/ vs. /d/: ±voice /p/ vs. /b/, /t/ vs. /d/: ±voice /t/ vs. /s/: ±continuant /t/ vs. /s/: ±continuant /s/ vs. /sh/: ±distributive /s/ vs. /sh/: ±distributive /e/ vs. /i/: ±high /e/ vs. /i/: ±high /e/ vs. /a/: ±back /e/ vs. /a/: ±back /a/ vs. / o /: ±round /a/ vs. / o /: ±round …

74. Some basic concepts Languages differ in what they “pay attention to” when differentiating segments from one another. Languages differ in what they “pay attention to” when differentiating segments from one another. English does not distinguish aspirated and non-aspirated consonants. The p in pit is aspirated (p h ), the p in spit. They “sound the same” to speakers of English. English does not distinguish aspirated and non-aspirated consonants. The p in pit is aspirated (p h ), the p in spit. They “sound the same” to speakers of English. Other languages distinguish p from ph—so pit and p h it could be different words, with different meanings. Other languages distinguish p from ph—so pit and p h it could be different words, with different meanings. The distinguishable segments in a language are the phonemes of the language. One parameter of variation between languages is their phonemic inventory. The distinguishable segments in a language are the phonemes of the language. One parameter of variation between languages is their phonemic inventory.

75. R vs. L An oft-used example of this is the distinction between r vs. l in English and the lack of said distinction in languages like Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. An oft-used example of this is the distinction between r vs. l in English and the lack of said distinction in languages like Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. In Korean, for example, both segments are used, but it is phonologically conditioned— between vowels, it is r and elsewhere it is l. You don’t get to choose which one you use in a given context. So there’s no distinction. (Sunhi-lul = […-rul]) In Korean, for example, both segments are used, but it is phonologically conditioned— between vowels, it is r and elsewhere it is l. You don’t get to choose which one you use in a given context. So there’s no distinction. (Sunhi-lul = […-rul])

76. L1A and contrasts Little kids start out being able to distinguish contrasts between all possible segments, but quickly zoom in on the contrasts in their environment, losing the contrasts… Looks like a critical period, difficult for UG in L2A… Little kids start out being able to distinguish contrasts between all possible segments, but quickly zoom in on the contrasts in their environment, losing the contrasts… Looks like a critical period, difficult for UG in L2A… From Werker (1994): Hindi-English From Werker (1994): Hindi-English ba ~ da d h a ~ t h a Ta ~ ta H adults FineFineFine E infants (6-8mo) FineFineFine E kids (up to 4) FineBadBad E adults FinePoorBad

77. L2A and UG We can ask many of the same questions we asked about syntax, but of phonology. We can ask many of the same questions we asked about syntax, but of phonology. Learners have an interlanguage grammar of phonology as well. Learners have an interlanguage grammar of phonology as well. Is this grammar primarily a product of transfer? Is this grammar primarily a product of transfer? Can parameters be set for the target language values? Can parameters be set for the target language values? Do interlanguage phonologies act like real languages (constrained by UG)? Do interlanguage phonologies act like real languages (constrained by UG)? Here, it it rather obvious just from our anecdotal experience with the world that transfer plays a big role and parameters are hard to set (to a value different from the L1’s value). Here, it it rather obvious just from our anecdotal experience with the world that transfer plays a big role and parameters are hard to set (to a value different from the L1’s value).

78. Phonological interference If L1’ers lose the ability to hear a contrast not in the L1, there is a strong possibility that the L1 phonology filters the L2 input. If L1’ers lose the ability to hear a contrast not in the L1, there is a strong possibility that the L1 phonology filters the L2 input. L2’ers may not be getting the same data as L1’ers. Even if the LAD were still working, it would be getting different data. L2’ers may not be getting the same data as L1’ers. Even if the LAD were still working, it would be getting different data. If you don’t perceive the contrast, you won’t acquire the contrast. If you don’t perceive the contrast, you won’t acquire the contrast.

79. Phonological features Phonologists over the years have come up with a system of (universal) features that differentiate between sounds. Phonologists over the years have come up with a system of (universal) features that differentiate between sounds. /p/ vs. /b/ differ in [+voice]. /p/ vs. /b/ differ in [+voice]. /p/ vs. /f/ differ in [+continuant]. /p/ vs. /f/ differ in [+continuant]. … What L1’ers seem to be doing is determining which features contrast in the language. If the language doesn’t distinguish voiced from voiceless consonants, L1’ers come to ignore [±voice]. What L1’ers seem to be doing is determining which features contrast in the language. If the language doesn’t distinguish voiced from voiceless consonants, L1’ers come to ignore [±voice].

80. Phonological features, filtering Brown (2000): Presented pairs of nonwords to speakers of Japanese, Korean, Mandarin. Brown (2000): Presented pairs of nonwords to speakers of Japanese, Korean, Mandarin. Japanese and Korean speakers didn’t perceive the l ~ r contrast, Mandarin speakers did, although none of the languages has an l ~ r contrast. Japanese and Korean speakers didn’t perceive the l ~ r contrast, Mandarin speakers did, although none of the languages has an l ~ r contrast. However, Mandarin does have other segments which differ in [+coronal] ([r]), so Mandarin speakers do need to distinguish [±coronal] elsewhere. However, Mandarin does have other segments which differ in [+coronal] ([r]), so Mandarin speakers do need to distinguish [±coronal] elsewhere.

81. Phonological features, filtering Han (1992). Japanese distinguishes geminate from non- geminate stops (consonant length; k vs. kk, e.g., black owl vs. black cat). English doesn’t (*kkat vs. kat). Han (1992). Japanese distinguishes geminate from non- geminate stops (consonant length; k vs. kk, e.g., black owl vs. black cat). English doesn’t (*kkat vs. kat). English speakers of Japanese (even highly proficient otherwise) either missed this contrast altogether or produced long consonants that were not native-like (too short). English speakers of Japanese (even highly proficient otherwise) either missed this contrast altogether or produced long consonants that were not native-like (too short).

82. An interesting idea (courtesy of Carol Neidle) If you were to learn French, you would be taught conjugations of regular and irregular verbs. Regular -er verbs have a pattern that looks like this: If you were to learn French, you would be taught conjugations of regular and irregular verbs. Regular -er verbs have a pattern that looks like this: Infinitive: donner ‘give’ Infinitive: donner ‘give’ 1sgje donne1plnous donnons 1sgje donne1plnous donnons 2sgtu donnes2plvous donnez 2sgtu donnes2plvous donnez 3sgil donne3plils donnent 3sgil donne3plils donnent

83. Some French “irregulars” Infinitive: donner ‘give’ Infinitive: donner ‘give’ 1sgje donne1plnous donnons 1sgje donne1plnous donnons 2sgtu donnes2plvous donnez 2sgtu donnes2plvous donnez 3sgil donne3plils donnent 3sgil donne3plils donnent Another class of verbs including acheter ‘buy’ is classified as irregular, because the vowel quality changes through the paradigm. Another class of verbs including acheter ‘buy’ is classified as irregular, because the vowel quality changes through the paradigm. Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ 1sgje cède1plnous cédons 1sgje cède1plnous cédons 2sgtu cèdes2plvous cédez 2sgtu cèdes2plvous cédez 3sgil cède3plils cèdent 3sgil cède3plils cèdent

84. Some French “irregulars” Infinitive: donner ‘give’ Infinitive: donner ‘give’ 1sgje donne1plnous donnons 1sgje donne1plnous donnons 2sgtu donnes2plvous donnez 2sgtu donnes2plvous donnez 3sgil donne3plils donnent 3sgil donne3plils donnent The way it’s usually taught, you just have to memorize that in the nous and vous form you have “é” and in the others you have “è”. The way it’s usually taught, you just have to memorize that in the nous and vous form you have “é” and in the others you have “è”. Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ 1sgje cède1plnous cédons 1sgje cède1plnous cédons 2sgtu cèdes2plvous cédez 2sgtu cèdes2plvous cédez 3sgil cède3plils cèdent 3sgil cède3plils cèdent

85. Some French “irregulars” However, the pattern makes perfect phonological sense in French—if you have a closed syllable (CVC), you get è, otherwise you get é. However, the pattern makes perfect phonological sense in French—if you have a closed syllable (CVC), you get è, otherwise you get é. [s  d] (cède) [se.de] (cédez) [s  d] (cède) [se.de] (cédez) So why is this considered irregular? So why is this considered irregular? Because in English, you think of the sounds in cédez as [sed.de], due to the rules of English phonology. Because in English, you think of the sounds in cédez as [sed.de], due to the rules of English phonology. Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ viewed from English Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ viewed from English 1sgje cèd(e)1plnous céd.dõ(ns) 1sgje cèd(e)1plnous céd.dõ(ns) 2sgtu cèd(es)2plvous céd.de(z) 2sgtu cèd(es)2plvous céd.de(z) 3sgil cèd(e)3plils cèd(ent) 3sgil cèd(e)3plils cèd(ent)

86. Some French “irregulars” Because in English, you think of the sounds in cédez as [sed.de], due to the rules of English phonology. Because in English, you think of the sounds in cédez as [sed.de], due to the rules of English phonology. Since in all of these cases, English phonology would have closed syllables, there’s no generalization to be drawn— sometimes closed syllables have é and sometimes they have è. Since in all of these cases, English phonology would have closed syllables, there’s no generalization to be drawn— sometimes closed syllables have é and sometimes they have è. What could we do? What could we do? Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ 1sgje cède [sed]1plnous cédons[sed.dõ] 1sgje cède [sed]1plnous cédons[sed.dõ] 2sgtu cèdes [sed]2plvous cédez[sed.de] 2sgtu cèdes [sed]2plvous cédez[sed.de] 3sgil cède [sed] 3plils cèdent[sed] 3sgil cède [sed] 3plils cèdent[sed]

87. Some French “irregulars” If people are really “built for language” and are able to pick up language implicitly, then if people are provided with the right linguistic data, they will more or less automatically learn the generalization. If people are really “built for language” and are able to pick up language implicitly, then if people are provided with the right linguistic data, they will more or less automatically learn the generalization. Problem is: The English filter on the French data is obscuring the pattern, and hiding the generalization. Problem is: The English filter on the French data is obscuring the pattern, and hiding the generalization. Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ 1sgje cède [sed]1plnous cédons[sed.dõ] 1sgje cède [sed]1plnous cédons[sed.dõ] 2sgtu cèdes [sed]2plvous cédez[sed.de] 2sgtu cèdes [sed]2plvous cédez[sed.de] 3sgil cède [sed] 3plils cèdent[sed] 3sgil cède [sed] 3plils cèdent[sed]

88. Some French “irregulars” Something to try: Provide people with the right data, see if they pick up the pronunciation. Perhaps: exaggerate syllabification (draw attention to it). Perhaps try to instill this aspect of the phonology first? Something to try: Provide people with the right data, see if they pick up the pronunciation. Perhaps: exaggerate syllabification (draw attention to it). Perhaps try to instill this aspect of the phonology first? Et voilà. Chances are good that this will make these “irregulars” as easy to learn as regulars! Et voilà. Chances are good that this will make these “irregulars” as easy to learn as regulars! Does it work? I have no idea. Does it work? I have no idea. Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’ 1sgje cède “sed”1plnous cédons“se—dõ” 1sgje cède “sed”1plnous cédons“se—dõ” 2sgtu cèdes “sed”2plvous cédez“se—de” 2sgtu cèdes “sed”2plvous cédez“se—de” 3sgil cède “sed” 3plils cèdent“sed” 3sgil cède “sed” 3plils cèdent“sed”

89. Where we are We’re concerned with discovering to what extent linguistic theory (=theories of UG) bears on questions of L2A, with an eye toward the question: To what extent is knowledge of an L2 like knowledge of an L1? We’re concerned with discovering to what extent linguistic theory (=theories of UG) bears on questions of L2A, with an eye toward the question: To what extent is knowledge of an L2 like knowledge of an L1? Do they conform to universal principles? (ECP, Subjacency) Do they conform to universal principles? (ECP, Subjacency) No? UG is not constraining L2. Yes? Consistent with UG constraining L2, but not evidence for it. No? UG is not constraining L2. Yes? Consistent with UG constraining L2, but not evidence for it. Do they have a parameter setting different from the L1 (and all of the consequences following therefrom)? Do they have a parameter setting different from the L1 (and all of the consequences following therefrom)? Yes? UG is constraining L2. No? Inconclusive for the general case. Yes? UG is constraining L2. No? Inconclusive for the general case.

90.                       