1. Complex wh-questions in native and non-native grammars: acceptability judgements at the quality/quantity crossroads
Juana M. Liceras, Anahí Alba de la Fuente, Lia Walsh and Miroslav Slowik
University of Ottawa
GURT 2012

2. Language Acquisition Research Lab
Research Project:
Language Acquisition Research Lab
University of Ottawa [
Colleagues: J. Esleben, R. Fernández Fuertes, L. Sabourin, M. Tercedor Sánchez, C. Fonseca
Undergraduate Students: M. Fellman
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
[SSHRC # ]
Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology [HUM ]
We would like to thank, in the first place, the colleagues and the students who have helped us with the preparation of the data elicitation materials and the actual data elicitation; (ii) the funding agencies and last but not least, the participants.
GURT 2012

3. Three types of complex wh-questions
Long-Distance wh-questions [“L-D”] (1) Whoi do you think Simon has met whoi? ¿A quién piensas que ha conocido Simon? Scope wh-questions [“Scope”] (2) Was glaubst du wen Simon getroffen hat? *What do you think whoi Simon has met whoi? *¿Qué piensas a quién ha conocido Simon? Copy wh-questions [“Copy”] (3) Wen glaubst du wen Simon getroffen hat? *Whoi do you think whoi Simon has met whoi? *A quién piensas a quién ha conocido Simon?
Using an acceptability judgment task, we are going to investigate the status of three different types of complex wh-questions in the German and Spanish native and non-native grammars of adult speakers. The three different types of questions are:
long-distance wh-questions in (1) which are grammatical in English and Spanish (also in German and Czech). As you can see, the canonical position of the wh- question is the in the embedded sentence, but to form the complex wh-question, it has to be fronted to the complementizer of the matrix clause..
scope wh-questions in (2) which are grammatical in German and Czech but not in English or Spanish. In this case, the wh-phrase is moved only up to the complementizer of the embedded clause and the wh- WAS is placed in the complementizer of the matrix clause.
copy wh-questions as in (3) which are somehow accepted in oral German but not in English or Spanish. In this case, the wh-phrase is moved to the complementizer position of the embedded clause and copied also in the complementizer position of the matrix clause.
GURT 2012

4. Complex wh-questions in aL2 grammars
L2 English [-Scope/-Copy] • L1 Japanese • L1 Basque • L1 German and L1 Japanese • L1 French and L1 Bulgarian • L1 Spanish
Both SCOPE and COPY wh-questions have been said to occur in the adult L2 grammars of ….
Since neither input nor transfer (but for the case of L1 German) can explain their presence in L2 English…
GURT 2012

5. Accounting for wh-Scope and wh-Copy in aL2
Scope and Copy exist in natural languages, thus when neither obvious transfer nor input explain why L2 English learners accept and produce them, UG is called upon. BUT… (i) Scope and Copy have only been found in experimental data, not in spontaneous data. (ii) Scope and Copy have only been produced and accepted by speakers with a low level of proficiency. SO… Do other non-native grammars depict wh-Scope and wh- Copy?
But because SCOPE and COPY exist in some natural languages, their presence in L2 English has been attributed to the fact that adult L2 learners have access to UG.
BUT
SO…
We thought that calling upon UG was not a convincing enough explanation and decided to investigate whether processing and methodological issues played a role.
GURT 2012

6. • Studies Accounting for wh-Scope and wh-Copy in aL2
L2 German [+Scope]
versus L2 Spanish [-Scope]
L2 Czech [+Scope]
Quantity: acceptance vs. rejection
[+input / -input] [+transfer / -transfer depending
on the L1]
Quality: patterning with respective L1 control groups
towards convergence
The first question we wanted to address was the status of these constructions in L2s other than English, both L2s like German and Czech where Scope would be grammatical and Copy marginally acceptable in German, and L2s like Spanish where, as it is the case with English, only L-D complex wh-questions are grammatical.
We wanted to address the issue
From a QUANTITATIVE point of view: namely, by measuring the acceptance vs. rejection of the three types of questions taking into consideration the role of INPUT (in the case of L2 German and L2 Czech for SCOPE but not in the case of L2 Spanish) and the role of TRANSFER without input in the case of Czech L2 learners of Spanish
From a QUALITATIVE point of view: namely, by comparing how the L2 learners patterned with the respective L1 speakers
GURT 2012

7. THE STUDY
GURT 2012

8. Complex wh-questions: more aL2 data:
[+/-Input] • [+/-Transfer] • Scaled GJs
General description
L1 English-French- Spanish [+input, -transfer]
L2 German
L1 Czech [+input, +transfer]
L1 English-French [-input, -transfer]
L2 Spanish
L1 Czech [-input, +transfer]
• Quantity: L2GE vs. L2SP
• Quality: L2GE vs. L1 GE / L2SP vs. L1SP
Here we are going to present the results of a SCALED GRAMMATICALITY JUDGMENT TASK administered to
L1 English-French-Spanish (-SCOPE/-COPY) and L1 Czech learners of German. We assume that the first group will receive input (albeit not formal input because neither SCOPE nor COPY wh-questions are discussed in the classroom) and the second group besides INPUT may transfer SCOPE from their L1 Czech into their L2 German.
L1 English and French (-SCOPE/-COPY) and L1 Czech learners of Spanish. We assume that in the case of the first group neither INPUT nor TRANSFER will play a role in shaping the status of SCOPE or COPY wh-questions in the Spanish L2 grammar, and that in the case of the second group, the Czech group, transfer may play a role for SCOPE.
THUS, we expect to see differences in the acceptance and rejection of the three types of questions by the L2 GE and the L2 SP groups (what we label as QUANTITY) and we expect to determine whether the L2 learners converge with the L1 speakers of the two target languages (QUALITY).
GURT 2012

9. Research questions
aL2 GERMAN
• What is the status of the three question types in the L2 grammars?
• Will Scope and Copy wh-questions show a pattern of acceptance in the L2
German of English, French and Spanish speakers similar to that of L1 German
speakers, the control group, even if formal input is not provided in the classroom?
L2 input L1 transfer
L2 German / L1 English, French, Spanish + —
• Will Scope wh-questions show a different pattern of acceptance in the
L2 German of L1 Czech speakers if besides input, there is transfer from Czech?
L2 German / L1 Czech
The research questions that we formulated are as follows:
Will INPUT from German will suffice to lead L1 ENGLISH/FRENCH AND SPANISH SPEAKERS TO SHOW A PATTERN OF ACCEPTANCE OF L-D SCOPE AND COPY COMPARABLE TO THAT OF L1 GERMAN SPEAKERS?
Will INPUT from German plus transfer from their L1 lead L1 CZECH SPEAKERS TO SHOW A PATTERN OF ACCEPTANCE OF L-D, SCOPE AND COPY EVEN MORE COMPARABLE TO THAT OF L1 GERMAN SPEAKERS?
GURT 2012

10. Research questions aL2 SPANISH
• What is the status of the three question types on the L2 grammars?
• Will Scope and Copy wh-questions show a pattern of rejection in the L2 Spanish of English and French speakers similar to that of L1 Spanish speakers, the control group, given that neither Scope nor Copy are possible in Spanish?
L2 input L1 transfer
L2 Spanish / L1 English-French. — —
• Will Scope wh-questions show a different pattern of rejection in the L2 Spanish of L1 Czech speakers due to transfer from Czech?
L2 Spanish / L1 Czech. — +
Will SCOPE and COPY IN L2 SPANISH BE REJECTED EQUALLY BY L1 ENGLISH-FRENCH SPEAKERS AND THE SPANISH SPEAKERS’ CONTROL GROUP?
Will TRANSFER PLAY A ROLE IN THE RATE OF ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION OF SCOPE BY L1 CZECH SPEAKERS?
GURT 2012

11. Study: participants
L2 German experimental groups • L2 German / L1 English-French-Spanish. Advanced level (institutional placement). University of Ottawa, Canada N=19. • L2 German / L1 Czech. University of Ostrava, Czech Republic. N=21.
GURT 2012

12. Study: participants
L2 Spanish experimental groups • L2 Spanish / L1 English-French. Advanced level (institutional placement). University of Ottawa, Canada N=18. • L2 Spanish / L1 Czech. University of Ostrava, Czech Republic N=22.
GURT 2012

13. Study: participants
Control groups • L1 German (Native German Control). N=16 [6 living in Canada and 4 living in Spain and 6 living in Germany] • L1 Spanish (Native Spanish Control). N=20 [10 living in Spain and 10 living in Canada].
GURT 2012

14. Study: Scaled Grammaticality Judgment Task
Design
1 context for Long-Distance, Scope and Copy.
96 contexts as follows.
8 sentences for each context.
4 sentence contexts
x 3 verbs
= 12 contexts
To think
To say
To believe SU
(8) 24 DO
When
Where
TOTAL 96
GURT 2012

15. Study: Scaled Grammaticality Judgment Task
ADJUNCT – WHERE
John: Arthur always studies in the cafeteria.
Beth: And does that bother you?
John: Well, I think that he should study at the library.
L-D:Where does John think that Arthur should study? [LIST A]
SCOPE: What does John think where Arthur should study? [LIST B]
COPY: Where does John think where Arthur should study? [LIST C]
1 = completely unacceptable, sounds strange
3 = relatively unacceptable, but not completely
5 = uncertain, cannot decide
7 = relatively acceptable, but not as good as (9)
9 = completely acceptable, sounds natural
The participants read a dialogue and then they were asked to judge L-D, SCOPE and COPY wh-questions according to a 1-9 Likert scale.
To ensure that the order of presentation of the various items did not influence the results, we had three lists: List A had a L-D version of a given context, list B had the SCOPE version of that context and List C had the COPY version. The participants only saw one type of wh-question for each context but all of them saw the same amount of items and contexts.
GURT 2012

16. Study: Hypotheses
#1 L2 German — L1 English/French/Spanish: [+input / —transfer] — If input (without instruction) plays a role, Scope and Copy constructions will be accepted in this L2 grammar. #2 L2 German — L1 Czech: [+input / +transfer] — If both transfer and input play a role, Scope constructions will be more accepted in this L2 grammar than in the L1 English/French/Spanish based grammar. #3 L1 German (Control group) —Scope and Copy wh-questions will be accepted by L1 German speakers. We assume the acceptance of L-D in all grammars, as they are grammatical in all of the languages in question.
Our aim was to test the following hypotheses
In the case of L2 German, we hypothesized
If INPUT plays a role, all 3 complex wh-questions will be accepted by the L1 English/French/Spanish group
If both TRANSFER and INPUT play a role, SCOPE will be more accepted by the L1 Czech group than by the L1 English/French/Spanish group
L1 German speakers will accept the 3 types of complex wh-questions
GURT 2012

17. Study: Hypotheses
#4 L2 Spanish — L1 English/French: [-input / -transfer] —Since neither input nor transfer will play a role, the L2 Spanish of French and English speakers should depict very few instances of Scope and Copy. #5 L2 Spanish — L1 Czech: [-input / +transfer] —If transfer plays a role, the L2 Spanish of Czech speakers will contain more instances of Scope than the L2 Spanish of French and English speakers. #6 L1 Spanish (Control group) —Only Long-Distance wh-questions (neither Scope nor Copy constructions) will be accepted by L1 Spanish speakers. We assume the acceptance of L-D in all grammars, as they are grammatical in all of the languages in question.
For the L2 SPANISH group, we wanted to test the following hypotheses
The L1 English/French group will reject SCOPE and COPY and will overwhelmingly accept L-D questions
The L2 Czech group will accept SCOPE
The L1 Spanish group will only accept L-D questions
GURT 2012

18. Results: German L1 German
• ANOVA:  Main effect for question type. The differences are significant. F (2,30)= p= .000.
• Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction:
—No significant differences between L-D and Scope (p= .153)
—Significant differences between L-D and Copy (p= .001)
—Significant differences between Scope and Copy (p= .000)
GURT 2012

19. L2 German – L1 English/French/Spanish
Results: German
L2 German – L1 English/French/Spanish
• ANOVA:  Main effect for question type. The differences are significant. F (2,36)= p= .000.
• Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction:
—No significant differences between L-D and Scope (p= 1.000)
—Significant differences between L-D and Copy (p= .001)
—Significant differences between Scope and Copy (p= .001)
A ROLE FOR INPUT… IN THE CASE OF SCOPE BUT NOT IN THE CASE OF COPY
GURT 2012

20. Results: German L2 German – L1 Czech
• ANOVA:  Main effect for question type. The differences are significant. F (2,40)= p= .000.
• Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction:
—No significant differences between L-D and Scope (p= .153)
—Significant differences between L-D and Copy (p= .001)
—Significant differences between Scope and Copy (p= .000)
Same
INPUT and TRANSFER seem to play a role in that SCOPE has a higher acceptance in this case, but still no significant differences between L-D and SCOPE
GURT 2012

21. Results: German
• ANOVA: Main effect for question type. The differences are significant. F (2,106)= p= No significant interaction between group and question type. F (4,106)= p= No main effect for group. The differences are not significant. F (2,53)= p= • Group comparisons (Multivariate ANOVA). Significant differences for Scope. F (2,53)= p= .029 • Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction: —Significant differences between L1ENSP and L1GER for Scope (p= .031)
ALL GROUPS TREAT THE THREE QUESTION TYPES DIFFERENTLY (IS THIS WHAT ‘NO SIGNIFICANT INTERACTION BETWEEN GROUP AND QUESTION TYPE MEANS?)
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT, FOR SCOPE, THE L1 ENGLISH/FRENCH/SPANISH GROUP WHEN COMPARED TO THE L1 GE GROUP DOESN’T SHOW CONVERGENCE –ONLY A TENDENCY. THE L1 CZECH GROUP IS VERY CLOSE TO CONVERGENCE.
—Significant differences between L1ENSP and L1GER L-D for Scope (p= .031) [THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE… L-D FOR SCOPE???? Something is missing here!!!!
GURT 2012

22. Discussion: Research questions - GE
• What is the status of the three question types in the L2 grammars? Scope is very much accepted, even more than L-D by both the L1 GERMAN and the L1 CZECH group. • Will Scope and Copy wh-questions show a pattern of acceptance in the L2 German of English, French and Spanish speakers similar to that of L1 German speakers, the control group, even if formal input is not provided in the classroom? Copy is very much rejected by the L1 English-French-Spanish group, as expected. The high rate of rejection by the L1 German group was not expected. • Will Scope wh-questions show a different pattern of acceptance in the L2 German of L1 Czech speakers (as compared to L1ENFRSP) if, besides input, there is transfer from Czech? Yes, since the Czech L1 group is very close to convergence with L1 GE group.
Separate
GURT 2012

23. Results: Spanish L1 Spanish
• ANOVA:  Main effect for question type. The differences are significant. F (2,38)= p= .000.
• Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction:
—Significant differences between L-D and Scope (p= .000)
—Significant differences between L-D and Copy (p= .000)
—No significant differences between Scope and Copy (p= .422)
GURT 2012

24. L2 Spanish – L1 English/French
Results: Spanish
L2 Spanish – L1 English/French
• ANOVA:  Main effect for question type. The differences are significant. F (2,40)= p= .000.
• Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction:
—Significant differences between L-D and Scope (p= .000)
—Significant differences between L-D and Copy (p= .000)
—Significant differences between Scope and Copy (p= .029)
GURT 2012

25. Results: Spanish L2 Spanish – L1 Czech
• ANOVA:  Main effect for question type. The differences are significant. F (2,42)= p= .000.
• Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction:
—No significant differences between L-D and Scope (p= 1.000)
—Significant differences between L-D and Copy (p= .000)
—Significant differences between Scope and Copy (p= .000)
GURT 2012

26. Results: Spanish L1 / L2 Spanish
• ANOVA:  Main effect for question type. The differences are significant. F (2,120)= p= .000.
Significant interaction between group and question type. F (4,106)= p= .000.
• Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction:
—Significant differences between L1SP and L1CZ (p= .008)
Main effect for group. The differences are significant. F (2,53)= p= .006.
L1 Czech less generous for all three types but still a clear role for TRANSFER in the case of SCOPE.
The L1 Czech group is significantly different from the L1 SP control group, while the L1 French/English group behaves like the L1 SP control group.
GURT 2012

27. Results: Spanish L1 / L2 Spanish (cont’d)
• Group comparisons (Multivariate ANOVA): Significant differences for LD (F (2,60)= p= .000), Scope (F (2,60)= p= .000) and Copy (F (2,60)= p= .003)
• Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction:
—Significant differences between L1SP and L1CZ for LD (p= .000), Scope (p= .000) and Copy (p= .001)
—Significant differences between L1SP and L1ENFR for LD (p= .038)
—Significant differences between L1CZ and L1ENFR for LD (p= .000), Scope ((p= .000) and Copy (p= .022)
The two L1 groups significantly differ in the case of the 3 constructions.
Relevant differences in proficiency as measured by Institutional placement?
Language distance?
GURT 2012

28. Discussion: Research questions - SP
• What is the status of the three question types in the L2 grammars? As expected, Long-Distance is accepted across the board and Copy is rejected across the board, but Scope is accepted by the L1CZ group (comparable to their acceptance of L-D). • Will Scope and Copy wh-questions show a pattern of rejection in the L2 Spanish of English and French speakers similar to that of L1 Spanish speakers, the control group, given that neither Scope nor Copy are possible in Spanish? Yes: there are no significant differences in the rejection of Scope and Copy and marginally significant difference in with the L-D construction. • Will Scope wh-questions show a different pattern of rejection in the L2 Spanish of L1 Czech speakers (as compared to L1ENFR) due to transfer from Czech? Yes: the differences between the L1 ENFR and the L1 CZ group are significant both in relation to the acceptance of Long-Distance and in relation to the rejection of Scope and Copy.
GURT 2012

29. Discussion: Hypotheses
#1 L2 German — L1 English/French/Spanish: [+input / —transfer] If input plays a role, Scope and Copy constructions will be accepted in this L2 grammar. Confirmed for Scope. #2 L2 German — L1 Czech [+input / +transfer] If both input and transfer play a role, Scope constructions will be more accepted in this L2 grammar than in the L1 English/French based grammar. Confirmed for Scope. #3 L1 German (Control group) Scope and Copy wh-questions will be accepted by L1 German speakers. Confirmed only for Scope.
GURT 2012

30. Discussion: Hypotheses
#4 L2 Spanish — L1 English/French: [-input / +transfer] Since neither input nor transfer will not play a role, the L2 Spanish of French and English speakers should depict very few instances of Scope and Copy. Confirmed. #5 L2 Spanish — L1 Czech: [-input / +transfer] If transfer plays a role, the L2 Spanish of Czech speakers will contain more instances of Scope than the L2 Spanish of French and English speakers. Confirmed. In fact, the two L2s are different with respect to the acceptance of the three types of wh-questions. #6 L1 Spanish (Control group) Only Long-Distance wh-questions (neither Scope nor Copy constructions) will be accepted by L1 Spanish speakers. Pattern confirmed but sGJs allow some acceptance of Scope and Copy. However, there are significant differences between Long-Distance and Scope and Long- Distance and Copy.
GURT 2012

31. Conclusions • sGJT: not 100% but very clear-cut patterns.
• Input (without formal instruction) plays a clear role in the case of Scope.
• Transfer plays a clear role in the case of Scope.
• Comparable level of competence: L2 Spanish / L2 German (by L1 CZ)?
Robust numbers due to experimental design…
• Task triggers acceptance even from native speakers of Spanish (albeit low).
• Further research
Production task
On-line task
Repetition task Teasing apart Scope vs. Copy and the different grammatical relations (SU, DO, Adjunct)
GURT 2012

32. Selected references
•Bruening, B. (2006). Differences between the wh-scope-marking and wh-copy constructions in Passamaquoddy. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): •Cheng, L. (2000). Moving just the feature. In U. Lutz, G. Müller and A. von Stechow (eds.), Wh-scope marking, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. •Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. •Dayal, V. (1994). Scope marking as indirect wh- dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2: •Felser, C. (2004). Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114: •Gutierrez, M. J The acquisition of English LD wh-questions by Basque/Spanish bilingual subjects in a school context. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of the Basque Country. •Liceras, J. M., A. Alba de la Fuente & L. Walsh Complex wh-questions in non-native Spanish and non-native German: Does input matter? Paper presented at the Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (2009), Universidad de Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. •Lutz, U., G. Müller & A. von Stechow Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
GURT 2012

33. Selected references
•Schulz, B Wh-scope marking in English interlanguage grammars: transfer and processing effects on the second language acquisition of complex wh-questions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii. •Slavkov, N The acquisition of complex wh- questions in the L2 English of Canadian French and Bulgarian speakers: Medial wh- constructions, inversion phenomena, and avoidance strategies. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa. •Walsh, L Wh-Medial Constructions in Second-Language Acquisition of Spanish. M.A. Research Paper, University of Ottawa. •Walsh, L Medial wh-questions in the L2 English of L1 Spanish speakers. Manuscript, University of Ottawa. •Wakabayashi, S. & I. Okawara Japanese learner’s errors on long distance wh-questions. In S. Wakabayashi (ed.). Generative Approaches to the Acquisition of English by Native Speakers of Japanese. New York: Mouton de Gruyter •Yamane, M On the Interaction of First-language Transfer and Universal Grammar in Adult Second Language Acquisition: WH-movement in L1-Japanese and L2-English Interlanguage. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
GURT 2012

34. Thanks!!! Merci!!! ¡¡¡Gracias!!! Danke!!! Děkuji!!!
GURT 2012

35. Appendix
Results: Czech
L1 Czech
GURT 2012