4-557 Lecture 5Hawkins (2001), Ch. 6The Nominal Phrase

English articles: the, a and Why assume a article?(1)a. Ive had enough sardines.b. Ive had enough ouzo.c. *Ive had enough sardine.(2) a. I love sardines. b. I love ouzo. c. *I love sardine.

Like the determinerenough, can select as its complement a plural count noun and a mass noun but not a singular count noun.

Features relevant for the distribution of articles: count, singular , mass

The distribution and interpretation of English articlesFeatures relevant for the distribution of articles: count, singular , mass (see p. 233, Table 6.1)Bickerton (1981) suggests that these differences can be captured in terms of two binary features:Whether the article and associated NP:refer to a specific entity [+/- specific referent]are already known, from the previous discourse or from context, to the hearer/reader [+/- hearer knowledge]

[ Specific Referent], [ Hearer Knowledge]I met an interesting manI have contacts

I should buy a new carShe wants to write books.

A paper clip comes in handy.The lion is a fierce animal. Cockroaches are disgusting.

The moon will be full tomorrow. John bought the apples.

[+SR HK][-SR HK][-SR +HK][+SR +HK]

To sum up

L2A of English articles Study 1: Parrish (1987) a 19 year-old Japanese in US for 3 weeks when data collection began6 yrs classroom instruction in Japan, beginning level data collection every 10 days for 4 months structured interactions (storytelling & description of a place) Japanese has no articles

Parrishs (1987) results (see Table 6.3, p. 237 in Hawkins)Use of : 52.3%*THE in [+SR -HK] contexts: 9.4%* in [+SR, +HK] contexts : 32.1%Accurate use in obligatory contexts: A 19% (6/32), THE 74% (37/50), 92 (12/13) was used mostly incorrectly. A was never used in contexts where THE or is required by NSs

Study 2: Huebner (1985) L1 Hmong speaker living in US.Method: free conversations every 3 weeks for the first year. A follow-up study was conducted 20 months later. Hmong has no articles.

Huebners (1985) results (for total results, see Table 6.4, pp. 239)Contrast between da (a phonological approximation to native the) and no contrast between da and a.After 6 weeks, da flooded all contexts.Week 21, drop da from [-SR -HK]Week 27, drop da from [+SR -HK]20 months later, a began to appear in the [+SR -HK]

Study 3: Klein & Perdu (1992)Two Punjabi speakers in the UK, one for 13 and the other for 20 months.Little instruction in English prior to that period.Punjabi has no articles.

Results:one of the participants: no definite article the other: used bare N most frequently

The Punjabi speakers had less exposure to English than Huebners and Parishs participants and demonstrated an articless stage more clearly.

More studies Studies in L2 English articles involving Japanese and Chinese learners (Hakuta 1976, Chaudron & Parker 1990, Robertson 2000) yielded similar results. So did Andersens (1978) cross-sectional study with Spanish learners. Andersen also found that learners were the least accurate in possessive sThese studies indicate that the properties of articles are acquired incrementally.

Andersen (1978), Parrish (1987), & Huebner (1985)

(bare NP)

Specificity in the NP (the/da)

Hearer knowledge in the NP (a/)

Possessive s

Does this pattern of development reflect incremental building of a mental grammar?

Theoretical backgroundTraditionally, a phrase like the students is called a noun phrase and written as NP.In more recent analyses, it is held that the most important element in the NP is not the noun, but the determiner. Thus it is postulated that the topmost category of the noun phrase is the maximal projection of the determiner (D), the Determiner Phrase (DP), and that the NP is the complement of D.

The Determiner Phrase (DP) Hypothesis (Abney 1987)DPDD NPNNN extends to DP as V extends to IP.The DP layer is assumed to project also in languages without overt articles. (although not by everyone) Allclevergirls

Now, consider the 2 possessive structures (1) the doctors house (2) the house of the doctorBoth in (1) and (2) doctor has the thematic role of the Possessor, so it is assumed to originate in the same syntactic position in both structures.

How does the possessor doctor get case?

Of-possessiveDPDD NPPDPThe the doctor NPhouseNPPof case assignment

s-possessiveDPDD NPNNDPshouse D NP the doctor K t K DPRaises to Spec, DP, where it gets genitive case from /-'s/

Hawkins (p. 241): Clauses are headed by a D operator which binds the D morphemes in the clause.

[DOI [IP I saw DI / DK spider(s) on the wall]]If a determiner is not co-indexed with the D-Operator its interpretation will be unknown referent, and a/ will be selected. If a determiner is co-indexed with the D-Operator its interpretation will be known referent, and a number of determiners will be possible: the; a/ in their generic use; this/that; and others.

Back to the L2 data based on Andersen (1978), Parrish (1987) & Huebner (1985)

(bare NP)

Specificity in the NP (marked by the/da)Hearer knowledge inthe NP (marked by a/ )Possessive s

What assumptions can be made about the building of mental grammars regarding L2 English NPs? Think of the following: specification restrictions regarding complement selectionlocal vs. non-local relations

Grammar-building in L2 English DPs based on Andersen (1978), Parrish (1987) & Huebner (1985)

(bare NP)

Specificity in the NP (marked by the/da)Hearer knowledge in the NP (marked by a / )Possessive s

NP (lexical projection)

D (head-complement local selection)

non-local D-Op relation

Spec-Head relation

L1 Influence in L2 English DPs (Hawkins 6.4.2)Wakabayashi (1997) Plural marking and the indefinite article in L2 English cluster together. D (and plural number marking) are obligatory in Spanish, optional in Japanese.Spanish speakers performed better judging sentences involving these properties than Japanese speakers. Makino (1980), Shirahata (1988) Japanese speakers were more accurate than Spanish speakers on possessive s. Japanese has a similar construction, Spanish does not.

L1 Influence and the functional category Num(ber) (6.4.2)

A further functional projection has been suggested between D and N, that of Num(ber), to which number morphemes (i.e. [singular]) belong. Num projects into Num and NumP

An argument in favor of the functional category Num is cross-linguistic differences with respect to Noun-Adjective orderIn e.g. French, where adjectives may occur after the noun, it is assumed that Num is [+strong] and that the Noun raises to Num to get the number morpheme. In e.g. English, where Num is weak, number morphemes lower from Num to N. Example:The round tablesLes tables rondes

A-N order in French and EnglishEnglish: [strong] Num French: [+strong] Num

Parodi et al. (1997) (Hawkins, 6.5). Participants: Korean, Turkish and Spanish learners of GermanMethod: cross-sectional and longitudinal data from informal interviewsGerman DPs (1) Das interessant-e Buch The interesting book (2) Die interessant-en Buch-er The interesting books

Comparison between learners L1 and L2 German in DP properties

Main observations from results (cf. Table 6.5 in Hawkins, p. 251)The 2 Spanish omit fewer Ds than Koreans.Even advanced Koreans supply only about 50% of required Ds.The Spanish the best at plural marking Koreans the worst. Of the 3 Turkish, only the one with the lowest exposure to German has problems with plural marking.Only 1 of the 2 Spanish (the one with the lowest exposure to German) produced N-A order.

What about advanced learners?L1 effects on fossilization/ultimate attainment regarding L2 determiners.Research Question: Does variability in suppliance of plural marking and determiners indicate a grammatical deficit? Are learners restricted to L1 categories and features?

Robertson (2000): Advanced Taiwanese and Mandarin learners of English

Production data from a problem-solving task ResultsSuppliance of articles round 80% (range: 67.5% to 97%)Mostly omission rather misuse of articles Suppliance of articles in obligatory contexts: Definite 83.2%, Indefinite 77.9%Echo contexts (speaker repeating previous utterance) resulted in a much higher omission of articles.

White (2003): L1 Turkish speaker, in Canada for 10 years. Proficient speaker of L2 English Interviewed 5 times, with an 18 month gap between interviews 4 and 5. Production data & various other tasks. Results

Whites (2003) resultsNo evidence that the was used to encode specificity rather than definiteness.More problems in production than in the other tasksAccording to White, her study and Robertsons indicate that learners whose L1 lacks articles eventually acquire L2 articles, implicating the functional category D, together with the associated feature definite. Variability in suppliance of plural marking and determiners does not indicate a grammatical deficit.Not everybody agrees with Whites view.

Tsimpli (2003): L2 Greek articles

6 Russian/Turkish adult bilinguals with 8-9 years of natural exposure to Greek. First exposure to Greek at adult age. Turkish & Russian lack article system.Method: Oral interviewsResults

Tsimpli 2003Examples: *() *() *() *() . In Greek, the definite article is harder to acquire than the indefinite article. We saw that the opposite holds in English. Why?

First, some background about the language faculty in minimalismIn the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), there are [+interpretable] and [interpretable] features. The former have semantic content, e.g. [+/-animate], while the latter do not, but are used for grammatical operations, e.g. [+/-accusative].

Also, a feature such as, e.g. [number] is [+interpretable] on nouns, while the same feature marked on verbs through inflection is [interpretable], since it merely indicates an agreement relation. Also, [gender] is [+interpretable] for nouns, but [interpretable] for adjectives.

And some more LEXICONComputational System (CS)SPELL-OUTPHONETIC FORMLOGICAL FORMCS links the lexicon with the Logical Form (LF), and with the Phonetic Form (PF).[interpretable] features must be checked and deleted before Spell-Out. They should not reach LF. [interpretable] features are not legitimate at LF.

Another illustration LexiconComputational SystemMergepronounceinterpret

Tsimplis account:In Greek, unlike in English, the definite (but not the indefinite) is semantically empty; it carries out purely grammatical operations - does not convey definiteness or specificity to its complement. . . . . . In Greek, a demonstrative may precede the article. (cf. *This the man)

Tsimpli & Stavrakaki (1999):In Greek the [+/-definiteness] feature is carried by a Def(inite) node dominating D.Def hosts demonstrative pronouns and the indefinite article. The D node hosts the definite article whose role is to carry case and phi- (number and gender) agreement features. These features on determiners are considered [-interpretable] at LF (=Logical Form). Number and gender are assumed to be [+interpretable] at LF only on nouns. Case is generally [-interpretable].

Tsimpli & Stavrakaki (1999):DefPDPD [case]/[phi-] N(P)phi- : number and gender agreement featuresDef [+/-def] /

Tsimplis Interpretability HypothesisParameter resetting is impossible in adult L2A if it concerns features of functional categories, which are [-interpretable] at LF.Hence the difference between the definite and the indefinite article in the L2A of Greek.

References (not found in Hawkins)

Robertson, D. (2000). Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learners of English. Second Language Research, 16(2): 135-172. Tsimpli, I. M. (2003). Clitics and Determiners in L2 Greek 2003). In J. M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (eds.) Proceedings of the 2002 Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA) Conference, 331-339. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Downloadable from http://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/6/paper1057.pdf Tsimpli, I.M. & S. Stavrakaki (1999). The effects of a morphosyntactic deficit in the determiner system: the case of a Greek SLI child. Lingua 108: 31-85.White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2): 129-141.