Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:57:34.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on second language knowledge of the syntax–discourse interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2013

ROUMYANA SLABAKOVA
ROUMYANA SLABAKOVA*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa and University of Southampton
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Roumyana Slabakova, Department of Modern Languages, University of Southampton, Building 65, Avenue Campus, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK. E-mail: r.slabakova@soton.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates knowledge of discourse-conditioned left dislocations in the interlanguage competence in Spanish and English second language learners. Although Spanish clitic left dislocation (CLLD) and English topicalization are functionally very similar, they differ in that the former but not the latter requires the dislocated phrase to be clitic doubled. In contrast, the fronted focus (FF) construction is functionally and syntactically similar in the two languages. Two experimental studies investigated knowledge of the syntactic form and discourse appropriateness of CLLD and topicalization, using knowledge of FF as a baseline. English-native learners of Spanish were successful in acquiring CLLD as well as FF. However, Spanish-native learners of English demonstrated no knowledge of English topicalization even at near-native levels of proficiency, whereas they did well on the transferable FF. These results are examined in the light of the interface hypothesis. It is argued that construction frequency in the input and transfer from the native language, but only those two factors together, can explain the experimental results.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , May 2015 , pp. 671 - 699
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anagnostopoulou, E. (1997). Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, E., van Riemsdijk, H., & Zwarts, F. (Eds.), Materials on left dislocation (pp. 151–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10, 89–129.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J., & Ward, G. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2003). Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U. (2010). The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 33, 105–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunetti, L. (2009). Discourse functions of fronted foci in Italian and Spanish. In Dufter, A. & Jacob, D. (Eds.), Focus and background in romance languages (pp. 43–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunetti, L., Bott, S., Costa, J., & Vallduví, E. (2011). A multilingual annotated corpus for the study of information structure. Paper presented at the Grammar and Corpora 2009 Conference.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (2003). On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 511–545.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, subject, topic, and point of view. In Li, C. (Ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–51). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1983). ‘Topic’ constructions in some European languages and ‘connectedness.’ In Ehlich, K. & van Riemsdijk, H. (Eds.), Connectedness in sentence, discourse and text: Proceedings of the Tilburg Conference held on 25 and 26 January 1982. Tilburg: Katholieke Hogeschool.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C., Trofimovich, P., White, J., Cardoso, W., & Horst, M. (2009). Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal, 93, 336–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., & Pietroski, P. (2002). Why language acquisition is a snap. Linguistic Review, 19, 163–183.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. (1991). Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. (2011). Left-dislocation in near-native French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 399–432.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. (2012). Syntax and discourse in near-native French: Clefts and focus. Language Learning, 62, 902–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.Google Scholar
Frey, W. (2004). Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of German left dislocation. In Lohnstein, H. & Trissler, S. (Eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left sentence periphery (pp. 203–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2002) Frequency effects and second language acquisition: A complex picture? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 249–260.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1993). Language transfer in language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation and resource. Brain and Language, 27, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, M., & Michaelis, L. (2001). Topicalization and left dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1665–1706.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (2002). Left dislocation as movement. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 2, 31–81.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. (2003). Prolific domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1998a). On different kinds of focus. In Bosch, P. (Ed.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 293–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1988b). Universals of topic-comment structure. In Hammond, M., Moravczik, E., & Wirth, J. (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp. 209–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part II. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax–discourse interface in near-native SLA: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463–483.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. (2010). “Discourse features,” syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua, 120, 1346–1369.Google Scholar
Ivanov, I. (2009). Second language acquisition of Bulgarian object clitics: A test case for the interface hypothesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Ivanov, I. (2012). L2 acquisition of Bulgarian clitic-doubling: A test case for the interface hypothesis. Second Language Research, 28, 345–368.Google Scholar
Iverson, M., Kempchinsky, P., & Rothman, J. (2008). Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish. EUROSLA Yearbook, 8, 135–163.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, P. (2008). How much structure does the left periphery need? Paper presented at the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 38, University of Illinois–Urbana Champaign.Google Scholar
Kiss, K. E. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245–273.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (2001). Syntactic change. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 698–729). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Misra, M. M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128, 416–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
López, L. (2009). A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 97–115.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2011). Interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua, 121, 591–604.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., Titov, E., van de Koot, H., & Vermeulen, R. (2009). A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In Van Craenenbroeck, J. (Ed.), Alternatives to cartography (pp. 15–52). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., & van de Koot, H. (2008). Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 11, 137–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, W., Lee, M., & Kwak, H.-Y. (2009). Emergentism and second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 69–88). Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Postolache, O. (2005). Information structure in written English: A corpus study. Paper presented at the IGK colloquium. Retrieved from http://www.coli.uni-saarland.de/projects/irtg/contents/Colloquium/WS-05/oana.pdfGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In Thompson, S. & Mann, W. (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund raising text (pp. 295–325). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–93.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333–357.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (2000). Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 169–185.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951–973.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2011). The mind–context divide: On linguistic interfaces and language acquisition. Lingua, 121, 568–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for the acquisition of semantics? Second Language Research, 22, 302–338.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., & Garcia Mayo, M. del P. (2012). The L3 syntax–discourse interface. Paper presented at the Symposium on Third Language (L3) Acquisition: A Focus on Cognitive Approaches, Vitoria-Gasteiz, May 24–25.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., & Ivanov, I. (2011). A more careful look at the syntax–discourse interface. Lingua, 121, 637–651.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., Kempchinsky, P., & Rothman, J. (2012). Clitic-doubled left dislocation and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: A case of successful acquisition at the syntax–discourse interface. Second Language Research, 28, 319–343.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., Rothman, J., & Kempchinsky, P. (2011). Gradient competence at the syntax discourse interface. EUROSLA Yearbook, 11, 218–243.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 130–152). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. P. (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 55–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax–semantics and syntax–discourse phenomena. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T., & Zeller, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 2, pp. 653–664). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual development in L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12, 7–39.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, E. (2005). L2 ultimate attainment and the syntax–discourse interface: The acquisition of topic constructions in non-native Spanish and English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, E. (2006). L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of the Spanish CLLD constructions. In Slabakova, R., Montrul, S., & Prévost, P. (Eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor of Lydia White (pp. 283–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, E. (1992). The informational component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E., & Vilkuna, M. (1998). On rheme and konstrast. Syntax and Semantics, 29, 79–108.Google Scholar
van Haaften, T., Smits, R., & Vat, J. (1983). Left dislocation, connectedness and reconstruction. In Ehlich, K. & Van Riemsdijk, H. (Eds.), Connectedness in sentence, discourse and text. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University, Department of Language and Literature.Google Scholar
Ward, G. L. (1988). The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
White, L. (2009). Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–68). Leeds: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2004). Universal grammar, statistics, or both. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 451–456.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2010). Three factors in language variation. Lingua, 120, 1160–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubuzarreta, M.-L. (1998). Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar