Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:07:19.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ISLANDS AND OBJECTS IN L2 SPANISH

Do You Know the Learners Who Drop___?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 August 2013

Jason Rothman  and
Michael Iverson
Jason Rothman*
Affiliation:
University of Reading
Michael Iverson
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jason Rothman, Department of Clinical Language Sciences, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Harry Pitt Building, Earley Gate, Reading, UK, RG6 7BE. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study tests native Brazilian Portuguese (BP) speakers of second language (L2) Spanish in the domain of phonologically null object pronouns. This is a worthwhile first language (L1)-L2 pairing given that these languages are historically and typologically related and both seemingly allow for object drop. Nevertheless, the underlying syntax of phonologically null object pronouns is distinct in each language, resulting in differences in their respective syntactic reflexes. We pursue whether or not it is more difficult to acquire new syntactic structure for a L2 property that, on the surface, is shared by the L1. In other words, we explore whether advanced BP learners of L2 Spanish will be successful in the acquisition of Spanish object drop to the same degree as English learners and European Portuguese learners who were previously shown by Bruhn de Garavito and Guijarro-Fuentes (2001) to be quite successful. By means of a scalar grammaticality judgment task with context, we examine competence of the Spanish restrictions on the distribution of dropped objects that differ from BP in various syntactic positions (e.g., simple clauses vs. strong islands) while alternating the Spanish-specific semantic variable of definiteness as determined by the context. The data show that the semantic alternations are acquired as well as the new syntax; however, such acquisition does not guarantee preemption of the L1 syntactic option, which may result in target-deviant variability. We discuss the data in light of what they bring to bear on questions pertinent to formal SLA theory.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 589 - 618
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

Berwick, R. C. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2001). L2 acquisition of indefinite object drop in Spanish. In Costa, J. & Freitas, M. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the GALA 2001 Conference on Language Acquisition (pp. 60–67). Lisbon: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística.Google Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J., Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Iverson, M., & Valenzuela, E. (2009). From Romance to Romance and why it might not be so straight forward: Null objects in the L2 Spanish of Brazilian Portuguese natives. Paper presented at the Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition 2009 conference, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Campos, H. (1986). Indefinite object drop. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 354–359.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, P. (1990). Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8, 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, J. (1993). Conditions on clitic-doubling: The agreement hypothesis. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca ‘Julio de Urquijo,’ 27, 285–298.Google Scholar
Fujino, H., & Sano, T. (2000). Some notes on the null object phenomenon in child Spanish. In Howell, S. C., Fish, S. A., & Keith-Lucas, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 24 (pp. 308–318). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2006). Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammars: A prosodic approach. Second Language Research, 23, 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22, 269–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531–575.Google Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. (1994). Universal Grammar in child second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of feature in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 171–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, R. M., & Wexler, K. (1987). Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 413–444.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, E. (1986). On the null object in European Portuguese. In Jaeggli, O. & Silva-Corvalán, C. (Eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics (pp. 373–390). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, L. (2004). Object agreement and the checking of focus in Spanish. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1986). The epistemological status of second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 2, 120–159.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, S. (2006). Null objects across South America. In Face, T. L. & Klee, C. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 8th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 23–36). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2009). L2 fundamentals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2010). Input quality matters: Some comments on input type and age-effects in adult SLA. Applied Linguistics, 31, 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2005). Child L2, adult L2, child L1: Differences and similarities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar