Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T12:51:20.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NATIVE SPEAKERS’ VERSUS L2 LEARNERS’ SENSITIVITY TO PARALLELISM IN VP-ELLIPSIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Nigel G. Duffield  and
Ayumi Matsuo
Nigel G. Duffield*
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Ayumi Matsuo
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
*
*Address correspondence to: Nigel Duffield, School of English Literature, Language & Linguistics and Centre for Comparative Linguistic Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England, UK; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines sensitivity to structural parallelism in verb phrase ellipsis constructions in English native speakers as well as in three groups of advanced second language (L2) learners. The results of a set of experiments, based on those of Tanenhaus and Carlson (1990), reveal subtle but reliable differences among the various learner groups. These differences are interpreted as showing that some L2 learners can acquire sensitivity to parallelism in the absence of surface transfer. Furthermore, the results cast doubt on two conventional theoretical claims: that the parallelism effect has a syntactic basis and that it is uniquely linked to instances of surface anaphora (Hankamer & Sag, 1976).

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 93 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Aarts, B . (2004). Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language, 28, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). The emergence of grammaticality in connectionist networks. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 115–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J . (1997). Verb complementation, coreference and tense in the acquisition of Spanish as a second language. In Perez-Lerouz, A. T. & Glass, W. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (Vol. 1, pp. 167–188). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. J. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carretero, L. L . (1999). VP-ellipsis in English and Spanish and the features of auxiliaries. Probus, 11, 263–298.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N . (1957). Syntactic Structures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N . (1964). Degrees of grammaticalness. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (Eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language (pp. 384–389). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N . (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 25, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyrino, S., & Matos, G. (2007). Local licenser and recovering in VP ellipsis construction: Variation across languages and language varieties. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 4, 79–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M., Shieber, S., & Pereira, F. (1991). Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Anderson, B. (1997). The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: The process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 6, 297–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, N. G . (2003). Measures of competent gradience. In van Hout, R., Hulk, A., Kuiken, F., & Towell, R. (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 97–127). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, N. G., Matsuo, A., & Roberts, L. (2007, November). Knowing what to leave out, online: Evidence from eye-tracking. Paper presented at the Second Workshop on Language Processing in First and Second Language Learners. Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Duffield, N. G., Matsuo, A., & Roberts, L. (in press). Factoring out the parallelism effect in VP-ellipsis: English vs. Dutch contrasts. Second Language Research.Google Scholar
Fiengo, R., & May, R. (1994). Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., Munn, A., & Clifton, C. (2000). Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 343–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, L., Taft, L., Roeper, T., Clifton, C., & Ehrlich, K. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 12, 421–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, L . (2002). On the syntax of null direct objects in Modern Hebrew. Unpublished manuscript, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L . (2005). Verb-stranding VP-ellipsis . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Grinder, J., & Postal, P. M. (1971). Missing antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 269–312.Google Scholar
Haïk, I . (1987). Bound vps that need to be. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 503–530.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J., & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–428.Google Scholar
Hardt, D . (1993). Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning and processing . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Hoji, H . (1998). Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K . (1997). When verb phrases go missing. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Johnson, K . (2001). What VP-ellipsis can do, what it can’t, but not why. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 439–479). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J., & Postal, P. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G . (1971). Presuppositions and wellformedness. In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovitz, L. A. (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 329–340). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., van Gent, J. A. W. M., Haans, A. F. J., & Meijers, A. J. (1977). Grammaticality, paraphrase, imagery. In Greenbaum, S. (Ed.), Acceptability in language (pp. 87–101). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, A . (1995). Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez, L . (1994). The syntactic licensing of VP-ellipsis: A comparative study of Spanish and English. In Mazzola, M. L. (Ed.), Issues and theory in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the lingusitic symposium on Romance languages XXIII (pp. 333–354). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Matsuo, A . (2007). Differing interpretations of empty categories in English and Japanese VP-ellipsis contexts. Language Acquisition, 14, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuo, A., & Duffield, N. G. (2001). VP-ellipsis and anaphora in child language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 9, 301–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, J . (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, J . (2004). Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite / imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25, 351–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F . (1983). Grammatical theory: Its limits and possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F . (2003, January). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Address presented at Linguistic Society of America, Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from University of Washington Web site: http://faculty.washington.edu/fjn/Newmeyer_LSA_address.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otani, K., & Whitman, J. (1991). V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345–358.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. (n.d.). Hankamer was! In Chung, S., McCloskey, J., & Sanders, N. (Eds.), Jorge Hankamer Webfest. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from the University of California, Santa Cruz Web site: http://ling.ucsc.edu/Jorge/index.html.Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science 29, 1007–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzi, L . (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 505–557.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R . (1973a). A fake NP-squish. In Bailey, C.-J. N. & Shuy, R. (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp. 96–140). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R . (1973b). Nouniness. In Fujimura, O. (Ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory (pp. 137–258). Tokyo: TEC Company, Ltd.Google Scholar
Rumsfeld, D . (2002, February). Defense department briefing. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_unknown.Google Scholar
Sag, I . (1976). Deletion and logical form . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Sag, I., & Hankamer, J. (1984). Towards a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, A. L . (2006). Minimal answers: Ellipsis, syntax and discourse in the acquisition of European Portuguese . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Schachter, P . (1977). Does she or doesn’t she. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 763–767.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T . (1996). The empirical base of linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson, G. N. (1990). Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 5, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, R., & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle B, VP ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T . (1972). Anaphoric relations in English . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Williams, E . (1977). Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–139.Google Scholar
Ziff, P . (1964). On understanding utterances. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (Eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language (pp. 390–399). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar