Transcript Diapositiva 1

Postverbal subjects in L2 English:
a corpus-based study
ICLC, Santiago de Compostela
19th September 2005
Amaya Mendikoetxea [email protected]
Cristóbal Lozano [email protected]
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
1. The phenomenon
 Rutherford (1989), Oshita (2004):
 L1 Spanish – L2 English:
 …it arrived the day of his departure…
 And then at last comes the great day.
 In every country exist criminals
 …after a few minutes arrive the girlfriend with his family too.
 Only with unaccusative verbs (never with unergatives).
 Unaccusatives: arrive, happen, exist, come, appear,
live…
 Explanation: syntax-lexicon interface (unaccusatives)
2. Word order in native English
 Very restricted: canonical word order SV.
 Four girls sang
 Four girls arrived
 Lexicon-syntax interface (Levin & Rappaport-Hovav, etc):
 Unaccusative Hypothesis (Burzio 1986, etc)
 *There sang four girls at the opera.
 There arrived four girls at the station.
 Syntax-discourse interface (Biber et al, Birner, etc):
 Postverbal material tends to be focus (new info)
 We have complimentary soft drinks and coffee. Also complimentary is red and white wine.
 Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interface (Arnold et al, etc)
 Heavy material is sentence-final (Principle of End-Weight, Quirk):
 That money is important is obvious.
 It is obvious that money is important.
3. Word order in native Spanish
Lexicon-syntax interface:
UNERGATIVES: SV
A: Qué pasó?
B: Un hombre gritó [SV]
UNACCUSATIVES: SV
A: Qué pasó?
B: Llegó un hombre [VS]
Syntax-discourse interface:
UNERGATIVES
A: Quién gritó?
B: Gritó un hombre [VS]
UNACCUSATIVES
A: Quién llegó?
B: Llegó un hombre [VS]
 Theoretical evidence: Zubizarreta 1998, Casielles-Suárez 2004, Domínguez 2004
 Empirical evidence: Hertel 2000, 2003, Lozano 2003, 2006
4. Aim
 VS order in L1 Spa – L2 Eng…
Lexicon-syntax interface:
 Only with unergatives, or with unaccusatives or both?
Syntax-PF interface:
 Postverbal subject: heavy or light?
Syntax-Discourse interface:
 Postverbal subject: topic or focus?
5. Method
 Learner corpus: L1 Spa – L2 Eng
ICLE Spanish subcorpus (Granger et al. 2002)
UAM corpus
Corpus
ICLE Spanish
UAM
TOTAL
Number of essays
251
85
336
Number of words
200,376
63,836
264,212
 Query software: WordSmith v. 4.0 (Scott 2004)
 Statistical software: SPSS v. 12.0
6. Data analysis (1)
Based on Levin (1993) and Levin &
Rappaport-Hovav (1995):
Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk,
dance…[TOTAL: 41]
Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge,
happen, arrive… [TOTAL: 34]
7. Data analysis (2)
 CONCORDANCES: FILTERING CRITERIA:
The verb must be intransitive (unergative or
unaccusative).
The verb must be finite, active voice.
The subject can appear either postverbally (VS) or
preverbally (SV).
The subject must be an NP.
The sentence can be either grammatical or
ungrammatical in native English.
 OTHER FILTERING CRITERIA (TOTAL=28)
8. Result: VS and unaccusativity
Table 1: Proportion of postverbal subjects produced
Verb type
Unergative
Unaccusative
# postverbal
Subjects (VS)
0
58
# usable
concordances
181
820
Rate
0/181 (0%)
58/820 (7.1%)
Figure 1: Proportion of postverbal subjects produced.
a. Unergatives
Postverbal Subject
0.0%
Preverbal Subject
100.0%
b. Unaccusatives
Postverbal Subject
7.1%
Preverbal Subject
92.9%
9. Examples of production
 Mostly S-V:
 The real problem appears when they have to look for their first job.
 …these people should exist.
 But many V-S (58 in total):
 There exist positive means of earning money.
 So arised the Saint Inquisition.
 In the main plot appear the main characters: Volpone and Mosca.
 *…it has appeared some cases of women that have killed their husbands.
 *…and from this moment begins the avarice.
 *…and appeared a lot more theatres.
10. Result: VS and specific unaccusative verbs
Figure 1: Production of postverbal subjects (VS) according to verb: VS/TotalConcordances ratio
2.9
3.0
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.0
0.5
SURVIVE
SPREAD
SETTLE
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RISE
0.1
RETURN
0.0
REMAIN
LIVE
LEAVE
HIDE
HAPPEN
GROW
GO
FOLLOW
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
FLOW
FALL
EXIST
0.0 0.0
ESCAPE
0.0
DROP
DISAPPEAR
DIE
DEVELOP
COME
BEGIN
AWAKE
ARRIVE
0.0
ARISE
0.0 0.0
0.2
0.1
PASS
0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1
ENTER
0.2
EMERGE
0.5
OCCUR
0.6
APPEAR
Frequency of inversion (%)
2.5
11. Result: VS and weight
Figure 1: Production of unaccusative postverbal subjects: heavy vs. light.
Light
18.97%
HEAVY
Heavy
81.03%
Against this society drama emerged an
opposition headed by Oscar Wilde and
Bernard Shaw.
…so came the decline of the theatre.
Then come the necessity to earn more.
LIGHT
So arised the Saint Inquisition…
…and from there began a fire.
Still today … exists the bloody fights.
12. Result: SV and weight
Figure 1: Production of unaccusative preverbal subjects: heavy vs. light.
Heavy
32.29%
Light
67.71%
LIGHT
…but they may appear everywhere.
…since the day eventually came…
…these people should exist, …
HEAVY
…the cases of men mistreated do not
appear in the media…
…a disintegration of culture, tradition
and society would begin…
…the utopian societies created by the
early socialists appeared.
13. Result: VS and discourse
Figure 1: Production of unaccusative postverbal subjects: topic vs. focus.
Top
1.72%
FOCUS
…there also exists a wide variety of
optional channels which have to be paid.
So arised the Saint Inquisition.
In 1880 it begun the experiments whose
result was the appearance of the
television some years later.
Foc
98.28%
TOPIC
…our modern world, dominated by science
and technology and industrialisation
…because exist the science technology
and the industrialisation.
14. Result: SV and discourse
Figure 1: Production of unaccusative preverbal subjects: topic vs. focus.
Foc 0%
TOPIC
I use the Internet … I find windows … if they
press on any of these windows … these
windows cannot appear because a child
could enter easily…
…the world of drugs: mafias … problems
with mafias finished … dangerous people
making money … no reason why these
people should exist.
Top 100%
15. Summary/Conclusion
VS
Vunacc
NPsubj
Syntax-discourse………………………………… FOCUS
Syntax-PF …………………………………………. HEAVY
SV
NPsubj
Syntax-discourse…….. TOPIC
Syntax-PF……………… LIGHT
Vunacc



































REFERENCES
Arnold, J.E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A. and Ginstrom, R., 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering.
Language 76, 28-55.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E., 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (chapter 11). Harlow: Pearson Education
Limited.
Birner, B.J., 1994. Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70, 233-259.
Birner, B.J., 1995. Pragmatic constraints on the verb in English inversion. Lingua 97, 233-256.
Birner, B.J. and Ward, G., 1996. A crosslinguistic study of postposing in discourse. Language and Speech 39, 113-142.
Bresnan, 1994. Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar. Language 70, 71-131.
Burzio, L., 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
de Miguel, E., 1993. Construcciones ergativas e inversión en la lengua y la interlengua española. In: Liceras, J.M. (ed.), La lingüística y el análisis de los sistemas no
nativos, 178-195. Ottawa: Dovehouse.
Domínguez, L., 2004. Mapping Focus: The Syntax and Prosody of Focus in Spanish. Boston University: Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Eguren, L., Fernández Soriano, O., 2004. Introducción a una sintaxis minimista. Madrid: Gredos.
Fernández-Soriano, O., 1993. Sobre el orden de palabras en español. Cuadernos de Filología Hispánica 11, 113-151.
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., and Meunier, F., 2002. International Corpus of Learner English [inc. CD ver 1.1]. Louvain: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Hertel, T.J., 2003. Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research 19, 273-304.
Hertel, T.-J. The second language acquisition of Spanish word order: lexical and discourse factors. 2000. Pennsylvania State University, PhD dissertation.
Kaltenböck, G., 2004. It-extraposition and Non-extraposition in English: A Study of Syntax in Spoken and Written texts. Wilhem Braumüller.
Levin, B., 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B. and Rappaport-Hovav, M., 1995. Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MASS: MIT Press.
Liceras, J., Soloaga, B. and Carballo, A., 1994. Los conceptos de tema y rema: problemas sintácticos y estilísticos de la adquisición del español. Hispanic Linguistics 5,
43-88.
Lozano, C., 2003. Universal Grammar and focus constraints: The acquisition of pronouns and word order in non-native Spanish. University of Essex: Unpublished PhD
dissertation.
Lozano, C., forthcoming 2006. Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research 22.
Lozano, C., in press b. The development of the syntax-information structure interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In: Torrens, V., Escobar, L. (eds.), The Acquisition of
Syntax in Romance Languages Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ortega-Santos, I., 2005. On Locative Inversion and the EPP in Spanish. Paper presented at the VIII Encuentro Internacinoal de Lingüística del Noroeste, Universidad de
Sonora, México.
Oshita, H., 2004. Is there anything there when there is not there? Null expletives and second language data. Second Language Research 20, 95-130.
Perlmutter, D., 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society Berkeley:
University of California.
Prince, E.F., 1981. Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information. In: Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 223-255. London: Academic Press.
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, 295-325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rizzi, L., 1997. A parametric approach to comparative syntax: properties of the pronominal system. In: Haegeman, L. (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax, 268-285.
London: Longman.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J., 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
Scott, M., Oxford University Press. Oxford WordSmith Tools (version 4.0). Oxford. (Url: http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/)
Torrego, E., 1989. Unergative-Unaccusative Alternations in Spanish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 253-272.
Ward, G., Birner, B. and Huddleston, R., 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (chapter 16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zagona, K., 2002. The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zobl, H., 1989. Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In: Gass, S., Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language
Acquisition, 203-221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zubizarreta, M.L., 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MASS: MIT Press.
Thank you!
Extraposition was discarded
 NOTE: extraposition discarded:
It only remains [to add that nowadays we live in a world…]
It happened [that the countries which make the weapons are…]
Result: VS and (un)grammaticality
Figure 1: Production of postverbal subjects according to their grammaticality
Grammatical
36.2%
Ungrammatical
63.8%
UNGRAMMATICAL
*Nevertheless, exist other means of obtaining
money which are not so honourable, but
quicker.
GRAMMATICAL
*…and from this moment begins the avarice.
At the beginning of the play appear the main
characters: Leontes, Hermione and
Polixenes.
*On the other hand, it has appeared some
cases of women that have killed their
husbands…
There exist positive means of earning
money.
…and here emerges the problem.
Result: VS and (in)definiteness
Figure 1: Production of postverbal subjects according to their definiteness.
Definite 41.4%
Indefinite 58.6%
INDEFINITE
DEFINITE
…some decades ago, it appeared a new
invent: the television.
…because later could appear the real evidence
and the real guilty.
The play was very well performed and also
appeared new elements in the stage.
…and usually appears the noble young man
that either waste or has wasted his fortune.
…it has appeared some cases of women
that have killed their husbands…
In the main plot appear the main characters:
Volpone and Mosca.
10. Resultados: léxico-sintaxis
¿Qué pasó?
Inacusativos (VS): Llegó un hombre
Inergativos (SV): Un hombre gritó
2
n.s.
sig
sig
1,5
1
Inac Neut VS
Inac Neut !SV
0,5
0
Ingl int alto
-0,5
Ingl avanz
Nativos esp
Media del juicio de aceptabilidad
Media del juicio de aceptabilidad
2
sig
n.s.
sig
1,5
1
Inerg Neut !VS
Inerg Neut SV
0,5
0
Ingl int alto
-0,5
Ingl avanz
Nativos esp
Length of postverbal subject
Figure 1: Frequency of word-length of postverbal subjects
7
6
Frequency
5
4
3
2
1
Mean = 7.5172
Std. Dev. = 5.13414
N = 58
0
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Length (in number of words)
Heavy/Light scale
Table 1: A syntactic scale for measuring syntactic weight
SYNTACTIC WEIGHT
NOMINAL SCALE ORDINAL SCALE
LIGHT
0
(D)
1
(D)
2
HEAVY
3
Notes:
SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
N
ADJ
ADJ*
ADJ
(ADJ)
ADJ
(ADJ)
ADJ
(i) The asterisk (*) represents a complex (i.e., recursive) categorical or phrasal structure.
(ii) Parentheses indicate the optional realization of the bracketed category or phrase.
N
N
N
N*
N
N
N
N
N*
N*
PP
PP*
AdjP*
PP
IP/CP
PP*
(PP*)
Type of VS structures
Figure 1: Types of postverbal-subject structures produced and their frequency of production.
100%
Frequency of production (in %)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
41.4%
40%
30%
20%
15.5%
13.8%
10.4%
10.3%
10%
8.6%
0%
*It-insertion
Locative inversion
*XP-insertion
There-insertion
Type of postverbal-subject structures
AdvP-insertion
*Ø-insertion
UNACCUSATIVES
UNERGATIVES
SEMANTIC CLASS
VERB
SEMANTIC CLASS
EXISTENCE
exist
flow
grow
hide
EMISSION
SOUND EMISSION
live
remain
rise
settle
spread
survive
APPEARANCE
SEMANTIC
SUBCLASS
LIGHT EMISSION
appear
arise
awake
begin
break
develop
VERB
beam
burn
flame
flash
bang
beat
blast
boom
clash
crack
crash
cry
knock
ring
roll
sing
emerge
SMELL EMIS.
smell
flow
follow
SUBSTANCE
EMISSION
pour
sweat
MANNER OF
SPEAKING
cry (*)
shout
sing (*)
TALK VERBS
speak
talk
BREATHE VERBS
breathe
cough
cry (*)
sweat (**)
happen
occur
rise
DISAPPEARANCE
die
disappear
INHERENTLY
DIRECTED MOTION
arrive
come
drop
enter
COMMUNICAT.
BODILY PROCESSES
11. Resultados: sintaxis-discurso
¿Quién llegó / gritó?
Inacusativos (VS): Llegó un hombre
Inergativos (SV): Gritó un hombre
2
n.s.
n.s.
sig
1,5
1
Inac Foc VS
Inac Foc !SV
0,5
0
Ingl int alto
-0,5
Ingl avanz
Nativos esp
Media del juicio de aceptabilidad
Media del juicio de aceptabilidad
2
sig
n.s.
sig
1,5
1
Inerg Foc VS
Inerg Foc !SV
0,5
0
Ingl int alto
-0,5
Ingl avanz
Nativos esp
Figure 1: Unaccusative verbs in neutral contexts (word order by group)
1,81
1,52
1,44
2
1,34
1,5
1
0,91
0,9
Unac Neut VS
0,98
Unac Neut #SV
0,5
0,29
0
Mean acceptability rate
2
Mean acceptability rate
Figure 1: Unergative verbs in neutral contexts (word order by group)
1,5
1,64
1,41
1,47
0,87
0,84
0,9
Gk Upp Int
Gk Low adv
Gk Upp adv
1,61
1
Unerg Neut #VS
0,5
Unerg Neut SV
0
-0,5
-0,5
Gk Upp Int
Gk Low adv
Gk Upp adv
Natives
-0,45
Natives
Figure 1: Unaccusative verbs in focused subject contexts (word order by group)
Figure 1: Unergative verbs in focused subject contexts (word order by gro
2
2
1,5
1
1,32
1,52
1,43
1,38
1,32
Unac Foc VS
0,91
0,94
Unac Foc #SV
0,5
0
-0,28
-0,5
Gk Upp Int
Gk Low adv Gk Upp adv
Natives
Mean acceptability rate
Mean acceptability rate
1,54
1,5
1,26
1
1,32
1,12
0,97
1,25
Unerg Foc VS
0,93
0,5
Unerg Foc #SV
0,17
0
-0,5
Gk Upp Int
Gk Low adv Gk Upp adv
Natives
4. VS in native Spanish (1)
Hipótesis Inacusativa
(interfaz léxico-sintaxis)
Inergativos: SV
Inacusativos: VS
A: ¿Qué pasó anoche en la reunión?
B: Un hombre gritó.
# Gritó un hombre.
ST
ST
3
3
SD
un hombre
SD
pro
T’
3
T
gritó
A: ¿Qué pasó anoche en la reunión?
B: # Un hombre llegó.
Llegó un hombre.
SV
3
SD
V
un hombre gritó
T’
3
T
llegó
SV
3
V
llegó
SD
un hombre
5. VS in native Spanish (2)
Foco presentacional
(interfaz sintaxis-discurso)
Inergativos: VS
Inacusativos: VS
A: ¿Quién gritó anoche en la reunión?
B: # Un hombre gritó.
Gritó un hombre.
A: ¿Quién llegó anoche a la reunión?
B: # Un hombre llegó.
Llegó un hombre.
ST
ST
3
3
SD
pro
T’
SD
pro
3
T
gritó
SFoc
3
SD
Foc’
un hombre 3
[+Foc]
Foc
SV
[+Foc]
3
[-interp] SD
un hombre
[+Foc]
[+interp]
T’
3
T
llegó
V
gritó
SFoc
3
SD
Foc’
un hombre 3
[+Foc]
Foc
SV
[+Foc]
3
[-interp] V
SD
llegó un hombre
[+Foc]
[+interp]