Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com The Acquisition of Spanish in Understudied Language Pairings www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics (IHLL) issn 2213-3887 IHLL aims to provide a single home for the highest quality monographs and edited volumes pertaining to Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics In an effort to be as inclusive as possible, the series includes volumes that represent the many sub-fields and paradigms of linguistics that high quality research targeting Iberian Romance languages IHLL considers proposals that focus on formal syntax, semantics, morphology, phonetics/phonology, pragmatics from any established research paradigm, as well as psycholinguistics, language acquisition, historical linguistics, applied linguistics and sociolinguistics The editorial board is comprised of experts in all of the aforementioned fields For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/ihll Editors Jason Rothman University of Reading Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro University of Illinois at Chicago Editorial Board Sonia Colina University of Arizona João Costa Universidade Nova de Lisboa Inês Duarte Universidade de Lisboa Sónia Frota Universidade de Lisboa Ángel J Gallego University of Barcelona María del Pilar García Mayo Universidad del Ps Vasco Anna Gavarró Universitat Autịnoma de Barcelona Kimberly L Geeslin Indiana University Michael Iverson Liliana Sánchez Paula Kempchinsky Ana Lúcia Santos Juana M Liceras Carmen Silva-Corvalán Macquarie University University of Iowa University of Ottawa Rutgers University Universidade de Lisboa John M Lipski University of Southern California Gillian Lord University of Maryland Jairo Nunes University of Ottawa Acrisio Pires Michigan State University Pennsylvania State University University of Florida Universidade de São Paulo Juan Uriagereka Elena Valenzuela Bill VanPatten University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Pilar Prieto Universitat Pampeu Fabra Volume The Acquisition of Spanish in Understudied Language Pairings Edited by Tiffany Judy and Silvia Perpiñán Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com The Acquisition of Spanish in Understudied Language Pairings Edited by Tiffany Judy Wake Forest University Silvia Perpiñán The University of Western Ontario John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984 doi 10.1075/ihll.3 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: lccn 2014038339 (print) / 2014047123 (e-book) isbn 978 90 272 5802 (Hb) isbn 978 90 272 6908 (e-book) © 2015 – John Benjamins B.V No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher John Benjamins Publishing Co · P.O Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Table of contents Introduction The importance of crosslinguistic comparison in the study of the acquisition of Spanish Tiffany Judy & Silvia Perpiñán part i. Spanish as the L2 in a bilingual society Crosslinguistic influences in the mapping of functional features in Quechua-Spanish Bilingualism Liliana Sánchez 21 Verbal agreement in the L2 Spanish of speakers of Nahuatl Alma P Ramírez-Trujillo & Joyce Bruhn de Garavito 49 Early coda production in bilingual Spanish and Basque Maria-José Ezeizabarrena & Alaitz Alegria 75 The locative paradigm in the L2 Spanish of Catalan native speakers Silvia Perpiñán 105 part ii. Spanish as an L2 in a non-bilingual society The acquisition of Spanish in a bilingual and a trilingual L1 setting: Combining Spanish with German, French and Catalan Laia Arnaus Gil & Natascha Müller 135 Knowledge and processing of subject-related discourse properties in L2 near-native speakers of Spanish, L1 Farsi Tiffany Judy 169 Subject pronouns in the L2 Spanish of Moroccan Arabic speakers: Evidence from bilingual and second language learners Aurora Bel & Estela García-Alcaraz 201 The construal of goal-oriented motion events by Swedish speakers of L2 Spanish: Encoding of motion endpoints and Manner of motion Alejandra Donoso & Emanuel Bylund 233 www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com The Acquisition of Spanish in Understudied Language Pairings part iii. Spanish as an L2 in an instructional context Object drop in L2 Spanish, (complex) feature reassembly, and L1 pre-emption: Comparing English, Chinese, European and Brazilian Portuguese learners Michael Iverson & Jason Rothman The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish by Turkish speakers Silvina Montrul & Ayʂe Gürel Copula choice in adjectival constructions in Dutch L1 Spanish L2 Manuela Pinto & Alexia Guerra Rivera 257 281 309 Typological proximity in L2 acquisition: The Spanish non-native grammar of French speakers Juana M Liceras & Anahí Alba de la Fuente 329 Index 359 Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com The importance of crosslinguistic comparison in the study of the acquisition of Spanish Tiffany Judy & Silvia Perpiñán Wake Forest University / The University of Western Ontario The aim of this volume is to present to both the reader and the field a collection of empirical studies examining the acquisition of Spanish, currently one of the world’s most spoken and studied languages, in combination with languages other than English Despite the multitude of speakers of varied L1s that acquire Spanish, no collection of understudied language combinations, such as those that comprise this volume, has thus far been compiled The research that appears herein includes a variety of acquisition scenarios (child and adult), learning contexts (classroom, naturalistic immersion), societal contexts (bilingual and non-bilingual societies), language pairings (typologically similar and typologically dissimilar) and linguistic properties (discourse constraints, adjectival constructions and coda production to name a few), yet holds constant the acquisition of Spanish This variety and breadth of coverage is the base of what we consider a well-rounded survey of Spanish in the context of bi/multilingualism and second language acquisition (SLA), but also makes possible several important theoretical contributions For example, a major theoretical question examined in acquisition studies, whether early bilingualism or adult SLA, regards the nature and representation of the speaker’s developing linguistic system While it is assumed in this volume and the chapters that comprise it that language acquisition is guided by Universal Grammar (UG), previous linguistic knowledge has observable effects on bilingual development and SLA It is only through a systematic comparison of different language combinations that we can tease apart what comes from first language transfer (whether facilitative or non-facilitative) and what comes from other sources such as Universal Grammar, frequency of input, or general cognition One pertinent example of this type of research is Iverson and Rothman’ chapter, where object drop in Spanish is examined in two Romance languages (Brazilian and European Portuguese) in conjunction with two non-Romance languages (English and Mandarin Chinese) The purpose of this chapter is to account for some observed differences in the developmental sequences and ultimate attainment in the L2 acquisition of the same target property from various L1 backgrounds The chapter contributes significantly to SLA theory and data analysis conventions in doi 10.1075/ihll.3.01jud © 2015 John Benjamins Publishing Company www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Tiffany Judy & Silvia Perpiñán that it demonstrates, through comparison of the four aforementioned language pairings, that a simple view of L1 transfer alone does not adequately explain the different behavior from the L1 groups Instead, Iverson and Rothman propose that the theoretical constructs of L1 pre-emption (Trahey & White 1993) and feature reassembly (Lardiere 2008, 2009) are essential in L2 theorizing This and other crosslinguistic descriptions, many of which are original, add to the field’s general knowledge of linguistic systems and, more importantly, to the description of universal principles and parameterized properties Furthermore, systematic comparisons of this sort allow researchers to investigate how Spanish may develop at different rates or through different transitional stages depending on the first or other language(s) An example from the literature is VanPatten (1987), where it was proposed that native (L1) English speakers progress through a five-stage development in their acquisition of ser/estar in Spanish Taking into account the syntactic structure and the semantic features involved in the different ser/estar constructions, VanPatten (2010) simplified this proposal and concluded that the actual learning problem is estar, given its marked aspectual nature in comparison to the unmarked aspectual feature of ser (Schmitt 1997, 2005) However, this proposal can only be generalized if corroborating evidence from other language combinations obtains In this volume, three chapters investigate the acquisition of Spanish ser/estar in combination with Catalan, Dutch, German and French, and in different linguistic contexts For example, Pinto and Guerra Rivera examine the acquisition of the copular verbs with adjectives by adult classroom L2 learners whose native language is Dutch, another language with a binary copular system Pinto and Guerra Rivera argue that acquisition of ser/estar + adjective, is not problematic across the board, and that only a subset of semantic properties denoted by estar + adjective are problematic for their Dutch speakers Perpiñán’s chapter explores the expression of location with ser/ estar (and also haber) in Spanish, and demonstrates that some semantic properties encoded with the expression of location can still somehow be problematic for very advanced bilingual speakers whose L1 is Catalan These two chapters highlight the difficulties posed by the acquisition of estar and the importance of understanding the underlying syntax and semantics of the ser/estar structures, as proposed by VanPatten (2010) Arnaus Gil and Müller, on the other hand, in their study of bilingual and trilingual children, observe that ser is more problematic than estar for children, unlike what has been previously reported for adult L2 acquirers These new data on the acquisition of ser/estar complement, redefine and corroborate some proposals put forward by VanPatten (1985, 1987, 2010) for English-speaking learners of Spanish, showing that it is only through examination of multiple language combinations that we can gain a more accurate and complete picture of the acquisition stages The importance of crosslinguistic in the study of the acquisition of Spanish Free ebooks ==>comparison www.ebook777.com Still other pairings from the same language family, namely Romance languages, make it possible to investigate microparametric differences and their potential effects on SLA Liceras and Alba de la Fuente’s overview chapter on the interlanguage of French speakers learning Spanish, as well as Perpiñán’s study on the Spanish grammar of Catalan-dominant Spanish-Catalan bilinguals demonstrate that only by exploring subtle differences (i.e microparametric differences) between typologically closely-related languages can we properly describe the implicit grammars of these speakers Specifically, Liceras and Alba de la Fuente’s chapter explores microparametric differences between French and Spanish on noun compounds, plural realization, clitic clusters, plural and case marking in quantifiers, passives and subject realization and conclude that, even when the languages are typologically proximate to one another, they might not be typologically similar This may be a cause of difficulties comparable to those that L2 speakers encounter when faced with strong parametric differences or surface structure filters These authors, among others, provide data on plural and case marking in quantifiers, and demonstrate that the advanced French-Spanish speakers show evidence of neither the L1 nor the L2 setting, but rather that of another typological proximate Romance language, in this case Catalan This type of research not only contributes to the current debate regarding microparametric variation in morphosyntax and SLA theory, but also makes contributions to the field of linguistics as it provides a more fine-grained analysis of the linguistic variation evidenced in the world’s languages as well as potentially providing insight into the L2 developmental process Lastly, some language combinations provide a piece of the puzzle regarding examination of certain hypotheses that are not fully testable in the absence of the specific language pairing For example, the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace 2011, 2012) claims that language combination is not a deterministic factor in native-like processing of external interface-conditioned properties That is, the facilitative or non-facilitative nature of the L1 and L2 is not predicted to determine native-like processing To test this prediction, though, both facilitative and non-facilitative language pairings must be examined Judy’s chapter provides one necessary piece of the puzzle for falsifying this claim in that it examines a language pairing and property for which L1 transfer is facilitative Thus, holding methodology and proficiency of the participants constant, if speakers of facilitative language pairings such as Farsi-Spanish outperform speakers of non-facilitative pairings such as English-Spanish, counterevidence is found for this specific claim An ongoing debate exists in the field regarding the role of input in language development and language acquisition In generative linguistics, however, the role of other linguistic factors, usually those external to the speaker’s mind such as quantity and quality of input or societal context, have been downplayed to a www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Tiffany Judy & Silvia Perpiñán degree since the emphasis has largely been placed on describing implicit grammars and linguistic competence While describing language acquirers’ implicit grammars remains a goal of this volume, we aim to so while not obviating the possible influence of external factors in the acquisition process For this reason, the volume is organized in three sections based on the type of contact the speakers had with the Spanish language Section of the volume presents four chapters that examine acquisition of Spanish in four distinct bilingual society contexts: Quechua-Spanish in Peru; Nahuatl-Spanish in Mexico; Basque-Spanish in the Basque Country; and Catalan-Spanish in Catalonia Section contains four chapters that present research conducted on naturalistic aquirers of Spanish, be they children or adults, in non-bilingual societies: German-Spanish, FrenchSpanish and German-Catalan-Spanish child speakers in Europe; Farsi-Spanish adult speakers in Argentina; Moroccan Arabic-Spanish child sequential speakers tested as teenagers in Spain as well as typical classroom L2 learners of Spanish; and Swedish-Spanish speakers in Chile Lastly, Section is largely comprised of typical adult classroom learners of Spanish: an overview chapter that includes B razilian Portuguese, European Portuguese and English classroom learners of Spanish as well as Mandarin Chinese-Spanish child, teenage and adult naturalistically acquiring bilinguals in Peru; Turkish-Spanish learners in Turkey; Dutch-Spanish learners tested in the Netherlands; and an overview chapter that examines French-Spanish learners The following sections provide a brief introduction to the acquisitional setting, merits and description of each chapter 1. Spanish as the L2 in a bilingual society The collection of studies included in this section describes the grammar of bilinguals living in a bilingual society and whose non-dominant or second language is Spanish In a bilingual society, both languages generally have considerable presence in the life of the community and are both frequently activated in the bilingual’s mind Still, in most bilingual situations, speakers tend to identify themselves, be dominant or be raised in one language, which naturally creates an asymmetry in the speakers’ bilingual competence Nonetheless, the linguistic dominance in one language over the other can be dynamic and might change over the life span of the speaker depending on the context or the speaker’s needs, as seen in Ramírez Trujillo and Bruhn de Garavito’s chapter In the studies included in this section, Spanish is the language learnt later in life, as the majority language, usually in a naturalistic environment, although sometimes also in instructional contexts since Spanish is taught in the classroom Our aim in distinguishing between Spanish acquisition in a bilingual context versus a non-bilingual context (Section 2), is to properly define Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Juana M Liceras & Anahí Alba de la Fuente L1 Romanian speakers would be at an advantage in this case, since the restrictions in their L2 match those of their L1 In turn, L1 French speakers would have to restructure the restrictions available to them in their L1 to accommodate to the less restrictive set of constraints of the L2 in their IL L1 English speakers would need to acquire a new set of restrictions altogether, as these constraints not apply in English due to the different category of its pronouns The results of experiment 1, a scaled grammaticality judgment task, showed that, despite the fact that the overall acceptance rates differed significantly in all groups and that all non-native groups accepted ungrammatical combinations in Spanish, only the L1 Romanian speakers patterned with the native control group in that they assigned higher scores to grammatical combinations and lower scores to ungrammatical ones Even though all of the experimental combinations are categorically unacceptable in their L1, the L1 French speakers presented a certain degree of acceptance for all combinations, including ungrammatical ones, and displayed a pattern that matched that of the L1 English group These results suggest that typological proximity in itself does not necessarily provide an advantage to L2 speakers Rather, it is typological similarity that serves learners by providing some sort of positive reinforcement, as indicated by the high acceptance rates of grammatical combinations by the L1 Romanian speakers (although they still accepted ungrammatical conditions at a much higher rate than the native control, preference for grammatical conditions was significantly higher) 3.5 P assive constructions are not different when it comes to differential object marking Tremblay (2006) investigated the L2 acquisition of Spanish reflexive passives, as in (26), and reflexive impersonals, as in (27), by French- and English-speaking adults at an advanced level of proficiency (26) Esos pisos se[ACC] construyeron hace dos siglos Ces appartements se[ACC] sont construits depuis deux siècles These apartments were built after two centuries ‘These flats were built two centuries ago.’ (27) En esta ciudad se[NOM] puede entrar con mucha facilidad Dans cette ville on[NOM] peut entrer très facilement In this city one can enter very easily ‘In this city one can enter very easily.’/‘One enters this city very easily.’ A main difference between the two constructions stems from the fact that reflexive passives can only be formed with transitive verbs (verbs that can assign accusative case), while impersonal passives can be formed with copulative, unergative or unaccusative verbs Another important difference is that the internal argument of Typological proximity in L2 acquisition Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com impersonal passives checks accusative case and must be preceded by the so-called personal a that precedes Spanish [+animate] [+specific] direct object complements, as in (28) (28) Aq se[nom.] respeta a los niđos Ici on respecte les enfants ‘Here one respects children.’/‘Here children are respected.’ In principle, as Tremblay herself hypothesized, typological proximity would predict that native French speakers would evidence convergence on these properties because neither of the two constructions exist in English and even if impersonal passive does not exist in French, this construction and the reflexive passive construction are superficially similar (se V DP) to the French reflexive passive construction Tremblay (2006) administered a grammaticality judgment task to 16 French, 13 English and 27 Spanish (control) speakers in order to determine how the advanced non-native speakers fared when compared to native speakers and whether typological proximity gave an advantage to the L1 French group She found that the two non-native groups differed significantly from the native group As for the two non-native groups, typological proximity played a role in that the French group significantly outperformed the English group on grammatical reflexive passives with a pre-verbal [-animate] DP that had to agree with the verb Grammatical and ungrammatical impersonal test items involving [+animate] DPs – preceded or not by the object-marking preposition a – were particularly problematic, as L2 learners judged them both as grammatical This implies, once more, that subtle differences between typologically proximate languages are as problematic for the speakers of one of the two languages as for speakers from languages where the same differences exist and are typologically more distant.21 In this specific case, the L2Sp-L1Fr IL may fossilize the omission of personal a across the board, not only with impersonal passives but also with any transitive sentences, as is the case with Spanish Heritage speakers and other Spanish ILs (Guijarro-Fuentes 2012; Montrul & Bowles 2009) The acquisition of the four constructions discussed in this section evidences that when typological proximity between French and Spanish is not realized as typological similarity, the L2Sp-L1Fr IL displays instances of competition between the two grammars as well as constructions that are possible in other natural languages . Differential object marking is not particular to Spanish but occurs in natural languages such as Hindi, Yiddish, Persian or Turkish (Montrul & Gürel, this volume), which are typologically distant from both Spanish and French (Aissen 2003; Leonetti 2004; Torrego 1998) www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Juana M Liceras & Anahí Alba de la Fuente 4. The Spanish grammar of L1 French speakers: Beyond morphosyntax There are two areas of language competence that have received special attention in this century: one pertains to structures that have a special status at the interfaces in general and at the syntax-pragmatic interface in particular, and the other pertains to processing preferences In this section, we discuss anaphora resolution in ambiguous contexts, an area of grammar often considered as a “crossroads” case In her study on the topic, Carminati (2002) used Italian experimental data to test the Position of Antecedent Hypothesis (PAH), which states that the distinct uses of null and overt pronouns is based on the preferences that speakers have for anaphor antecedents differing along a ‘prominence’ scale According to this scale, which is based on syntactic notions, “antecedents in the highest specifier projection (the Spec IP, i.e the subject position) are considered to be more prominent than antecedents in lower projections (e.g the direct object and the indirect object position)” (Carminati 2002, p 6) Thus, when the parser encounters a null pronoun, it searches for an antecedent in the subject position, as shown in (29a) However, when the parser encounters an overt pronoun, it searches for an antecedent in a non-subject position, as in (29b) (29) a Alexi vio a Juan mientras Øi montaba en bicicleta Alexi saw dom Juan while (hei) was riding on bike ‘Alex saw Juan while he was riding a bike.’ b Alex vio a Juani mientras éli montaba en bicicleta Alex saw dom Juani while hei was riding on bike ‘Alex saw Juan while he was riding on bike.’ In other words, null pronouns prefer the antecedent in Spec IP (the subject position) while overt pronouns prefer to be coindexed with the antecedent in object position, regardless of them being in forward or backward anaphora constructions, as we can see in (29) versus (30) (30) a Mientras Øi montaba en bicicleta Alexi vio a Juan while (hei) was riding on bike Alexi saw Juan b Mientras éli montaba en bicicleta Alex vio a Juani Alex saw Juani while hei was riding on bike ‘While he was riding on bike Alex saw Juan.’ The PAH has been tested using experimental data in Italian (Belleti, Bennati & S orace 2007; Sorace & Filiaci 2006), Spanish (Alonso-Ovalle, Fernández-Solera, Frazier & Clifton 2002), and Arabic (Bel & García-Alcaraz, this volume), among other languages These experimental data have shown that native speakers have rather categorical processing preferences in the case of null subjects as in (29a) and (30a), in Typological proximity in L2 acquisition Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com contrast with the less clear-cut picture offered by overt subjects (29b) and (30b), in which the overt pronoun can also take an outside referent (neither Alex nor Juan but rather someone else) As for non-native speakers (L1 English speakers), the processing preferences were native-like for the anaphora resolution of null subjects but significantly different from the native preferences for the anaphora resolution of overt subject pronouns These results have been interpreted as evidence that non-native speakers not master the pragmatic principles that determine the use of overt subjects in Italian (Belleti et al 2007; Sorace & Filiaci 2006) or Spanish (Valenzuela, Liceras & López-Morelos 2011) These results also show that non-native speakers not master the processing preferences related to overt subjects in that they not associate overt subjects to a non-prominent (non-subject) antecedent as proposed by Carminati (2002) but rather seem to treat them as null subjects Taking into account that the interface problem does not take into consideration the fact that not all Spanish overt pronouns have a pragmatic value, Liceras and Alba de la Fuente (Forthcoming), further investigate this issue in a study that analyzes data from a grammaticality judgment task administered to L1 and L2 speakers of Spanish (L1 French) Assuming a microparametric approach to the null subject parameter (Martínez-Sanz 2011; Sheehan 2006), the authors propose, as in Liceras and Fernández-Fuertes (2013), that Spanish has two different types of overt subjects: strong pronouns that have a focus or pragmatic value and overt weak pronouns that are phonetic realizations of the null subject option (Holmberg 2005) In other words, Spanish overt weak pronouns, which are said to be the marked option in relation to null pronouns for native Spanish speakers, could be interpreted as French clitics by L1 French speakers The authors further argue that, rather than their pragmatic value, it is the marked status of these pronouns with respect to their null counterparts that L1 French speakers (or L1 English speakers) may not capture This interpretation would make it difficult for the L1 French speakers to grasp the processing differences associated with null and overt pronouns which, in turn, could lead to a lack of specialization of the two different types of pronouns This scenario would imply that we are in fact confronting a processing problem, rather than an interface problem, because the choice would not have to be linked to the pragmatic value of Spanish strong pronouns but rather to the successful mapping of the two different types of overt pronouns The results of the grammaticality judgment task revealed significant differences between the native and non-native groups In the case of the L1 Spanish group, the results were compatible with the authors’ proposal that Spanish overt pronouns can have a pragmatic value but they can also be weak pronouns, namely, the phonetic realization of null subjects (Holmberg 2005; Sheehan 2006) Specifically, and in contrast with Carminati’s PAH, the differences between subject www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Juana M Liceras & Anahí Alba de la Fuente and object referents were not straightforward, as the results revealed differences between subject and object across different conditions, but no main effect for presence of pronoun was found Indeed, whereas participants did prefer the object of the main clause as the referent for an overt subject, they provided similar rates for subject and object referents in the case of forward anaphora with a null subject–a configuration, shown in (30a), where the PAH would predict a clear preference for subject over object- and a certain degree of preference for both subject and object referents was found in all conditions In the case of the L1 French group, speakers showed a preference for subject referents in all conditions, although the differences between subject and object referents were quite narrow in the forward anaphora conditions–as in (29a) and (29b) In sum, the anaphora resolution preferences displayed by the native Spanish speakers of this experiment not follow Carminati’s PAH when it comes to null subject forward anaphora–shown in (29a) However, the native group differs significantly from the L1 French group in that only the former differentiates between null subjects and overt subjects, which the authors interpret as evidence that it is only for the native speakers that the marked status of Spanish weak overt pronouns plays a role when processing anaphora resolution In the case of the nonnative speakers, the marked status of the overt pronoun does not seem to be part of their grammar 5. C onclusions Taking as a point of departure the differences and similarities between French and Spanish object pronouns (Section 2.1), we have argued that the feature analysis that differentiates them provides a more refined framework for comparing the two languages and analysing the L2Sp-L1Fr IL than a parametric analysis that considers the two types of pronouns to be affix-like elements We have further argued that this provides a clear example of how typological proximity differs from typological similarity, namely, French and Spanish evidence typological proximity but their clitic systems not evidence typological similarity In Section 2.2, we have used the status of French and Spanish with respect to the null subject parameter to argue that even though French has systematically been considered a [–null subject] language like English, the fact that, unlike English, French has clitic subject pronouns and adopts a different solution to abide by the so-called that-trace filter distances this language from English, a fact that the traditional view of parameters cannot capture These specific characteristics of French, together with the fact that it has maintained some verbal agreement Typological proximity in L2 acquisition Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com markers, may facilitate theacquisition of Spanish by L1 French speakers In this respect, typological proximity may supersede the fact that these two languages differ in terms of the microparameters (or properties) associated to the null subject parameter (Sheehan 2006) In fact, it is only when sophisticated and upto-date linguistic analyses tease apart typological proximity and typological similarity that a clearer picture emerges (as in Alba de la Fuente (2012) or in Perales and Liceras (2010), where a feature account of object pronouns is used to provide an analysis of L2Sp-L1Fr Spanish clitics) We have shown throughout this chapter that typological proximity may obscure some obvious and subtle differences that separate two closely related languages such as French and Spanish, thus resulting in transfer or idiosyncratic forms that co-exist with the L2 forms and may eventually fossilize Such would be the case of N-N and deverbal compounds, as shown in Pomerleau (2000), the variability in the production of plural markers reported by Bruhn de Garavito (2008), the idiosyncratic bare quantifier structures identified in Androutsopoulou, Espol-Echevarría and Prévost (2010), or the omission of the personal a marker in reflexive passives and impersonals with a [+animate] DP To account for the simultaneous availability of target-like, transferred and idiosyncratic L2Sp-L1Fr parametric options or feature combinations, namely to account for the optionality that is so pervasive in IL systems, we have turned to the CGH Based on this hypothesis we have argued that the L2Sp-L1Fr speakers, like L1 learners and the L1 speakers whose grammars are depicted to explain diachronic change, may make use of two competing grammars (the two options of a given parameter or the feature combinations displayed by two different languages) when using their IL This seems to be the case when language-specific morphology such as the generic -s of Spanish deverbal compounds or the plural marking of some Spanish quantifiers, constitute a problem for L1Fr speakers and, in fact, seem to be candidates for permanent variability (fossilization) This implies that it is not only macroparametric options between the L1 and the L2 that compete but rather microparametric options or specific rules that may be available in other languages, as is also the case with differential object marking (the personal a of direct objects) or the specific realization of the that-t filter We have also shown that even though the differences between null and overt pronouns in anaphora resolution have been accounted for in terms of difficulties posed by the pragmatic value of overt pronouns (an interface condition), the fact that Spanish overt pronouns can be weak (the marked option of the null realization) has to be taken into consideration We have specifically argued that this influences the grammaticality judgements of both the native Spanish speakers and the L2Sp-L1Fr speakers when it comes to anaphor ambiguity resolution and seems to indicate that it is not necessarily the pragmatic value of strong pronouns that www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Juana M Liceras & Anahí Alba de la Fuente is problematic for the L2Sp-L1Fr speakers, but rather the processing of null and overt pronouns, in the sense that they not seem to capture the marked value of Spanish overt pronouns We are aware of the fact that more research is needed to tease apart difficulties encountered by non-native speakers at the pragmaticinterface level from processing differences between native and non-native speakers However, we conclude that empirical research aimed at providing an in-depth analysis of these difficulties should take into consideration sophisticated linguistic analyses that provide a suitable framework for investigating non-native competence and non-native processing References Adams, M.P (1987) Old French, Null Subjects and Verb-second Phenomena Unpublished Ph.D dissertation UCLA, Berkeley Adjémian, C (1976) On the nature of interlanguage systems Language Learning, 26, 297–320 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00279.x Adjémian, C., & Liceras, J.M (1984) Universal grammar, the intake component and L1: Accounting for adult acquisition of relative clauses In F Eckman, L Bell, & D Nelson (Eds.), Universals of Second Language Acquisition (pp 101–118) Rowley, MA: Newbury House Aissen, J (2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs economy Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483 DOI: 10.1023/a:1024109008573 Alba de la Fuente, A (2010) More on the clitic combination puzzle: Evidence from S panish, Catalan and Romanian In S Colina, A Olarrea, & A M Carvalho (Eds.), Romance Linguistics 2009 Selected papers from the 39th Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Tuscon, Arizona, March 2009 (pp 203–215) Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI: 10.1075/cilt.315.12alb Alba de la Fuente, A (2012) Clitic Combinations in Spanish: Syntax, Processing and Acquisition Unpublished Ph.D dissertation University of Ottawa, Ottawa Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández-Solera, S Frazier, L., & Clifton C (2002) Null vs overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish Journal of Italian Linguistics, 14,151–170 Anderson, S.R (1993) Wackernagel’s revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second position Language, 69(1), 68–98 DOI: 10.2307/416416 Androutsopoulou, A., Espol-Echevarría, M., & Prévost, P.H (2010) The syntax/morphology interface in Spanish L2 acquisition: Focus on quantified DPs The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 55(2), 149–180 DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2010.0005 Authier, M (1992) A parametric account of V-governed arbitrary null arguments Natural Languages and Linguistic Theory, 10(3), 345–374 DOI: 10.1007/bf00133367 Baker, M.C (1996) The Polysynthesis Parameter Oxford: OUP DOI: 10.1017/s0022226798227113 Belleti, 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 DOI: 10.1007/s11049-007-9026-9 Typological proximity in L2 acquisition Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Bley-Vroman, R (1990) The logical problem of foreign language learning Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49 DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781139524544.005 Bonet, E (1991) Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance Languages Unpublished Ph.D dissertation MIT Bonet, E (1994) The person-case constraint: A morphological approach MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22 The Morphology-Syntax Connection (pp 33–52) Bonet, E (2008) The person-case constraint and repair strategies In R D’Alessandro, S Fischer, & G Hrafnbjargarson (Eds.), Agreement Restrictions (pp 103–128) Berlin: De Gruyter DOI: 10.1515/9783110207835.103 Bruhn de Garavito, J (1999) The Syntax of Spanish Multifunctional Clitics and Near-native Competence Unpublished Ph.D dissertation McGill University, Montreal Bruhn de Garavito, J (2008) Acquisition of the Spanish plural by French L1 speakers: The role of transfer In J M Liceras, H Zobl, & H Goodluck (Eds.), The Role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition (pp 270–298) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Camacho Taboada, V (2006) La arquitectura de la gramática Los clíticos pronominales románicos y eslavos Sevilla: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla Carminati, M.N (2002) The Processing of Italian Subject Pronouns Unpublished Ph.D dissertation University of Massachusetts, Amherst Chomsky, N (1981) Lectures on government and binding Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris DOI: 10.2307/2273965 Chomsky, N (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use New York, NY: Praeger DOI: 10.9793/elsj1984.6.213 Chomsky, N (1995) The Minimalist Program Cambridge MA: The MIT Press DOI: 10.1017/s0272263197241070 Chomsky, N & Lasnik, H (1977) Filters and control Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 425–504 DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0002 Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H (1993) Principles and parameters theory In J Jacobs, A von Stechow, W Sternefeld, & T Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol.1 (pp 506–569) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Desrochers, A., Liceras, J.M., Spradlin, K.T., & Fernández, R (2003) Can an on-line response latency task shed light on native and non-native competence in the deverbal compounds of Spanish? In J M Liceras, H Zobl, & H Goodluck (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA-6) Conference: L2 Links (pp. 64–70) Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press Ellis, R (1994) The Study of second language acquisition Oxford: OUP DOI: 10.1017/s0272263100014479 Fontana, J (1994) A variationist account of the development of the Spanish clitic system In K. Beals (Ed.), Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 2: The Parasession on Variation in Linguistic Theory (pp 87–100) Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society Fontana, J (1997) On the integration of second position phenomena In A Kemenade & N. Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change (pp 207–249) Cambridge: CUP Goodluck, H (1986) Language acquisition and linguistic theory In P Fletcher & M Garman (Eds.), Language Acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp 49–68) Cambridge: CUP DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511620683.005 www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Juana M Liceras & Anahí Alba de la Fuente Greenberg, J (1963) Universals of Language Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press DOI: 10.1017/s0022226700001109 Guijarro-Fuentes, P (2012) The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a* Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 701–720 DOI: 10.1017/s1366728912000144 Han, Z.-H (2013) Forty years later: Updating the Fossilization Hypothesis Language Teaching, 46, 133–171 DOI: 10.1017/s0261444812000511 Holmberg, A (2005) Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 533–64 DOI: 10.1162/002438905774464322 Kayne, R (1975) French Syntax Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press DOI: 10.1017/s0022226700005272 Kayne, R (1976) French relative que In M Luján & F Hensey (Eds.), Current Studies in Romance Linguistics (pp 255–299) Washington DC: Georgetown University Press Keenan, E., & Comrie, B (1977) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99 Kellerman, E (1979) Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37–57 DOI: 10.1017/s0272263100000942 Kroch, A (1994) Morphosyntactic variation In K Beals (Ed.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp 180–201) Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society Kroch, A (2001) Syntactic change In M Baltin & C Collins (Eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory (pp 699–729) Oxford: Blackwell DOI: 10.1002/9780470756416.ch22 Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M.H (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Research London: Longman DOI: 10.1177/026765839200800205 Leonetti, M (2004) Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114 Liceras, J.M (1985) The value of clitics in non-native Spanish Second Language Research, 1(2), 151–168 Liceras, J.M (1986) Linguistic Theory and Second Language Acquisition: The Spanish Nonnative Grammar of English Speakers Tubingen: Gunter Narr DOI: 10.1017/s0272263100007403 Liceras, J.M (1989) On some properties of the pro-drop parameter: Looking for missing subjects in non-native Spanish In S Gass & J Schachter (Eds.), Language Acquisition: A Linguistic Approach (pp 109–133) Cambridge: CUP DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781139524544.009 Liceras, J.M (2014) The Multiple Grammars Theory and the nature of L2 grammars Commentary to L Amaral and T Roeper’s Multiple Grammars and second language representation Second Language Research, 30(1), 47–54 DOI: 10.1177/0267658313517841 Liceras, J.M., & Alba de la Fuente, A (Forthcoming) Native and non-native acceptability judgments on the anaphoric value of null and overt Spanish subject pronouns Liceras, J.M., & Fernández-Fuertes, R (2013) Subject omission/production in child bilingual English and child bilingual Spanish: The view from linguistic theory Workshop on Crosslinguistic influence in language contact 19th International Congress of Linguistics (ICL 2013) – Geneva, July 2013 Liceras, J.M., Mongeon, C., Cuza, A., Senn, C., & Spradlin, K.T (2004) La adquisición en el aula sin input formal: Los compuestos exocéntricos de las interlenguas del espol Red-ELE, 0, 1–28 Martínez-Sanz, C (2011) Null and Overt Subjects in a Variable System: The Case of Dominican Spanish Unpublished Ph.D dissertation University of Ottawa, Ottawa Typological proximity in L2 acquisition Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Montrul, S., & Bowles, M (2009) Back to basics: Incomplete knowledge of differential object marking in Spanish heritage speakers Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 363–383 DOI: 10.1017/s1366728909990071 Newmeyer, F.J (1990) Explaining language universals Journal of Linguistics, 26, 203–222 DOI: 10.1017/s002222670001450x Perales, S., & Liceras, J.M (2010) Looking for universals in the acquisition of L2 Spanish object clitics In P Guijarro-Fuentes & L Dominguez (Eds.), New Directions in Language Acquisition: Romance Languages in the Generative Perspective (pp 419–452) Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Pérez-Leroux, A.T., & Liceras, J.M (2002) The Acquisition of Spanish Morphosyntax: The L1/L2 Connection Dordrecht: Kluwer DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-0291-2 Pomerleau, J (2000) La adquisición del espol en el aula: Los compuestos nominales de los franceses de Canadá Unpublished Master thesis Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona Rivero, M.L (1986) Parameters in the typology of clitics in Romance and Old Spanish Language, 62(4), 774–807 DOI: 10.2307/415172 Rivero, M.L (1997) On two locations for complement clitic pronouns: Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian and Old Spanish In A Kemenade & N Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change (pp 170–206) Cambridge: CUP Rivero, M.L (2004) Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions and the person-case constraint Linguistic Inquiry, 35(3), 494–502 DOI: 10.1162/ling.2004.35.3.494 Rivero, M.L (2008) Oblique subjects and person restrictions in Spanish: A morphological approach In R D’Alessandro, S Fischer, & G Hrafnbjargarson (Eds.), Agreement Restrictions (pp 215–250) Berlin: De Gruyter DOI: 10.1515/9783110207835.215 Roberge, Y (1986) Subject doubling, free inversion and null argument languages Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 31(1), 54–79 Roberge, Y (1990) The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press DOI: 10.7202/602763ar Roberts, I (1993) Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A Comparative History of English and French Dorcrecht: Kluwer DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-2910-7_2 Rothman, J (2011) L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: the typological primacy model Second Language Research, 27(1), 107–217 DOI: 10.1177/0267658310386439 Rothman, J (2013) Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3 acquisition: evidence from initial stages of L3 Romance In S Baauw, F.A.C Drijkoningen, & M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory (pp 217–247) Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI: 10.1075/rllt.5.11rot Rothman, J (In press) Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the typological primacy model of third language (L3) transfer: considering the role of timing of acquisition and proficiency in the previous languages Bilingualism: Language and Cognition DOI: 10.1017/s136672891300059x Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R (1994) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72 DOI: 10.1177/026765839601200103 Selinker, L (1972) Interlanguage IRAL, 10(2), 209–231 DOI: 10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 Selinker, L., & Lamendella, J (1978) Two perspectives on fossilization in interlanguage learning Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3(2), 143–191 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01075.x www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Juana M Liceras & Anahí Alba de la Fuente Sheehan, M (2006) The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance Unpublished Ph.D dissertation Newcastle University, UK Slabakova, R (2009) L2 fundamentals Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), 155–173 DOI: 10.1017/s0272263109090263 Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F (2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian Second Language Research, 22(3), 339–368 DOI: 10.1191/0267658306sr271oa Tarone, E (1982) Systematicity and attention in interlanguage Language Learning, 32(1), 69–84 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1982.tb00519.x Torrego, E (1998) Nominative subjects and pro-drop Infl Syntax, 1(2), 206–219 DOI: 10.1111/1467-9612.00008 Tremblay, A (2006) On the second language acquisition of Spanish reflexive passives and reflexive impersonals by French- and English-speaking adults Second Language Research, 22(1), 30–63 DOI: 10.1191/0267658306sr260oa Valenzuela, E., Liceras, J.M., & López-Morelos, L.P (2011) Ambiguous anaphora in L2 English and L2 Spanish Paper presented at the BUCLD 36 Wackernagel, J (1892) Uber ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung Indogermanische Forschungen, 1, 333–436 White, L (1985) The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition Language Learning, 35(1), 47–62 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01014.x Yang, C (2002) Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language Oxford: OUP Zobl, H., & Liceras, J.M (2006) Competing grammars and parametric shifts in second language acquisition and the history of English and Spanish In D Bamman, T Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp 713–724) Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Index A [+STATE] 312 Accessibility Hierarchy 331–333 Accusative case 140, 284–288, 291, 294, 349 see also Differential Object Marking (DOM) clitic 69, 110, 121–122, 261, 269, 271–272 object 294, 335 Activation 21–26, 32, 34–35, 37, 39, 42–43, 108, 127, 140, 177–178 Affricate 77, 79–81, 85–86 Afrikaans 235–236 Alveolar 76–77, 80–81, 86–88 see also Apico-alveolar, Dento-alveolar Anaphora resolution 203, 209–210, 224–227, 334, 350–353 Animacy 282–283, 285–290, 300, 302–303 Animate 114, 265, 281–282, 284–285, 288–293, 295, 297, 300, 302–304, 349, 353 Inanimate 114, 127, 129, 265, 284, 288–289, 291–293, 295–297, 300–302, 304 Apico-alveolar 77, 80, 86 see also Alveolar Arabic 115, 171, 201, 203, 206–207, 209–210, 224–226, 235–236, 332–333, 350 Moroccan Arabic 115, 171, 201, 203, 206, 209–210, 224, 226 Modern Standard Arabic 206, 235 Darija 206 Aspect 28, 30, 33, 35, 37, 52, 94, 234–236, 241, 244, 281, 284, 312, 315 Aspectual content 312 delimitation 312 difference 109, 315 feature 23–24, 34–35, 37–38, 42, 312, 316 information 312 interpretation 155, 312, 316 markers 312 morphology 235 property 139, 289, 309, 312–316, 320–321, 324 suffix 30, 33 Attributive adjective 135–136, 146, 157, 162 B Bantu languages 282 Basque 56, 75–76, 78–101 Bilingual acquisition 76, 78, 113, 157, 208 Bilingual first language acquisition 21 Brazilian Portuguese (BP) 173, 260, 265, 271–276 C Catalan 75–76, 81, 96, 99, 105–118, 120–129, 135–137, 140–142, 144, 146, 148–152, 155–159, 161, 163, 174, 214–215, 225, 290, 318, 347 Case 28–30, 32–34, 42, 78, 81, 121, 140, 149, 281, 284–288, 291, 294, 303–304, 345–349 Change of state 143, 313, 315–316, 323–324 CHILDES 119, 150, 289 Chinese 40, 115–116, 257, 260, 262, 268–277 Mandarin Chinese (MC) 260 Clitic 27–28, 30–34, 37, 40, 42, 56, 66, 69, 105, 108, 110, 112, 117, 121–123, 127, 262–267, 269–273, 276, 335–339, 347, 351–353 cluster 335–336, 341, 347 doubling 31–32, 40, 336–339 non-argumental 21, 23, 31, 33, 42 see also Object clitic Coda complex 79–80 consonant 79 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) 329 Contrastive Focus 169, 171, 173–174, 178–183, 185–186, 189–191, 194–195 Convergence 21, 23, 25–26, 31, 35, 37, 39, 42–43, 105, 107–109, 112, 129, 169–170, 175–177, 194–195, 349 Coronal 76, 81, 86 Copula 108–110, 112–116, 127, 135–146, 148–149, 151–157, 160–161, 163, 309–317, 319–321, 323–325 Copula + ADJ 310, 317 Cross-linguistic influence 21–25, 30–31, 35, 37–42, 135, 145–146, 148–149, 157, 160–162, 202, 209–210, 225–226, 228, 239, 240, 271 CV 83, 96 CVC 76, 78, 83–85, 89–91, 96 D Dative 27, 33–34, 42, 108, 284–286, 291–295, 297, 302–304, 335, 347 marker 285, 302–303 Default 50, 52, 56, 58–59, 64–65, 68, 110, 112, 175, 194, 324 Definiteness 27–28, 105, 111–112, 116, 118, 122–125, 128–129, 261–263, 265, 267–268, 270–273, 276, 282, 284, 286, 288, 302 Definite 28, 30, 39–40, 105, 111–112, 119–120, www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Index 122–124, 126–129, 206, 261–269, 272–276, 282, 284, 286–288, 290–291, 295–296, 300 Definiteness Effect 105, 111–112, 116, 118, 125, 129, 286 Indefinite 81, 111–112, 119–120, 124–125, 128, 261–270, 272, 274–276, 284, 286–288, 295–296, 299–301 Dento-alveolar 80 Diploma de Español como Lengua Extranjera (DELE) 118, 177, 291, 318 Differential Object Marking (DOM) 281–291, 293–296, 298–304, 348–349, 353 Direct Object 27–28, 31–32, 40, 56, 69, 281–282, 284–288, 290–293, 295, 297–303, 331, 335, 349–350 marking 34, 284 Doubling see Clitic doubling Dutch 208, 226, 235–236, 309–310, 315–321, 323–325 E Empty complementizer filter 331 English 33, 53, 56–57, 75–79, 81, 96, 111, 113, 116, 128, 136, 145–146, 157, 160, 175–177, 180, 202–203, 207–210, 215, 226, 235–237, 240, 248–250, 257, 260, 263–265, 268, 271–277, 282–283, 289–291, 303–304, 309–311, 313–315, 317–318, 331–333, 336, 339–345, 347–349, 351–352 Endpoint encoding 234–236, 239, 241, 243–244, 246–250 Ergative 78, 81–82, 94 Estar 53, 57, 65, 105–110, 112–121, 123–127, 129, 137–142, 144–146, 149, 151–157, 160–162, 309–316, 319–325 Être 142–144, 161 European Portuguese 257, 260, 262–266, 268–169, 281–287 Event construal 233, 237, 241, 247, 250 Event type property 312 Eventive effect 105 Evidentiality 23–25, 28, 35–37, 109 F Farsi 169–174, 177–178, 186, 193–194, 282 Feature Reassembly Hypothesis 21, 23, 25–26, 32, 35, 41–42, 108, 169, 257, 250–260, 272, 275–277, 282–283, 290, 303 Fill-in-the-Gap Task 309–310, 317, 320–324 French 57, 77–78, 114, 135–136, 142–144, 146, 148, 150–152, 158–161, 177, 206, 210, 215, 250, 282–283, 289, 314, 317–318, 329–353 Focus 21, 23–24, 26, 30, 41–43, 50, 56, 68, 106–107, 110, 136, 149–150, 153, 169, 171, 173–174, 177–183, 185–186, 189–191, 193–195, 234, 243, 259, 270, 283, 285, 288, 290, 295, 311, 314, 321, 351 see also Contrastive Focus Formal universal 331–333 Fossilization 289, 314, 330, 334, 344, 353 Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis 258, 282–283, 290–291 Frequency 22, 40, 59, 75–77, 79–82, 91, 94, 96, 98–101, 107, 115, 117, 120, 122, 141, 152, 228, 236, 241, 244, 246, 248–250, 275, 289, 314 Fricative 77, 80–81, 86–87 Functional Convergence Hypothesis (FCH) 37 Functional convergence 21, 23, 25, 31, 35, 37, 105, 108–109, 129 Functional feature 21, 23–27, 37, 39, 42–43, 108 interference 21, 23, 25–26, 31, 33–35, 37–38, 42, 108–109, 127 G Genitive 31–34, 286, 288, 332 Grammatical aspect 234–236 Grammaticality Judgment Task 42, 289, 310, 314, 317–318, 320, 344, 346, 348–349, 351 Scalar Grammaticality Judgment Task 263, 267 Greek 175, 202 H Haber 65, 105, 110, 115–116, 118–127 Hebrew 282, 302 Heritage speaker 289, 292, 309, 349 Hindi 282, 302, 349 I Imperfective 35–37, 94, 235–236, 248 Implicational hierarchy 64 Indian Spanish 50, 69 Indirect object 27–28, 33–34, 285–286, 291–295, 297–299, 302–304, 331, 335, 350 Individual-Level 311–312 Predicate 146 see also Stage-Level Predicate Interface 21, 23–24, 26, 31, 35, 37, 39, 41–43, 148, 161, 169–170, 174–176, 195, 202–203, 225, 227, 309–310, 320, 334, 350–351, 353–354 Interface Hypothesis 169, 202, 309–310, 320 Interlanguage Hypothesis 330, 333 Interpolation 337 Italian 112, 128, 160, 171, 174–176, 202, 204–208, 214, 223, 225, 332, 339, 350–351 Island 262–264, 266–268, 270–272, 274–275 Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Index J Japanese 75–76, 331–332 L L2 acquisition 24, 59, 113, 170, 241, 257–259, 261, 277–278, 282–283, 289–290, 309–310, 313–315, 329–330, 334, 338, 346, 348 Language contact 22, 24, 37, 106, 108, 113–115, 283 Language identity 107 Language Specific Grammar Hypothesis 76 Latent Linguistic Structure 330 Latent Psychological Structure 330 Lexicon 21–24, 26, 30, 37, 39, 41–43, 58, 68, 139, 281, 336–337, 345 Lexico-morphosyntactic interface 23 Liquid 80–81, 85–88, 98 Locative 34, 81, 105, 107–118, 120–123, 126–127, 129, 141, 145, 152, 239–240, 243, 285, 313, 315 expression 34, 120, 141, 243 M Macroparameter 54, 331, 333 Manner 37, 117, 154, 233–235, 237–241, 243–247, 249–250, 277, 283 Mapping 21, 23–27, 30–31, 33–35, 37–43, 56, 58, 69, 108, 116, 128, 259–260, 316, 346, 351 Mapudungun 56 Microparameter 341, 353 Microvariation 201, 206, 210, 226 Minimal Word 75 Minimalist Program 54, 330 Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis 69, 116, 314 Modularity of language 22 Mood 52, 55, 171, 281 Morphological coda 78, 82, 94–95, 99 Motion event 233–237, 239–242, 247, 250 N N-N compound 342–344 Nahuatl 49–52, 54–57, 59–61, 63, 67–68, 73 Nasal 77, 80–81, 85–89, 98, 100–101 Near-native 169–170, 174–178, 193, 195 Nominative 286, 303 Norwegian 76, 78, 235–236 Nucleus 75, 79, 285 Null object 21, 39–40, 42, 264, 266, 268–270, 272, 274 pronoun 203–205, 209, 217–219, 221–224, 285, 350 subject 26–27, 53, 171–173, 175, 180–184, 189–191, 195, 202–203, 205–206, 208–209, 214–215, 220, 223–224, 226, 332–333, 339–341, 351–353 Number 26–28, 30, 52–55, 63–65, 67, 69, 83–86, 95–96, 135, 148, 150, 152, 158–159, 163, 171, 182–183, 185, 193, 206, 210, 213, 228, 234–235, 240, 246–247, 261, 264, 269, 271, 281, 290, 297, 310, 314, 319, 332, 336, 344, 346 O Otomí 50, 56 Oblique 28, 32–34, 37, 42, 108 Object agreement 54–56, 59 clitic 56, 66, 261–264, 270–274, 276, 335 see also clitic drop 54, 110, 257, 260, 263–264, 268, 270, 272–274, 276–277 see also null object Old Spanish 336–338 Ongoingness 236, 248–250 Onset 60–61, 79, 83, 98, 215, 227, 285 Optionality 50, 110, 202, 224, 226, 300, 309, 329, 334–335, 339, 342, 353 Overt pronoun 203–208, 210, 215, 217–221, 223–224, 350–352 P Past tense 23, 28, 30, 35, 54–55, 64, 81 Path 110, 140, 148, 163, 234–235, 237–240, 246, 249, 277 Perfectivity 30 Permanent property 137–138, 141, 145–146, 152, 155, 157, 160–161, 312, 324 Person 26–28, 30, 33–34, 40, 52–56, 59, 62–66, 68, 81–82, 94, 99, 107, 110, 118, 150, 171–172, 174, 178–179, 201, 204, 206–207, 210, 228, 236, 242, 261, 264, 266, 271, 285, 311, 335, 339, 342, 347 Person-Case constraint (PCC) 347 Phonological process 75, 100–101 system 75–76, 100–1 Pluperfect past tense 23 Plural marking 77, 346, 353 Polysynthetic 54, 56, 330 Position of Antecedent Hypothesis 204, 350 Praat 83 Pre-emption 257, 259–260, 276–277 Predicative adjective 135, 153, 160–161 Predorsal 77, 80–81 Preposition a 28, 32, 110, 127, 281–282, 284, 294–295, 298, 349 de 32–33, 346 Principles and Parameters 53, 330 pro 52–54, 56, 171–173, 178, 203–205, 209, 211, 217, 266, 270, 272–274, 285–286, 304 pro-drop 52, 56, 209, 286, 304 Processing 22, 169–170, 174, 176–177, 180, 193–195, 202, 204, 224–225, 268, 281, 309, 329, 334, 347, 350–352, 354 load 309 Production of morphology 50, 68–69 www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Index Progressive 38, 53, 113, 140, 235–236, 243, 248, 313 aspect 235–236 Q Quantifier 284, 341, 345–347, 353 Quechua 21, 23–43, 56, 108–109, 117, 127 R Resyllabification 79, 83 Rhyme 79, 81 Romanian 115–116, 282, 302, 347–348 Russian 116, 128, 175, 235, 282, 332 S Satellite-framed language 237, 249 Scalar gradable adjective 309–310, 317, 321, 323–324 Irreversible scalar gradable 310, 317, 323–324 Non-scalar gradable 321, 323–324 Reversible scalar gradable 323–324 Sein 57, 142–144, 161 Selective access 310 Non-selective access 24 Ser 57, 105–110, 112–121, 124–127, 129, 137–140, 142, 144–146, 149, 151–155, 157, 160–162, 179, 181, 191, 309–316, 318–325 Ser/estar + adjective 309 Sibilant 75, 77, 80, 85–86, 88, 98–101, 107 Spanish 21, 23–43, 49–64, 66–69, 73, 75–101, 105–115, 117–123, 125–129, 133, 135–142, 144–163, 169–178, 185–186, 193–194, 201–206, 208–210, 214– 216, 218, 220, 222–229, 233–235, 238–250, 255, 257, 260–277, 281–292, 295–296, 298, 300, 302–304, 309–321, 323–325, 329–354 Spec CP 147 IP 147, 350 Specificity 27–28, 128, 261–262, 270–271, 276, 282–288, 290, 300, 302–304 Non-specific 270, 284 Specific 24, 28, 42, 75–77, 81, 85, 87, 99, 100, 128, 137, 170, 206, 215, 219, 222, 225, 227, 235, 237, 247, 258, 261, 262, 269, 277, 281, 282, 284, 285, 287–291, 293, 300, 302, 304, 309, 315–317, 319, 320, 324, 329, 341, 344–346, 349, 352–353 Stage-Level Predicate 144, 146 Stop 77, 80–81, 85–88, 98, 107 Stress 75–78, 80, 82, 90–94, 99, 101, 249 Stressed 77–78, 80, 82, 85, 89–93, 315 Unstressed 77–78, 80, 82, 85, 90–93, 95, 99 Subject agreement 26, 52, 55–56 overt 171–175, 180–184, 189, 205, 208, 341, 351–352 pronoun 54, 169, 170–171, 174–175, 179, 185, 201–203, 205, 208–210, 214, 228, 340–341, 351–352 Subject-verb inversion 340–341 Subset Principle 259, 265 Swedish 233–236, 238–239, 241–250, 282 Syntactic complexity 151, 160 Syntax-pragmatics interface 23 Syntax-before-discourse hypothesis 208 T TAM 52–53 Temporal property 137–138, 143–146, 151, 154–157, 160–161 Tense 23, 25, 28, 30, 35, 52–57, 59, 62–64, 67–68, 81, 110, 115, 138, 171, 206, 248–249, 281 That-trace effect 332, 340–341, 352–353 Topic 23–24, 30, 40, 54, 106, 169, 171–175, 177–185, 190, 192–195, 202–209, 213, 224, 227–228, 248, 269, 287, 312, 350 Topic Shift 9, 10, 169, 171–175, 177–181, 184, 185, 190, 193–195, 203, 205, 208, 209, 227 Topic Maintenance 9, 10, 169,171, 173, 174, 178–180, 182–185, 192, 194, 195 Turkish 116, 128, 176, 208, 226, 281–284, 286–288, 290–293, 296–298, 300–304, 349 Typological proximity 329–336, 339–345, 347–349, 352–353 similarity 329, 331–335, 339–341, 344, 347–349, 352–353 U Universals 329, 331–333 Universal Base Hypothesis 147 Universal Grammar 58, 258, 330 Hypothesis 76, 81 V Verb root 55, 238 Verb-framed language 237 Vibrant 87–89, 98 Visibility 309 Voiceless 77, 82, 86–87, 98, 100, 139 W Weak crossover effect 41, 42 Word order 27, 30, 41, 54, 56, 159, 175, 206, 286–288, 304, 331, 335, 344 Word length 90, 92 Worden 309–310, 315–316, 321, 323–324 Z Zijn 309–310, 315–316, 321, 323–324 ... that of the majority language (Ezeizabarrena and Alegria in Basque -Spanish bilinguals in the Basque Country, and Perpiñán in Catalan -Spanish bilinguals in Catalonia) The existence of the two languages... as an L2 in a non-bilingual society The acquisition of Spanish in a bilingual and a trilingual L1 setting: Combining Spanish with German, French and Catalan Laia Arnaus Gil & Natascha Müller... production in bilingual Spanish and Basque Maria-José Ezeizabarrena & Alaitz Alegria 75 The locative paradigm in the L2 Spanish of Catalan native speakers Silvia Perpiñán 105 part ii. Spanish as an