Word Order in L1 English (1) FRAMEWORK Fixed SV(O) order- Restricted - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

Interface conditions on the production of

Verb-Subject structures in L2 English

EUROSLA 2007

University of Newcastle

Cristobal Lozano

Universidad de Granada

Amaya Mendikoetxea,

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

http://www.uam.es/woslac

2

AIM OF THE PRESENTATION

To inform on the results of a study on the production of

postverbal subjects (VS order) in non-native English.

Purpose of the study: to characterize the interlanguage

• f advanced non–native speakers of English L2

(Spanish/Italian L1) by examining their production of

both grammatical and ungrammatical VS structures, as represented in the relevant ICLE subcorpora

(Granger et al. 2002), :

3

FRAMEWORK

Main question:

What are the conditions under which learners produce inverted subjects (VS structures), regardless of problems to do with syntactic encoding (grammaticality)?

Comparative Framework: to determine the role of L1 in

L2 acquisition (transfer) in the areas under study

Learner corpora vs. native corpora (LOCNESS) ENGLISH and SPANISH/ITALIAN differ in devices employed for constituent ordering: English ‘fixed’ order is determined by lexico-syntactic properties and Spanish/Italian ‘free’ order is determined by information structure, syntax-discourse properties.

4

Word Order in L1 English (1)

Fixed SV(O) order- Restricted use of postverbal subjects:

(a) XP V S (Inversion structures with an opening adverbial)

(3) a. [On one long wall] hung a row of Van Goghs. [FICT]

• b. [Then] came the turning point of the match. [NEWS]
• c. [Within the general waste type shown in these figures] exists a wide

variation. [ACAD]

[Biber et al. 1999: 912-3]

(b) There-constructions

(4) a. Somewhere deep inside [there] arose a desperate hope that he would embrace her

[FICT ]

• b. In all such relations [there] exists a set of mutual obligations in the instrumental and

economic fields [ACAD]

• c. [There] came a roar of pure delight as…. [FICT]

[Biber et al. 1999: 945]

5

Word order in L1 English (VS order)

• Lexicon-syntax interface (Levin & Rappaport-Hovav, etc):
• Unaccusative Hypothesis (Burzio 1986, etc) [existence and appearance]

!

• Syntax-discourse interface (Biber et al, Birner 1994, etc):
• Postverbal material tends to be focus/relatively unfamiliar information,

while preverbal material links S to previous discourse.

"#$%&$

• Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interface (Arnold et al 2000, etc)
• Heavy material is sentence-final (Principle of End-Weight, Quirk et al.

1972) – general processing mechanism (reducing processing burden)

'()$*+ ,+ $$ $ -./012

Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally in those structures which allow them (unaccusative Vs).

6

Word Order L1 Spanish/Italian (1)

Postverbal subjects are produced ‘freely’ with all verb classes:

(9) a. Ha telefoneado María al presidente. (transitive). Has phoned Mary the president

• b. Ha hablado Juan.

(unergative) c. Ha llegado Juan (unaccusative) has spoken Juan . has arrived Juan

• Inversion as ‘focalisation’:
• preverbal subjects are topics (given information)
• and postverbal subjects are focus (new information) (Belletti 2001, 2004,

Zubizarreta 1998)

(10) ¿Quién ha llegado/hablado? (Sp) (11) Chi è arrivato/parlato? (It) Who has arrived/spoken? i. Ha llegado/hablado Juan

• i. É arrivato/ A parlato Gianni

ii. #Juan ha llegado/hablado

• ii. # Gianni é arrivato/a parlato

7

Word Order L1 Spanish/Italian (VS order)

Lexicon-syntax interface

31 4*

Syntax-discourse interface

2 4)

Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interface Heavy subjects show a tendency to be postposed – a universal language processing mechanism: placing complex elements at the end of a sentence reduces the processing burden (J. Hawkins 1994).

Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally, with no restrictions at the lexicon-syntax interface.

8

The phenomenon in SLA

Production of postverbal subjects in L2 English

(Zobl 1989, Rutherford 1989, Oshita 2004)

• L1 Spanish/Italian/Arabic – L2 English:
• 5&

6$$7 * *$

• Only with unaccusative verbs (never with unergatives).
• Unaccusatives: arrive, happen, exist, come, appear, live…
• Unergatives: cry, speak, sing, walk ...
• Explanation: lexicon-syntax interface (Unaccusative Hypothesis)

9

The psychological reality of the Unaccusative Hypothesis

A number of studies have found that L2 learners are

aware of the argument structure distinction between unaccusative and unergative Vs and that they use this as a guiding principle to construct L2 mental grammars.

However, learners have difficulty in determining the

range of appropriate syntactic realizations of the distinction, and this can persist into near-native levels of proficiency (see R. Hawkins 2001: 5.4).

CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE: these previous studies focused on ERRORS, thus emphasising the differences between native and non-native structures. By contrast, our study emphasises the similarities between native and non-native structures.

10

Hypotheses

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS:

Conditions licensing VS in L2 Eng are the same as those in Native Eng, DESPITE differences in syntactic encoding.

:

Postverbal subjects with unaccusatives (never with unergatives)

!:

Postverbal subjects: heavy (but preverbal light)

"!#$%:

Postverbal subjects: focus (but preverbal topic)

11

• !"
• #$

!%

• #$

# %$ !% & 7

• #'
• *
• 089-:))(3
• *
• )(;3<-:))(3
• %

(( !

• $
• *%
• %%
• %
• ):-00-:)
• *
• *
• );=)&3.-
• :))(3

*

• '##

$

• :&33->(?

)2-&@38

• )(( !
• &0@A->=)

%

• %
• =>-&9-A->=)
• * ! $+

)! )#''

• %')$+(!'
• $
• *

METHOD (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: 32]

METHOD (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: 32]

METHOD (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: 32]

12

Method (2)

• Learner corpus: L1 Spa – L2 Eng; L1 Ital – L2 Eng
• ICLE (Granger et al. 2002)

(Problem: proficiency level?)

• WordSmith v. 4.0 (Scott 2004)
• Concordance queries can be performed automatically with WordSmith,

by targetting specific verbs BUT there is a lot of manual work (filtering out unusable data, coding data in Excel, analysing data in SPSS, etc). Corpus Number of essays Number of words ICLE Spanish 251 200,376 ICLE Italian 392 227,085 TOTAL 643 427,461

Subcorpus V type # usable concordances Unergative 153 Spanish Unaccusative 640 Unergative 143 Italian Unaccusative 574 TOTAL 1510

13

H1 results: syntax-lexicon

BBC BC DC 'BC BBC BC D"C !BC

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SV VS SV VS Unerg Unac % of production Spanish Italian

Subcorpus V type # postverbal S # usable concordances Rate (%) Spanish Unergative 153 0/153 (0%) Unaccusative 52 640 52/640 (8.1%) Italian Unergative 143 0/143 (0%) Unaccusative 15 574 15/574 (2.6%)

14

H1: Unaccusative: grammatical vs ungrammatical VS

• Locative inversion:
• In the main plot appear the main characters: Volpone and Mosca.
• There-insertion:
• There exist positive means of earning money.
• AdvP-insertion:
• … and here emerges the problem.
• * it-insertion:
• *…it still live some farmers who have field and farmhouses.
• * Ø-insertion:
• …*because exist the science technology and the industrialisation.
• * XP-insertion:
• *In 1760 occurs the restoration of Charles II in England.

GRAMM. 35% Spa 47% Ital UNGRAM. 65% Spa 53% Ital

15

H2 results: syntax-phonology

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213141516171819202122 232425

Weight (# of words)

VS Spanish ICLE VS Italian ICLE SV Spanish ICLE SV Italian ICLE

Group

• 16

Examples H2: syntax-phonology

SV: typically LIGHT

5 $ $* $ 7/

VS: typically HEAVY

6&$ ', %

• 7 $)

17

H3: syntax-discourse

DC D'C DB!C D6C BBC BBBC C ''DC

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Top Foc Top Foc SV VS Spanish Italian

Discourse status (topic/focus) has to be measured manually by establishing theoretical criteria and then by checking the context (or even the essay) manually

18

Examples H3: syntax-discourse

VS: FOCUS

7 ) . ''B/

• SV: typically TOPIC

! ** $$** $ *1 * % $ *$ 7

19

Conclusion

V S S V

Unacc Focus Heavy Unacc Topic Light Interfaces: Lexicon-syntax Syntax-discourse Syntax-phonology

20

Our results and CIA (1)

• Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (Granger 1996, Gilquin 2001)

(a) NNS vs. NNS:

By comparing learner data from different L1 backgrounds, we can gain a better understanding of interlanguage processes and features, such as those which are the result

• f transfer or those which are developmental, common to

learners with different L1.

No significant differences between Italian and Spanish learners, as expected, except for frequency of inversion [8.1% (Spanish) vs. 2.6% (Italian)]

Possible explanation: lexical bias.

21

Our results and CIA (2) (b) NNS vs. NS.

It involves a detailed analysis of linguistic features in native and non-native corpora to uncover and study non-native features in the speech and writing of (advanced) non-native speakers. This includes errors, but it is conceptually wider as it seeks to identify

• veruse and underuse of certain linguistic features and patterns

(Granger 2002: 12-13).

• vs. LOCNESS (L1 Eng):

436 324, 304 Corpus Number of essays Number of words ICLE Spanish (L1 Sp L2 Eng) 251 200,376 UAM WriCLE (L1 Sp L2 Eng) 85 63,836 TOTAL 336 264,212

22

H1: Syntax-Lexicon

Ns vs. NNs

Percentage of VS

100,0% 0,0% 92,9% 7,1% 100,0% 0,0% 97,8% 2,3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SV VS SV VS Unerg Unac Spanish ICLE+WriCLE LOCNESS

Percentage of subjects produced (group x verb type)

23

H1: Syntax-lexicon Ns vs NNs: Verbs in VS structures

24

H2: Syntax-Phonology: NS vs. NNS

Heavy-Light subjects with Unacc Vs

• Subjects in SV structures with unacc Vs tend to be ‘light’ in NS (67.7% in

ICLE+WrICLE and 68.1% in LOCNESS )

• Subjects in VS structures with unacc Vs are overwhelmingly ‘heavy’ in NS

(81.0% in ICLE+WriCLE and 81.3% in LOCNESS).

Weight_nom

Porcentaje

SV Locness SV Spanish WriCLE+ICLE Group

Weight_nom

VS Locness VS Spanish WriCLE+ICLE Group

SV VS

25

H3: Syntax-Discourse: NS vs. NNS

Focus and Topic subjects with Unacc Vs

• Most subjects in SV structures with unacc Vs in NS are topic (89.9%

in ICLE+WriCLE and 83.5% in LOCNESS); just a few are focus (10.5% in ICLE+WriCLE and 16.5% in LOCNESS; p=0.223).

• Subjects in VS structures with unacc Vs are overwhelmingly focus in

NS (98.3% in ICLE+WriCLE 100% in LOCNESS; p=0.784).

Discourse_preverbal

Porcentaje

SV Locness SV Spanish WriCLE+ICLE Group

Discourse_postverbal

VS Locness VS Spanish WriCLE+ICLE Group

SV VS

26

NNS vs. NS: comparisons across different NNS

97,4 91,9 92,9 97,7 97,8 2,6 8,1 7,1 2,3 2,2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Italian ICLE Spanish ICLE Spanish ICLE & WriCLE French ICLE LOCNESS Frequency (%) of VS production SV VS

27

Some preliminary conclusions: Ns vs NNs

These results confirm that Spanish (and, presumably, Italian)

learners of English produce postverbal subjects under exactly the same interface conditions as in L1 English (unaccusativity being a necessary but not a sufficient condition).

Spanish and Italian learners show persistent problems in the

syntactic encoding of the construction, producing mostly ungrammatical examples (it-insertion, 0-insertion, wrong XP).

Spanish learners overuse the construction and show a lexical

bias for the V exist.

28

! 0 ! 123

• 45 4,4$4!" 16777348*9/:44;<96=>??
• %416772348 @A B:49*CD5>+(C134<7>E7
• %41677F3413 G+C9'/(
• %41677F34(49$!BB 13 6+C9'/(
• % 4)454"$4 0 12EEE34$9$
• %4%12EEF34 4 ;796GG>6?E
• %4%12EE?34( 4 E;966G>6?<
• %4)12E;;34 !" $9$
• %4512EEF34$"4 ;79;6>2G2
• %B4$12E=<34#" )9H
• 4"4$B4!5IB4#C/#1348!4>09J:4134K

#

• C412E=234$")90
• C412EE?34!44#9#(
• 4(,!)$1677234 9 4% 2E4696=G>G27
• )LB4$1677F34! &# %9()
• 4$'0MB 1677F3'##9"
• 0MB>4'12E=E348>J((:4!" 22966=>6GE
• 0MB>4'12EEG348N:4 ()*22922G>2?2
• 04512EE634 $"9(
• 0B4$1677F3481)30:4+,-,4

(4'677F

• "C4!12EE2348 9>49 134 &./"

%9#"42F2>2<;

• ".4"16772348#:4 G1239E?>26G
• "412EE<3480C9B:49HJ4% %#5 #134

#01022$9$(4G;>?2

• "416776348O>:49"45*(>134".-

$$$<D(9%J4G>GG

• "4 )/ 0# 1677634)1 3045!$>>9($
• *C4512EEF34.59(
• *451677G348$/. :4442E96;G>G7F
• *4>512E=F348':4-42?9?G2>?;F
• *C445>+(C131677234 16$4/$'//'/9'/(
• 54'H 1312E=E34%16)9H
• HPC4"1677F340#0#&.#+#,9%Q
• HPC4"1677?348>/ 9:47427163922E>2?E
• HBC4(16772348 9% :49(!4,4# 4* 134899:

$9!$4G26>G66

• H4"12EE=34.$D+C9$
• H4*D) 12EE2348J:4 =?9622>6?=
• $4%12EEG34;1.&.$9(
• $4%#!>*12EE?34/$#0#44#9#(
• $454% 12EEF38$9ML.KN:4) ?9FG>==

29

! 0 ! 163

• $B41677G3/$&-+0$ /9()
• $B41677<3809.>:44 6692>FG
• $B41677<3/>9"C.-#4$ 4G;2>

GEE45%J

• $B4#C/1677;348(J$6 9:4".4"4%)LB ( 13

$4!

• $B4#C/14677;3$ . 9 >J $6 (

$ 677;4 %

• $B4#C/1348J98: >:4134"R

K #

• $JM4#12EEE38 /KK:9%.)134*$<4#9 >426;?>2G2?
• (4)12E;=348:4.!4F92?;>2=E
• '4*16777348,98: $6 :44 2<96EG>G6F
• '4*167763489J>$6 :4 29F?><25$
• '4*1677F348 S/:44 679E?>2G7
• (#LB D#LB> 1677<3
• (412EE=348' /(J(/J:41" 27962E>6F2
• (4#12EE;34$1649$
• (4 012E=2348/">: 9(13444$9(466G>6??
• (4 012EE6348T("9J4:494,#413433&3$. 4#4

95%J46E?>G6?

• UC4!4"4"$DJC 12E;634 .$" $9$
• !BB $12E=634# )90
• !BB4$12EE;348:49$*134)1$# 2)9H (
• !BB4$1677F348$:49% 13466G>6?2
• !4#12E=<34 $495%J
• !4,12E=<38"$6.9:4 4" 692>2?
• !4,12E=E38:49" 5
• 134$.-49(42<G>2=6
• 4H12E=?3449(
• 4#16776345# =$>9?" '/9'/(
• 412EEG348:44 E966>F;
• 412EE?348.C:49$ C4$C4#>134&

) 495%J42?G>2;?

• L4 12EE7344()4(
• ,412EE;34 >C:474"6<9GF;>G<2
• ,412EE;38 >,C:(:7446<1G39GF;>G<2
• ,4D451677G38( :!4"%# 133;9

(

• +416776348$6.:495#50 13..899:.-$9

V ( $46=E>6E<

• T4H1677634#49(
• T4*12E=E38 $6.:49" 5 134$.-4

9(467G>662

• TB4#$12EE=34" 544#9#(
• TB4#$12EEE38$9:4%.)134*$<=$@?4#9

30

ADDITIONAL SLIDES TO FOLLOW:

31

Unaccusativity Hypothesis

(1)

• a. unergative
• b. unaccusative

‘John spoke’ ‘Three girls arrived’

32

ST

• SD

T’ pro T SV llegó

• V

SD llegó un hombre

VS in native Spanish

&'%( )*+,- Inergativos: SV Inacusativos: VS

A: ¿Qué pasó anoche en la reunión? B: Un hombre gritó. # Gritó un hombre. A: ¿Qué pasó anoche en la reunión? B: # Un hombre llegó. Llegó un hombre.

ST

• SD

T’ un hombre T SV gritó

• SD

V un hombre gritó

33

ST

• SD

T’ pro T SFoc llegó

• SD

Foc’ un hombre

• [+Foc] Foc

SV [+Foc] V SD llegó un hombre [+Foc] ST

• SD

T’ pro T SFoc gritó

• SD

Foc’ un hombre [+Foc] Foc SV [+Foc] SD V un hombre gritó [+Foc]

VS in native Spanish (2)

!&+ )*.%- 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. [-interp] [+interp] [+interp] [-interp]

34

Data analysis (cont’d)

• CONCORDANCES: RAW OUTPUT
• Thousands of concordances, BUT approx. ¾ were unusable.
• Filtering criteria had to be applied manually.

35

Data coding/analysis: EXCEL

36

Data analysis

• MAIN 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)

Subcorpus V type # usable concordances Unergative 153 Spanish Unaccusative 640 Unergative 143 Italian Unaccusative 574 TOTAL 1510

37

WordSmith: query searches:

For every lemma (e.g., APPEAR, ARISE), we

searched for:

All possible native forms:

• appear, appears, appearing, appeared
• arise, arises, arising, arose, arisen

All posible overregularised and overgeneralised learner

forms:

• arised, arosed,arisened, arosened (“So arised the Sain

Inquisition”)

All possible forms with probable L1 transfer of spelling:

• apear, apears, apearing, apeared

All other possible misspelled forms:

• appeard, apeard

38

Query searches (cont’d)--------

• CONCORDANCES: 6 BASIC FILTERING CRITERIA:

The verb must be intransitive (unergative or unaccusative).

• In the screen of the television one or two “rombos” should appear. [unac]
• Leontes cries and the statue talks. [unerg]
• This government’s movement has created several opinions. [trans]

The verb must be finite, with(out) aux.

• …also it exists the psychological agresssions… [finite no aux]
• … the cases of men mistreated do not appear in the media. [finite aux]
• This contradiction could disappear [finite modal]
• There’s no reason for it to exist. [for clause + to inf]
• Poor people cross borders to escape from poverty. [to-inf clause]
• …let time pass… [‘let’ constructions]
• …make everyone’s life go ahead [causative + infinitive]
• Returning to the title of this paper,… [gerundive clauses]
• …they go away in order to escape to France. [‘in order to’ clauses]
• …women have to live with the agressor [have to/ought to/able to]
• …prudence was beginning to disappear. [verbal/aspectual periphrases]
• Before entering the argumentation,… [small clauses]
• …instead of following… [complement of P]
• …likely to happen… [complement of A]
• The tests to enter the army are quite difficult now. [complement of N]

39

Query searches (cont’d)--------

The verb must be in the active voice.

• This contradiction could disappear. [active unaccusative]
• This situation has already been happened. [passivised unaccusative]

The subject must be an NP.

• …it arose [diverse social ranks, the rich and the poor that depended on the

property they had]. [inverted NP subject]

• …it only remains [to add that nowadays we live in a world…] [extraposition]
• It happened [that the countries which make the weapons are…] [extraposition]

The sentence can be either grammatical or ungrammatical in native English.

• This contradiction could disappear. [gram]
• …it won’t exist nothing of what people don’t get bored or tired. [ungram]

The subject can appear either postverbally (VS) or preverbally (SV).

• …the real problem appears when they have to look for their first job. [SV]
• So arised the Saint Inquisition. [VS]

40

Query searches (cont’d) ---------

• OTHER FILTERING CRITERIA
• Target V + V (verbal coordination)
• Families without father exist and work well.
• Coordinator + target V
• …we can manage to obtain it and live in a better world.
• Interrogatives (only if V is the target)
• How could they live?
• Does exist then a manipulation of television?
• Formulaic & Set expressions in English
• As sometimes happens…
• …fall victim to…
• …the world we live in.
• Set expressions transferred from the L1
• …it happens the same.
• …they fall into account that they have treated very badly Mr Hardcastle.
• Phrasal verbs:
• …a scientist come up with an intention…
• Quotes (literary or other):
• “To what purpose, April, do you return again?
• “Feminism has to evolved or die”, Friedan said in 1982…

41

Extraposition was discarded

NOTE: extraposition discarded:

$-W C-W

42

H1: Examples of VS in LOCNESS

AdvP insertion

(3 tokens)

(27) Thus began the campaign to educate the public

• n how one contracts Aids.

PP insertion

(7 tokens)

(28) …along with this development has come opposition from both

the medical field and a proportion of the general public, who…

There-insertion (6 tokens)

(29) Certainly there exists a demand for this work to be done.

43 there-insertion AdvP-insertion Ø-insertion XP-insertion Loc inversion it-insertion 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Production rate (%)

13 20 7 33 27 12 10 10 15 15 38

VS Italian ICLE VS Spanish ICLE

Group

Result: Unaccusative: Type of VS structures

44

Results H1: Unaccusative: grammatical vs. ungrammatical VS

Figure 1. Proportion (in %) of grammatical vs. ungrammatical unaccusative VS

65.4% 34.6% Ungrammatical Grammatical Grammaticality Group: VS Spanish ICLE 53 . 3% 46 . 7% Ungrammatical Grammatical Group: VS Italian ICLE

45

Result H1: VS and specific unaccusative verbs

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.

Frequency of inversion (%) Spa Ital 46

Result: VS and (in)definiteness

Figure 1: Production of postverbal subjects according to their definiteness. Definite 41.4% Indefinite 58.6%

DEFINITE

• $
• 9

# INDEFINITE / 9 $*$*

• C-

47

Scale (syntactic weight/complexity)

NOMINAL SCALE ORDINAL SCALE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE (D) N PRN LIGHT 1 (D) ADJ N (D) N (D) ADJ* N 2 (D) (ADJ) N* PP (D) (D) (ADJ) N N PP* AdjP* (D) ADJ N PP (D) N IP/CP (D) (ADJ) N* PP* HEAVY 3 (D) ADJ N* (PP*)

48

Topic vs. Focus: Retrievability scale

$%+.) - $%/)!#-

• !

! ! !

• !!

" " " "#! #! #! #!

• $

$ $ $ !!

• %

% % %& & & & !

49

The psychological reality of the Unaccusative Hypothesis

Previous studies:

• L2 learners discriminate argument structure of unaccusative vs

unergative Vs

• they use this as a guiding principle to construct L2 mental

grammars.

However:

• they have difficulty in determining the range of appropriate

syntactic realizations of the distinction

• this difficulty can persist into near-native levels of proficiency

(see R. Hawkins 2001: 5.4).

CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE: these previous studies focused on ERRORS, thus emphasising the differences between native and non-native structures. By contrast, our study emphasises the similarities between native and non-native structures.