Chapter 1
Introduction: Aim and Organization of the Dissertation
In The Minimalist Program, Chomsky (1995: 235) defines the lexicon as a list of “exceptions”, of words consisting of a collection of properties, some idiosyncratic, others showing a certain degree of generality. Items in the lexicon, he writes, are of two types: with or without substantive content. He uses the term lexical for those with substantive content, functional for those without it. The latter category, in particular, consists of that class of items the members of which are function words: that is, the overt morphemes which realise complementizers, inflections, auxiliaries, case particles in surface sentences. It is this type of categories that I explore in this dissertation. To be more precise, I examine the acquisition of Functional Categories (FCs) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in classroom settings at an early stage of learning.1
Since, as hinted above, the lexicon is the repository of what is idiosyncratic in language, in the case of functional items such an idiosyncrasy is determined by the storage of formal and syntactic features contained in the abstract categories underlying them. These features are learnt in some form from the bare input data conveyed by the target language probably in the same way as substantive items are.
Yet, the main aim of this research is not how functional items are stored in the lexicon of a second language learner (L2er). Rather, the issues I will cope with is summed up in the three questions below:
1.What is meant exactly by “functional items (and/or categories)”? 2.How are they acquired in a second language, provided they can at all?
3.If they can be acquired, what is the impact of the Native Language (henceforth NL) on their acquisition in the Target Language (henceforth TL) at the early stage of language learning?
1
An important distinction is usually made by researchers working in SLA between ‘language acquisition’ and ‘language learning’. The former refers to the way children acquire language through a subconscious process, unaware of grammatical rules. Language learning, instead, is the result of direct instruction in the grammar of the language. Thus, L2ers have conscious knowledge of the new language and can talk about that knowledge. In relation to natural vs classroom setting, language is acquired in the former context, learnt in the latter. For the sake of simplicity, in this chapter I will refer to both as ‘representation of L2 grammar in the L1 learner’s mind’ without distinguishing between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’.
These questions have been copiously debated in recent generative-based research in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and have yielded contrasting positions. This is because functional categories, especially after the development of the Minimalist Program (MP), are considered to be the main locus of both cross-linguistic and inter-learner variation.
Thus, if functional categories are examined from a Minimalist perspective, the first step to undertake is the understanding of the conditions that the system or systems within which their acquisition takes place meet. In the present case, the two main systems to be taken into consideration are, as clearly shown in the title of this dissertation: 1.L2 acquisition (as opposed to L1 acquisition) and 2.non-natural context (as opposed to natural context).
In the light of this, in this short introduction I will illustrate a few, but crucial differences which exist firstly between L1 and L2 acquisition and secondly between natural and non-natural (e.g.classroom) contexts. Then, in the remaining part of the chapter, I will explain how the whole dissertation has been organised. Starting with the differences between L1 vs L2 acquisition, these can be due both to biological and non-biological factors. While the L1 child, in fact, starts to recognise the native tongue in his/her mother’s womb, L2 learners often (if not always) start to learn it in a non-target language environment and this makes them less adept than L1ers to process the TL (Herschensohn 2000: 102). This means that, if no impairment of some sort occurs reducing normal learning abilities, L1 children normally acquire their NL perfectly, without effort and very quickly, usually within the first three years of age. The picture is, obviously, different for L2ers. They are, in fact, unlikely to master a TL as rapidly and proficiently as L1ers do their L1. Such differences in initial conditions are probably responsible for the higher degree of variation – both in terms of success and learning route - that native speakers undergo if compared to first language acquirers who, all the rest being equal, show very little variation as regards the variables mentioned above.
Another factor which distinguishes the two forms of acquisition is that once L1ers have fully mastered their L1, there is no backsliding, that is to say, they do not go back to an earlier stage of acquisition. Conversely, in the case of L2ers, not
only do they experience backsliding but also a phenomenon called fossilisation, whereby they can not proceed beyond a certain level of language proficiency. In addition to this, in the acquisition of the L1, no correction is necessary to allow learners to develop intuitions about what is grammatical or ungrammatical in the native language, while in second language acquisition correction is often a necessary tool to help L2ers develop the suitable competence in certain specific domains.
However, despite the differences highlighted above, also similarities have been highlighted between the two kinds of acquisition. For example, Dulay and Burt (1974) found a significant relationship in the order of acquisition of morphemes between L2ers and L1ers,:
Native Language Learners Target Language Learners
1.plural (-s) 1.plural (-s) 2.progressive (-ing) 2.progressive (-ing) 3.past irregular 3.contractible copula 4.articles (a/the) 4.contractible auxiliary 5.contractible copula 5.articles (a/the) 6.possessive 6.past irregular
7.third-person singular (-s) 7.third person singular (-s) 8.contractive auxiliary 8.possessive (‘s)
Apart from those envisaged by Dulay and Burt, other similarities in the acquisition of specific syntactic structures were found between L1 and L2
acquisition, among which, to quote just one, the fact that both L2ers and L1ers put a negative operator at the beginning of the sentence in the first phases of language acquisition, to move it to the appropriate position within the clause in successive phases (Wode 1981):
L1=L2
1.No the sun shining 2.That’s no ready
However, probably the major difference between FLA (First Language Acquisition) and SLA, and what is particularly important for the aim of this research, is the fact that SLA takes place when another language is already present
and fully developed in the L2er’s mind. This, of course, has also an impact on cognitive factors influencing acquisition because while in that of a NL, language and other cognitive maturation processes proceed simultaneously, in SLA the L2er’s mind has already matured (Hawkins 2001: 345). Yet, even though the previous existence of a fully developed language differentiates L2 from L1 learning, it is generally recognised that the task the learners have to go through is basically the same, consisting of mastering the sounds, morphology and syntax of either (or both) languages (Herschensohn 2000: 103).
Finally, the role of input is also crucial in L1 and L2 learning, especially as regards its quantity and quality. There is no doubt, in fact, that the child acquiring his/her native language is exposed to an incredible amount of stimuli from a wealth of sources. Compared to this, the input an L2er receives is very poor, especially if learning takes place in a classroom setting and not in a natural context.
Despite such differences, studies within the generative tradition agree on the fact that UG (Universal Grammar) is involved in SLA as it is, obviously, in FLA. Evidence for such a belief has been brought forward by claiming that despite the ‘poverty of the stimulus’ L2ers receive, they can, nevertheless, build up a
representation of the L2 which is not triggered solely by the limited input they are exposed to. The issue, however, is not uncontroversial and various hypotheses have proliferated as regards how UG is accessed by an L2er and the extent to which it is. In Chapter 5, I will present the various positions which have emerged on this crucial issue.
Turning to the differences between natural vs non-natural (e.g. classroom) context, Hawkins (2001: 18) draws a first distinction between the kind of input L2ers receive and the way they respond to it. In fact, while data are naturally different according to whether acquisition occurs in the classroom or in a natural context, the L2ers’ language proficiency (e.g. development) is not necessarily affected by environmental differences. Learning stages, he holds, may be the same. Yet, the very idea of ‘classroom context’ may vary greatly according to the kind of tuition it provides. In a certain classroom, for example, instruction may be based on formal, grammatically-based drills and exercises, while in another
context it may be based on more communicative activities (or specific skills). Regarding the way instruction takes place, L2ers exposed to the target language in a formal way tend to acquire its properties in an unconscious way more quickly than L2ers whose learning takes place in a naturalistic setting. Even though the paths they go through are basically the same, the ‘rate’ of development is speeded up in cases of formal instruction (Hawkins 2001:21)
As evidence for such assumptions, Hawkins quotes studies by Clahsen and Muysken (1986), Ellis (1989) and Pienemann (1989), who tested the acquisition of various linguistic phenomena by speakers of different languages, both in the classroom and in a naturalistic context. Those studies, however, did not find any evidence for major differences in L2ers’ patterns of acquisition. Such findings make Hawkins conclude that the learning context is not the main factor of cross-learner variation. Ellis (1994: 613), however, casts doubts on results obtained from studies comparing proficiency in the classroom and in natural contexts since they are difficult to interpret, variation depending on a multitude of factors among which properties of the specific TL.
The findings I present in Chapter 7 about systematic patterns of behaviour in L2ers’ performance on target structures seem to be in tune with Ellis’s
suggestions. In that Chapter, in fact, I argue that learners’ similarity of behaviour in producing Yes/No questions may be attributed to their sharing the same L1, regardless of the context in which learning takes place.
Having briefly identified the systems (‘L2’ and ‘non-natural context’) with which the acquisition of functional categories interact, I would like to conclude this brief introductory chapter by illustrating how it has been organised. It is divided into two parts: Part I, provides the theoretical framework, while Part II presents the experimental data. Accordingly, in Chapter 2 (Part I) I introduce the general principles that support the theory I have chosen to investigate the acquisition of functional categories in an L2. In that chapter, in particular, I briefly examine the role of UG in SLA and the ‘principles and parameters’ theory in the pre-Minimalist phase, also to give an idea of how the theory has evolved in recent years. It is, however, its latest development into the Minimalist Programme (MP) which has provided the theoretical model on which
my investigation into functional categories has been based. Accordingly, in Chapter 3 I have focused on the changes the MP has brought to generative grammar. In Chapter 4, instead, I start to tackle the specific field of investigation of the present study. First, I introduce the various types of functional categories; then, I examine the role they play in the representation of the L2er’s TL grammar; third, I explain the various hypotheses made on their internal architecture and, finally, I explore the processes learners activate to learn them, both in the L1 and in the L2 . Such an organization has been prompted by the need to clarify and explain the terms, concepts and processes involved in the acquisition of functional categories in an L2 before discussing the experimental data that I report in
Chapters 6, 7 and 8.
In the concluding Chapter of Part I, I report and comment in a critical way on the various positions that have emerged and the hypotheses that have been made on this specific research field, which range from the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis by Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996, 2000), to the Minimal Trees Hypotheses by Vainikka and Young-Sholten (1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1998), to Haznedar’s (2003a, 2003b) Missing Inflection Hypothesis (MIH) and others. In Part II of the dissertation, instead, I examine experimental data collected from L2ers at various levels of language proficiency. The sample-sentences analysed were collected both during classroom activities and written guided-compositions in experimental sessions. As regards the latter, I have reported the procedures followed to elicit, collect, analyse and discuss data, as well as the kinds of statistics used, the participants involved in the studies and the hypotheses made. In Chapter 6, I analyse and discuss non-experimental data. This chapter serves as a starting point to test the various hypotheses presented in Chapter 5 of Part I against production data extracted from learners’ written compositions carried out during classroom activities at the University of Cassino in 2005. In the analysis of data presented in this brief chapter, I take into consideration Haznedar’s Missing Inflection Hypothesis and Prevost and White’s (2000) Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis - both maintaining that absence of surface morphemes in surface structures is not related to lack of functional categories – and use them to
attempt to explain how L2ers built up the sample-sentences I collected in the way they did.
In Chapter 7, I illustrate an experimental study consisting of about 91 samples of Yes/No questions produced by Italian elementary L2ers of English belonging to seven different classes in various lower-secondary schools in the area around Rome. The sample sentences under investigation were extracted from guided compositions written in letter form during an experimental task in which learners were elicited to produce target sentences in obligatory contexts. The study aimed at investigating the role the L1 plays in the acquisition of functional categories in the L2. The starting hypothesis was that L2ers build up their representation of the L2 grammar on functional categories already instantiated in the L1, in accordance with Schwartz and Sprouse’s Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (1994, 1006, 2000).
In Chapter 8 I present and discuss a study on the acquisition of 46 imperative clauses by the same learners as those in Chapter 7. The aim of this second study was to check if also with imperatives the association between L2ers’ group membership and results in performance did not produce significant differences. Such a procedure was used to assess whether systematic patterns of behaviour could be attributed to the same factor as in the previous study (e.g. the learners sharing the same L1) or, conversely, to the impact that the specific target- structures analysed had on acquisition.
Finally, in Chapter 9 I discuss recent proposals outside mainstream literature on the acquisition of functional categories which I think have an important bearing on some of the issues I tackled in previous chapters. These are Shi’s Relativized L1 Transfer Condition (2004) and Bley-Vroman’s (1997) Construction Based
Acquisition, whose conclusions are worth investigating.
I conclude my dissertation with a few remarks on what I consider to be the main challenge for future developments in this specific field of language acquisition: that is, the investigation of the extent to which Interlanguage (IL) offers an optimal design for the L2er who produces it.
