The Acquisition of Imperative Clauses in English as an L2: a Cross Sectional Study

Chapter 8.

The Acquisition of Imperative Clauses in English as an L2: a Cross Sectional Study

8.0 Abstract

In this chapter I tackle the acquisition of imperative clauses in English by Italian L2ers at an elementary level of language proficiency. The study I present examines the use of overt subject pronouns in contexts in which such an option, even though licensed by the L2 grammar, is typologically unusual (Potsdam 1995;

Han 1998, Rupp 1999) and subjected to certain semantic and pragmatic restrictions.

In the specific EFL learning environment (e.g. classroom setting) in which the data I analyse were collected, the insertion of overt subjects is particularly puzzling, since imperative clauses are taught by default as null-subject clauses.

The observations I have gathered, on the contrary, show that despite the lack of saliency of such forms in the input the learners receive, they extensively use second person pronouns in pre-verbal position. This choice I consider to be a pragmatic carry over from the L1.

8.1.Introduction

The acquisition of imperative clauses is strictly connected with the debate on functional categories in SLA. This has been more so over the last decade, a period during which imperative clauses have been analysed, more and more

uncontrovertially, as full CP structures (inter alia Zanuttini1991, 1997; Rivero and Terzi 1995; Potsdam 1995, 1997, in Press; Han 1998; Rupp 1999).

Accordingly, the debate on whether the abstract categories that yield them are permanently impaired during the acquisition of a second language or, instead, they are fully accessible, either through UG or through the L1, also applies to the imperative phrase-marker. As regards the latter point, a strong contention has emerged about the ‘instantiation time’ of FCs in SLA, that is to say, whether they are readily available from the start or only lexical projections are, while

functional categories gradually developed over time.

The chapter consists of seven sections. In section 8.2 I introduce the aim of the present study while in section 8.3. I illustrate the configuration of the imperative phrase marker in English. Then, in section 8.4 I explain the procedure I followed to elicit data which I analyse in section 8.5. In section 8.6. I give examples of L2ers’ ‘constructions’ of English imperative clauses. Finally, in section 8.7, I discuss results related to the acquisition of the latter.

.

8.2.Research Goal

In this study I discuss how Italian L2ers of English come to master imperative clauses in the TL in the way they do. The starting hypothesis is that, despite cross- learner variation, L2 forms are constrained by the L1. I argue that, in accordance with the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996), Italian L2ers tend to map morphological items of the former onto the functional nodes of the NL.

8.3 The Imperative Phrase-Marker in English

As pointed out in the introduction, general agreement has been reached among researchers in considering the imperative phrase-marker as a full CP (Platzack &

Rosengren 1998; Potsdam 1996, in Press; Zanuttini 1991, 1997). Yet, various issues are still at stake as for instance 1.the specific nodes in the left periphery which they occupy; 2.the extent to which they are tensed clauses and, finally, 3.the position of subjects in the phrase-marker that realises them. Since this study does not concern imperatives per se but how they are acquired in an L2, I will just discuss a few points of contention that I think may help better define the context of the present study. I will refer, instead, to Di Domenico (2004), Han (1998), Rupp (1999), Potsdam (1995, 1997, in Press), Rivero and Terzi (1995), Zanuttini (1991, 1997) for a finer-grained analysis of their structure.

Using the same procedure I used with Yes/No questions, I will briefly highlight

the basic structure of imperative clauses both in Italian and English in order to

help capture how learners may have used the underlying representation of the

former to produce surface forms in the latter.

A major issue of contention in the study of the imperative clause has been to see whether they contain agreement and inflectional features since they lack overt morphology. The hypothesis that, despite lack of the latter, (contemporary) English imperatives also carry inflectional and agreement features comes from cross-linguistic studies showing that both Romance and Germanic languages are endowed with overt morphemes realising them, as the German example below shows:

1a.Du hilfst mir!

You help me 1b.Hilf mir!

Help me!

1c.Helft (Ihr) him.

Help him.

Another point of contention that has been raised as regards the structure of imperative clauses is related to what case is assigned to overt subjects when they are merged into derivations. As a rule, overt subjects appear in emphatic or negative imperatives and, what is more important for the present discussion, in the cases in which they have the form of subject-pronouns, they are allowed only in the second person. The latter person, however, does not transparently distinguish between singular and plural:

2a.You stay here! (sing.) 2b.You stay here (plur)

As a result of this lack of transparency in agreement features, their Case properties remain opaque (Rupp 1999:37). Yet, evidence that subjects in imperative clauses carry the nominative case is derived from the fact that in Early Modern English they had features which distinguished between plural ‘yee’ and singular ‘you’:

3a.Let not your heart be troubled: YEE beleeue in God, beleeue also in me (John xiv.l) 3b Sir, this doore you passe not: (Duchess of Malfi II.iv. 93-95)

1

Examples kindly suggested by Gabriella Mazzon (personal communication) drawn from

Masatomo Ukaji (1978) Imperative Sentences in Early Modern English, Tokyo: Kaitakusha.

Such a piece of evidence, plus the cross-linguistic one that other languages use nominative case in imperatives (see the sentences 5a-b for German and 6b below for Italian) has led researchers to conclude that English imperatives also have φ- features for agreement and these features (and not tense features) are responsible for assigning the nominative case to the subject.

Turning now to which layer in the sentence English imperatives occupy, evidence that they are full CP structures has derived from the similarity that has been noticed between the structure of non-neutral imperative clauses and that of interrogative ones. In both, in fact, verb-subject inversion takes place. Apart from this, it has been noticed that imperatives can not appear in embedded clauses (Han 1998:110). This and the fact that the feature conveying the illocutionary force of sentences appears in matrix clauses has led researchers to conclude that imperatives have an [IMP] feature in C° encoding such an illocutionary force, in the same way as interrogative sentences have a [Q] feature. Thus, the operation which triggers movement of verb from T to C appears to be the same as that triggering movement in interrogative sentences (Potsdam 1995, in press):

4a.Don’t you do it!

4b.Do stay here!

Further evidence that imperatives are full CP structures is also provided by the grammaticality of (5) below, in which an adverb is placed after the subject but before the finite verb (Potsdam 1997:32):

5.Everyone simply move to his right a little!

This shows that in the sentence above the subject occupies at least a Spec-IP position. If, conversely, it occupied a SpecVP position, the sentence, Potsdam (1997:32) points out, would be grammatical which, instead, is not:

6.*Simply everyone move to his right a little!

Such evidence has lead Potsdam to conclude that subject DPs in imperatives are placed in SpecIP as in all tensed clauses. As a consequence, when do-support is inserted in the latter, these are merged in C°, because it precedes the subject as (4a-b) clearly show, thus behaving like interrogative sentences (Potsdam 2005:

114).

Yet, how can we account for the same CP configuration also with positive imperatives of the kind found in sentences like (7a-b) below in which no do- support is merged and, accordingly, the subject precedes a lexical verb which has certainly been inserted in a lower clause?

7a.You go out!

7b.You stay here!

As an answer to this question, Han (1998: 90) suggests that in sentences like those above the lexical verbs move to C° at LF to check the [IMP] feature.

As regards Italian imperative clauses, Zanuttini (1997)

distinguishes between

‘true’ and ‘suppletive’ imperatives. The former present forms that are unique to them, the latter forms that are present also in other verbal paradigms:

-True imperative

8a.Canta! (imperative) # Tu canti (indicative)

-Suppletive imperative

8b.Vieni! (imperative) = Tu vieni (indicative)

Second person plural imperatives, instead, do not show any overt difference from the corresponding indicative form and thus can be considered as suppletives.

Yet, they are so only formally, since syntactically they do not behave like the latter. For example, they present a verb-clitic order, while indicatives present a clitic-verb one:

2

Naturally, different hypotheses have been made, placing the imperative feature in the TP domain rather than in CP. However, I will not pursue such a line of thought here.

3

Potsdam also discusses cases in which subject-verb inversion does not take place, e.g. you don’t do it! In this case, though preserving a CP analysis, the verb does not raise to C°, as it happens in declarative clauses: [CP [C [SpecTP you [don’t [VP do it]]]]]. Potsdam concludes that English non-neutral imperatives do not need any extra syntactic representation beyond the canonically licensed one in English (Potsdam in Press: 125).

4

Quoted in Rupp (1999: 20-21)

9a.Ditelo 9b.Lo dite

Zanuttini argues that Italian imperatives occupy the head of Comp, which carries an imperative [IMP] feature which checks the verb by attracting it to C°. In negative imperatives, instead, checking takes place through the negator non.

Assuming a cartographic approach, instead, Di Domenico (2004: 24), proposes that Italian imperatives lack a FinP and that they occupy a TopP. Evidence for such a position is provided by the clitic-verb order in the imperative clauses below:

10a.Portala Tu!

10b.Tu portala!

In (10a) the verb is in both a higher position than the object clitic and the focalised subject, but lower than the SpecTP position occupied by a thematised subject that may appear in sentences like

11.Tu porta la valigia!

5

A puzzling issue related to second person plural imperatives in Italian is that they, though behaving like true imperatives (they show a verb-clitic order and cannot be embedded), unlike the latter can be negated: e.g. Non fatelo!/Non lo dite! VS *Non Canta!*Non Cantalo. Han (1999: 58) explains such a behaviour by proposing that 2nd person plural imperatives carry an imperative feature in C° and have the syntax of infinitivals, whereby the verb first moves to Inf° in the overt syntax and then to C° at LF. Such analysis, however, Han adds, can not give adequate syntactic explanation of a derivation like: Non lo fate!, which shows a negator+clitic+verb order . Han (1999: 59) proposed that such a construction is a remnant of the Tobler-Mussafia law, acccording to which Old Italian sentences could not show sentence-initial clitics. Such a behaviour was later lost around the 17

century and this explains why in contemporary Italian, clitics are allowed (e.g.

Lo fate). Thus Han suggests that remnants of this law are still present in second person plural negative imperatives and, as a consequence, the clitic-verb order in a sentence like Non lo fate! is obtained through right dislocation of the clitic and its positioning immediately after the first element of the sentence, which in the case of a negative sentence yields the order

negatron+clitic+verb.

6

To be precise, Zanuttini suggests that true imperatives in Italian have a defective morphology.

While, in fact, suppletive imperatives have a mood feature, true imperatives don’t. In suppletive

negative imperatives the [IMP] feature in C° is checked by negation and the [Mood] feature by the

verb. Conversely, negative true imperatives are ruled out because Neg is absent. Finally, in

affirmative true imperatives MoodP can be absent and thus the verb moves to C° to check the

[IMP] feature (quoted in Rupp 1999:25).

In English, instead, it occupies the same position in Top° when a do-support is inserted, but a lower position in positive imperatives.

To conclude this section, given the aim of this study, I think that at this point it is worth summing up the main issues concerning both the presence and the position of overt subjects in English and Italian positive imperative clauses, since it is on them that the data I am going to discuss have been collected.

English

-Subjects are characteristically covert (Go out!)

-Overt subject DPs may appear quite naturally for emphatic reasons with second person pronouns in preverbal position (e.g.You go out!). More problematic is their acceptance in a post-verbal position (e.g.?Go you out!). They can be accepted, even though less naturally, with nominal expressions (e.g.Nobody go out!) and more complex DPs (e.g.Those of you with black shirts stand up!).

-Covert subjects are definitely not allowed with other persons and/or proper nouns (e.g.*He/We/They go out!/*John go out!).

Italian

-Subjects are usually covert (e.g.Vieni!)

-When overt subjects appear they can be placed both before the verb (e.g. Tu vieni via!) or after the verb (e.g. Vieni via tu!).

-When they appear before the verb they seem to occupy a Top position, while when they appear after the verb a Focus one.

The latter point, especially, is of particular relevance for the analysis I am going to propose.

8.4 Data Gathering

Since the data I am going to examine are extracted from the same corpus as that used to discuss Yes/No questions, I refer to chapter 7 for a detailed presentation of the procedures followed to elicit, collect and extract them, of the participants involved in the study and the way the test was administered to them. Here it suffices to point out that the specific function the L2ers were required to perform in order to elicit the production of imperative clauses in an obligatory context was

‘giving him/her (e.g. your friend) directions about how to reach your house’.

Accordingly, the main surface forms the L2ers produced were of the kind shown in (12):

7

Radford (1996), however, reports that third person singular imperatives are admitted in Belfast

English.

12. Catch the bus at […]

C

[ Spec TP

[T [Verb […]]]

Apart from the function above, imperatives were also produced in relation to the function ‘asking him/her to bring something’ as in (13):

13. Bring food and a cake.

CP

[SpecTP

[T

[V

[…]]]];

As already hinted at before, in Italian lower secondary schools sentences like (12) and (13) are explicitly taught as standard forms realising imperative clauses.

However, despite direct training in them, learners also produced other structures to perform the functions ‘giving directions’ and ‘asking’. More specifically, they produced sentences containing TPs with auxiliary insertion; initial or embedded TPs control; CPs + TP control and CPs + TP with auxiliary declaratives. Details of these forms appear in Chapter 7 and I will not repeat them here.

In all those cases in which L2ers produced imperative clauses to perform both the function ‘invite a friend to a party’ and ‘ask him/her to bring something’, only the first token was inserted in the corpus and the other deleted, as shown below.

This to make the two data independent from each other:

14.Come by bus VS Bring a cake.

In the end a corpus of 46 imperative clauses was extracted to be examined.

During the testing session learners were helped with vocabulary when problems in lexical areas came up. Also, to abstract competence from performance in the specific functional areas, sentences were standardised and idealised (Lyons 1972).

Thus, lexical-‘errors’ as the ones reported below related to imperative clauses were not accounted for:

-incorrect use of thematic verbs: e.g. bring instead of take;

-wrong spelling: e.g cacht instead of catch.

8

For more details on the procedure followed, see Chapter 7.4.

8.5.Data Analysis: the Acquisition of Imperative Clauses in English as L2 Data were analysed to examine whether performance in English imperative clauses is constrained by the L1, as predicted by Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse 1996, 2000). Thus, variation in the input the L2ers received was related to performance in the formation of imperative clauses.

If it emerged that, despite differences in input (in the form of different textbooks, settings and materials), the L2ers showed systematic patterns of acquisition resulting in the production of similar forms, then it could be posited that there is a common factor, beyond input, driving the acquisition of such forms. I argue this common factor to be the L1.

Thus, as in the previous study, a one-tailed null hypothesis was formulated to check if there were differences in performance among the seven groups:

µ

= µ

=µ

= … µ

If the hypothesis above was rejected, then the alternative one had to be tested:

µ

≠ µ

≠µ

≠ …µ

The 46 imperative clauses were then extracted from the corpus and scored through a marking system ranging from 3 to 0 points according to whether they contained:

-overt subjects (assumed to be the standard form) - 3 points:

e.g. 15 Bring a coke!

-covert pre-verbal subjects (unusual but licensed) - 2 points:

e.g.16 You take the bus!

-covert post-verbal subjects (very unusual but licensed) - 1 point:

e.g. 17 Came you …!

-wrong tenses: 0 point:

e.g. 18.You arrived …!

After scoring operations were completed, a Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA test was used because no assumptions about normal distribution of samples could be met

. The test yielded the results reported in table 1:

Sum of Mean Prob Power DF Squares Square F-Ratio Level (Alpha=0,05) A: Groups 6 1,841709 0,3069515 0,37 0,895190 0,140138 S(A) 39 32,59307 0,8357198

Total (Adjusted)45 34,43478 Total 46

Tab.1 Italian L2ers’ performance in English Imperative Clauses

An ad-hoc post Scheffe's Multiple-Comparison test was carried out to check how group-means related to each other. Non-significant differences were detected in the performance of imperative clauses (Alpha=0,050 Error Term=S(A) DF=39 MSE=0,8357198 Critical Value=3,7488).

What was striking in the structure learners produced was the high number of covert subjects associated with imperatives, which is unexpected giving the fact that in EFL classroom settings such structures are standardly taught as covert- subject clauses.

A chi-square test was also performed to check whether any significant

association was obtained between group-membership and production of null/non- null subjects in imperative sentences. Results confirmed that there was no significant association between them, as table 2 shows:

Group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

Non-Null 3 2 3 6 2 1 5 22

13,6 9,1 13,6 27,3 9,1 4,5 22,5 100,0 Null 3 3 4 0 3 5 6 24

12,5 12,5 16,7 0,0 12,5 20,8 25,0 100,0 Total 6 5 7 6 5 6 11 46

13,0 10,9 15,2 13,0 10,9 13,0 23,9 100,0 χ

=9,230926; DF=6; p<o.5 (0,161001); χ

=12.6

9

For more details about assumption of normality, test construct-validity and test reliability see chapter 7.

10

See appendix 3 for details about Scheffe’s ad-hoc post test.

Tab.2. Association between Null-VS Non-null subjects in English imperatives by Italian L2ers

In Fig.1 the distribution of overt vs covert subjects in each group is shown.

Distribution of Null VS Non-Null Subjects

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Groups

Observations

Null 3 3 4 0 3 5 6

Non-Null 3 2 3 6 2 1 5

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7

Fig. 1

At first sight, these findings may seem to provide counterevidence to the extensive debate on null-subjects in SLA, whereby learners of a pro-drop language like Italian tend to omit subjects in declarative sentences in the initial stages of L2 learning. In the study above the opposite happens. If, as it is commonly accepted, L2ers are conservative during their initial exposure to the target language, then covert subjects would be expected in those L2 forms which require it (like English imperative clauses), since this is a parameter that they have already instantiated in their L1 forms (like Italian declarative and imperative clauses). This should be more so in the cases of imperatives, a form that learners are taught to use without overt subjects. In terms of economy of principle, such an operation is less costly if compared to the one required by the insertion of the subject, since it is licensed both by the L1 and the L2 and, apparently, no

parameter-resetting is needed. Such a finding confirms that the latter mechanism

is not a one-to-one operation, whereby if the L1 and the L2 share common

parameters these are automatically and costlessly transferred, otherwise the

Italian L2ers in the study would have met no difficulty in dropping subjects.

Why, then, do L2rs insert subjects in imperative clauses which they have been taught to use without them? Why do they use the non-null parameter associated with declarative sentences of the TL when, as it has been widely proved, in the early phases of EFL learning they tend to omit overt subjects, following their L1 (covert) configuration instead? Two hypotheses can be suggested to explain such a phenomenon: 1.either the L2ers have started to re-parameterise settings to adjust them to those of the L2 and, having not achieved full competence yet, are

overgeneralising the rule (but here the point is, what triggers such an

overgeneralisation?); or 2, as I hold instead, the appearance of covert subjects in imperative structures is a carry-over from licensed forms in the learners’ L1. In the discussion section I will attempt a principled account for such a hypothesis.

8.6 A Taxonomy of Constructions in the Acquisition of Imperative Phrases in English L2

Basically, the only truly non-target like forms that emerged in the production of imperative clauses are related to the finite vs non-finite optionality (Prevost and White 2000), according to which L2ers tend to use non-finite and finite forms in finite contexts, but never finite forms in non-finite ones. The data presented in the appendixes to this chapter show an example of use of non-finite forms also in imperative clauses and one of, respectively, overtly marked (past) tense and agreement features:

19.*You arrived 20.*You to bring 21.*He goes

Sentence (20) fits perfectly with data examined by Prevost and White’s (2000), whereby non-finite forms may appear in finite contexts (it has been pointed out before that the imperatives have null tense and agreement features, even though null ones). Construction (19) , instead, is more problematic, since in it the

11

In this chapter, as in the previous one, I have been concerned with how L2ers come to build up

the possible grammar licensed by their ILs. This is precisely the reason why also here, as in

Chapter 7, I have called the L2ers’ sentences ‘constructions’ and not ‘errors’.

imperative clause has been attributed a past tense, which it does not allow. As regards construction (21), in it the verb has been overtly inflected and a third person pronoun morpheme has been inserted agreeing with it. The sentence, in short, has received the configuration of a standard present declarative clause.

Since these are the only samples of truly non-TL constructions (all those which present both pre-verbal and post-verbal overt subjects are, in fact, allowed in English imperatives) I hold problems in them lie in the lexicon. The learner producing them has not acquired the correct morphology of the imperative phrase marker.

8.7.The acquisition of the Imperative phrase marker.

Probably, the most striking point in the data collected as regards the acquisition of imperative clauses (the full set of which appears in appendixes 1 and 2 at the end of the chapter.) is related to what is commonly known as the Null-Subject Parameter. That is to say, the difficulty of null-subject-language learners to acquire the obligatoriness of subject insertion in non-null-subject language sentences. The data I have presented in this study, instead, shows the opposite phenomenon. While it is expected that Italian L2ers, a null-subject language, omit subjects in English as an L2 (a non-null subject language), yet in the imperative clauses I have examined, where both languages are standardly assumed to drop subjects, such an easy-to-learn-carry over does no take place.

At first sight, this behaviour seems to undermine the assumptions of the Full Transfer/Full Competence Hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996). If, in fact, transfer does not work in cases in which parameters coincide, how can it work, one wonders, in those cases in which parameters are divergent?

My answer to this question is that also with imperative clauses, learners build up their representation of such forms drawing from the L1 in terms of pragmatic carry-over rather than a purely syntactic one. Both English and Italian, in fact, allow overt subjects in emphatic and negative imperatives.

Thus, the point of departure to examine Italian L2ers’ performance is by

looking at the ratio between overt and covert subjects in imperative clauses. This

ratio approximates to nearly 50% of occurrences for each option:

Covert Subject Imperative Clauses 24 Overt Subject Imperative Clauses 22

Total 46

Tab.3 Ration between Null and Non-Null Subjects in Imperative Clauses

22 occurrences

out of a total of 46 observations is a very high percentage, especially if we consider that input alone can not have triggered such a massive use. As I have explained above, in fact, imperatives are standardly taught as covert-subject structures. Consequently, it appears extremely improbable that learners have acquired them as overt-subject forms from input alone.

Again, we have to examine IL in its own terms in order to posit a principle capable of triggering such an input-non driven operation. In chapter 5, I introduced a principle which I called there SLA-Relativized Merge and Check, whose assumptions I repeat below for the sake of convenience :

SLA-Relativized Merge and Check

All the other features being different, for checking and merging operations between two items to take place in the early stages of SLA, it is sufficient that at least one feature of an item α of either the L1 or the L2 match with at least one feature of an item β of either the L1 or the L2.

Thus, let’s assume that the learner has not received the necessary stimuli from the input to trigger overt-subject operations for the reason already explained (e.g.

teaching of imperatives as covert-subject clauses). Let’s also assume that learners know that in English, overt-subjects, as a default condition, can not be dropped.

Finally, let’s posit that those same learners know that in their L1 (Italian) overt- subjects are allowed in imperative clauses, especially in utterances marking specific illocutionary force as authority, command, and so on, as in (22) and (23):

22.Porta la coca-cola!

23.Tu porta la coca-cola!

12

Also non-target like tokens have been included in the count.

13

A more detailed account of how such a mechanism actually works is given in Charter 7.

Rupp (1999: 66) and Davies (1981) hold that the difference between imperative clauses like (22) and (23) and the English examples (24) and (25) below lies precisely in the force that the presence or absence of the subject conveys:

24.Give it to me!

25.You give it to me!

In Rupp’s (1999:67) view, sentences (22-24) assign a ‘default’ addressee interpretation while sentences (23-25) attribute a contrasting reading to the utterance, serving various pragmatic functions like expressing impatience, authority of the speaker, command. Thus, following Davies, she concludes that overt-subject imperatives express a pragmatic force that instead, covert-subject imperatives do not convey.

Within the context in which the imperative clauses examined in this study have been produced, such an interpretation may shed a light on the possible operations the L2ers’ IL has triggered to produce such overt-subject forms. Then, in terms of SLA-Relativized Merge and Check, I suggest that it has been sufficient for the learners to match one single feature of a probe (e.g. the subject which they know is allowed in Italian imperative clauses in emphatic situations) with a goal in the TL (the verb which in English imperatives receives no inflections), regardless if such a merging operation is allowed or not in English (they don’t know it is allowed since they have not acquired it, yet).

In conclusion, what I suggest has occurred is that, since L2ers can not have

acquired overt-subject imperatives from the sketchy stimuli the input may have

provided, their IL has triggered a sort of pragmatic carry-over from the L1, which

has allowed subjects to surface to give emphatic force of command, authority and

so on to the imperative clauses they have produced.

Conclusions

In this chapter I have examined the insertion of overt subjects in English imperative clauses, a form which is considered unusual, even though allowed, in the TL.

As a first step I have introduced the phrase-marker of imperatives by

interpreting them as full CP structures; this, in accordance with recent studies in this area (inter alia Han 1998; Potsdam 1995, 1997, in Press; Rivero and Terzi 1995; Rupp 1999; Zanuttini 1994, 1997).

The main focus of investigation has been to find a plausible explanation why L2ers who have not been explicitly taught to use overt subjects in imperative clauses during their learning process, came to acquire them in the way they did, especially in consideration of the fact that the input they receive is not very rich in samples of such a kind.

The hypothesis I have made to explain such a phenomenon is in tune with the Full Transfer/Full Competence Hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996), which predicts that L2ers in the early stages of language acquisition transfer forms from their L1 when they build up their representation of the second language.

Thus what I have suggested has taken place to account for the tendency of

Italian L2ers to produce overt-subject imperatives, an option that is not explicitly

taught as the standard one in the early phases of FL learning in the classroom

setting, is that they have drawn such forms from the L1 as a pragmatic carry-over

to give the imperative clauses they use a specific illocutionary force of authority,

command and so on. I have defined the principle that has triggered such an

operation SLA-Relativized Merge and Check.

Appendix 1

Acquisition of the imperative clauses by Italian elementary EFL learners in classroom settings

S.C. T. C. CP Imperatives Construction Score Full Sentence

7 AG […] take […]. Correct 3 take the famous salse of your mother.

13 AG Take […]. Correct 3 Take a cake, coca cola and whisky.

17 AG You came […] Non Null Subj. 2 You came by bus

18 AG Came you […] Non Null Subj. + Subj. Inv. 1 Came you with the bus at 19:30.

19 AG Remember […] correct 3 Remember to bring food and drink

20 AG you cam […] Non Null Subj. 2 Take eat ex chips, cola, pizza and CD for listen to music

38 BT bring […], correct 3 … bring something eat, chips …

41 BT don't forget […] correct 3 don't forget foods, drinks and plays 45 BT You arrive […] Non Null Subj. 2 You arrive in my house by bus, because

is very long.

50 BT You bring […] Non Null Subj. 2 You bring something to eat drink and play

51 BT Bring […] correct 3 Bring something to eat, drink and play

54 CG You take […] Non Null Subj. 2 You take a bus 980 number

55 CG You bring […]. Non Null Subj. 2 You bring something to eat, drink and play.

57 CG Get […]. correct 3 Get to my house by bus.

61 CG […] give […] correct 3 … give the 197 at the stop bus

64 CG […] catch […] correct 3 … catch the bus at Cornelia Street.

67 CG You bring […] Non Null Subj. 2 You bring something to eat drink and play

69 CG Bring […]. correct 3 Bring a cake, a buiscuit and a Coca Cola.

71 CP You get [...] Non Null Subj. 2

You get train and you get off at Ipogeo degli Ottavi

74 CP You take […]. Non Null Subj. 2 You take the bus.

75 CP You go […] Non Null Subj. 2 You go at underground and stop at station of Via Aurelia.

79 CP You come […] Non Null Subj. 2

You come in my house bye 907 bus or 995 bus

80 CP You bring […]. Non Null Subj. 2 You bring coca-cola and aranciata.

81 CP You bring […] Non Null Subj. 2

You bring sandwich, coke, Fanta, Scarabeo and Monopoli.

87 NR You go ... […] Non Null Subj. 2 Bring something to eat, drink and play 90 NR You to bring […]t

Non Null Subj. +

WrongTense 0 You to bring drink and may party start 99 NR […] get down […] correct 3 For arrive by bus get down first bus stop 100 NR […] take […] correct 3 For arrive it, take the bus at the Cattedral …

105 NR […] remember […] correct 3 remember bring something

109 PB […] bring […]. correct 3 bring something to eat and drink like chips or coca-cola

110 PB bring […] correct 3 Please, bring some cds, chips and water.

111 PB […] get […] correct 3 get an [bus] 881.

119 PB […] came […] correct 3 came by bus.

121 PB turn left […] correct 3 Bring to eat drink.

123 PB You arrived […]

Non Null Subj. + Wrong

Tense 0 You arrived at my house with bus 088.

126 SA You remember […]. Non Null Subj. 2

You remember to bring something to eat, drink and play.

127 SA You bring […]. Non Null Subj. 2 You bring something to eat, drink and play.

128 SA he goes […]

Non Null Subj. + Wrong

Tense 0 he goe to the bus the n°21

130 SA bring […] correct 3 bring something to eat

132 SA you bring […]. Non Null Subj. 2 you bring something to eat or drink.

133 SA bring […] correct 3 bring drink and popcorn

S.C. T. C. CP Imperatives Construction Score Full Sentence

134 SA Take […]! correct 3 Take a bus number 203!

137 SA take […]. correct 3 take the bus near the Standa.

138 SA […] you take […] Non Null Subj. 2 you take bus number 15 in the central city ..

139 SA Bring […] correct 3 take the bus number 13.

141 SA Bring […] correct 3 take the bus numbers 20

Appendix 2

Production of overt-subjects in imperative clauses by Italian L2ers

S.C. T. C. CP Imperatives 17 AG You came […]

20 AG you cam […]

45 BT You arrive […]

50 BT You bring […]

54 CG You take […]

55 CG You bring […].

67 CG You bring […]

71 CP You get [...]

74 CP You take […].

75 CP You go […]

79 CP You come […]

80 CP You bring […].

81 CP You bring […]

87 NR You go ... […]

126 SA You remember […].

127 SA You bring […].

132 SA you bring […].

138 SA […] you take […]

Appendix 9

Production of VS order in imperative structures by Italian L2ers:

S.C. T. C. CP Imperatives 18 AG Came you […]t

Appendix 10

Production of wrong tense inflection in imperative structures by Italian L2ers:

S.C. T. C. CP Imperatives 90 NR You to bring […]t 123 PB You arrived […]

128 SA he goes […]

Appendix 3

Details of the Kruskal-Wallis Test on the Acquisition of imperative clauses by Italian elementary EFL learners in classroom settings.

4.1.Group Detail

Sum of Mean

Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median AG 6 133,00 22,17 -0,2609 2,5 BT 5 130,50 26,10 0,4588 3 CG 7 178,50 25,50 0,4281 3 CP 6 81,00 13,50 -1,9570 2 NR 5 119,50 23,90 0,0706 3 PB 6 175,00 29,17 1,1090 3 SA 11 263,50 23,95 0,1288 3

4.2 Means and Effects Section

Standard

Term Count Mean Error Effect

All 46 2,347826 2,343105

Groups Count

AG 6 2,166667 0,3732113 -0,1764379

BT 5 2,6 0,4088324 0,2568955

CG 7 2,571429 0,3455265 0,2283241

CP 6 2 0,3732113 -0,3431045

NR 5 2,2 0,4088324 -0,1431045

PB 6 2,5 0,3732113 0,1568955

SA 11 2,363636 0,2756348 2,053185E-02

4.3.Plots of Means Section

2,00 2,20 2,40 2,60 2,80

AG BT CG CP NR PB SA

Means of Score

Group

Score

4.4. Scheffe's Multiple-Comparison Test

Different From Group Count Mean Groups

CP 6 2

AG 6 2,166667

NR 5 2,2

SA 11 2,363636

PB 6 2,5

CG 7 2,571429

BT 5 2,6