Charter 9
Conclusions and Further Investigations
I started this dissertation by briefly introducing the theoretical framework into which the linguistic inquiry under investigation (e.g. acquisition of FCs in L2) is inserted. I also explored the impact the theoretical model I have chosen has had on SLA over the last decade and how, with the development of the Minimalist
Program, it has recently focused on the acquisition of functional categories. Then, I pointed out the different hypotheses made about the learnability and
transferability of the latter in a second language and examined the various
positions which emerged. I explained that some of them are in open opposition to each other (e.g. Full Access vs Non Access), while others have assumed a midway stance, focusing on certain aspects (e.g. Weak Transferability Hypothesis
(Eubank)), rather than others (e.g. Minimal Trees Hypothesis (Vainikka and Young Sholten)).1 Finally, in the last three chapters, I examined data both from non-experimental and experimental studies testing the theoretical assumptions previously illustrated. More precisely, I analysed and discussed the extent to which functional categories already instantiated in the L1 – and obviously the features they carry – play a crucial role in the acquisition of English Yes/No questions and imperative clauses by Italian L2ers at an elementary level of
language proficiency in a non-natural (e.g. classroom) context. The findings that I reported seem to confirm that L2ers do indeed tend to transfer functional
categories and their features from the L1 into the L2 in the early phases of language learning as a starting hypothesis to build up the grammar of the latter. Such findings seem to confirm Schwartz and Sprouse’s Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996).
Yet, theories evolve and develop. This is the reason why, as concluding remarks of this dissertation, I would like to examine two recent hypotheses that have focused on issues that are worth careful consideration. They are Bley-Vroman’s (1997) Constructions Based Acquisition (henceforth CBA) and Shi’s (2003) Relativized Transfer Condition (RL1TR). Both theories tackle L1-to-L2-transfer issues in an as-yet-untrained way within generative approaches to SLA and, for
this reason, I think they may contribute to future developments. They highlight, in fact, factors usually overlooked in mainstream literature in this field: the former by considering transfer in terms of canonical vs non canonical features, the latter by positing a ‘block-by-block’ construction model of acquisition involving prototypical vs non-prototypical parameter and feature setting. Even though both hypotheses come to different conclusions to explain how L2ers build up L2 ‘constructions’, yet the operations and mechanisms which they suggest are similar to those I proposed in Chapters 7 and 8.
To start with RL1TR, Shi (2003) places it within a Distributed Morphology approach to Minimalism in SLA. As a basic assumption he hypothesises that the L1 properties that emerge both from the experimental and the spontaneous data of L2 productions he has analysed can be characterised as performance
phenomena. As such, Shi argues, they belong to the L2er’s E-language and not to his/her I-language. The latter, in fact, is based on canonical structures, while the non-canonical ones are not incorporated into it but only inserted in the L2 as (I argue) a kind of formulaic speech. What is more, the availability of items in the L2 that share common features with items in the L1 does not facilitate the acquisition of the former. Accordingly, Shi (2003: 269) suggests that transfer of L1 features into the L2 takes place
if and only if there is no such item that consists of more canonical morpho-syntactic features. The RL1TR predicts that non canonical L1 features are often left untouched
In the formalization above, Shi defines the term canonical as envisaged in, inter alia, Chomsky (1970), Grimshaw (1981), Levin and Rappaport Hovay (1995):
Verb roots are defined as the base variant if they impose less stringent c-selection on its arguments and constitute the canonical syntactically relevant semantic and argument structure information. A root variant gives rise to the derived variant.2
What the definition above boils down to is that structures like (1) below
1.John danced himself into the room
2
is a derived variant and, for this reason, a less canonical form than (2)
2.John danced until he entered into the room
because it (e.g. 1) poses more stringent c-selection than the second (e.g. 2) on its arguments.
Shi analyses the production of Mandarin Chinese speakers of L2 English on resultative and depictive verbs in English collected in a experimental study. Both kinds of verbs allow different configurations. In the case of resultative, for example, they may consist of a matrix-verb, which can be transitive, unergative, unaccusative or passive plus various NPs and an XPResult. Such constructions, Shi points out, are also productive in Mandarin Chinese which in fact has equivalent forms for them as the English ones. In two different tests administered to his Chinese speakers, Shi observed that they could easily grasp the underlying representation of the structure of resultative verbs in a grammatical judgment test in the same way as the control (English) group did. Conversely they found it difficult to produce the appropriate configuration of the same verbs in a production task. That is to say, the Chinese L2ers can identify the right representation of resultative constructions, including the morphosyntactic features they carry, but they can’t actively produce them. Shi attributes such an asymmetry to the interference of the performance system of the L1. In fact, the L2ers’ computational system tends to a ‘least effort’ operation when processing a second language and this ‘least effort’ operation triggers representations that for economy reasons are less costly for it. Since canonical L1 constructions are assumed to be easier to access than non-canonical ones, the result is that when L2ers tackle another language they tend to transfer these more canonical constructions into it. In short, even though L2ers can build up the right
representation also of non-canonical forms through UG, L1 performance-effects prompt them to transfer into the L2 those forms that the computational system considers to be more prototypical in the native language. Shi (2003: 275) formalizes his hypothesis in the following way:
An L1 lexical item χ with a feature set {α, β, γ} transfers to the L2 lexicon only if there is no such an χ’ with an alternative set {π, σ, ψ}that is more canonical, where a set consists of a semantic, morphological, and selectional matrix
Given the assumption above, Shi’s hypothesis has some points in common with Meisel’s proposal that L2ers do not transfer functional categories in the
acquisition of a second language since what appear to be L1 manifestations are, in truth, only learning strategies used to cope with lacking morphology and
underlying representations of abstract features. I discussed Meisel’s hypothesis in Chapter 5 and I refer to it for more details on how he builds up his proposal.
What is worth highlighting in Shi’s hypothesis, instead, is the ‘least-resort’ operation which he posits in the transfer from L1 features into the L2 grammar. The learner, finding non-canonical features more difficult to process, only transfers the more easily processable canonical ones. Yet,the computational system (the learner’s I-language) does not participate in the operation because it is the performance apparatus, instead, that triggers such an operation (e.g. his/her E-language).
Unlike Shi’s hypothesis, I argue instead, that such an operation does not hold in the acquisition of Yes/No questions by the Italian EFL L2ers that I examined in Chapter 7. There, I attributed the transfer of features and projections from the L1 into the L2 to a principle that I called SLA-Relativized Merge and Check. This is because if in the sample-constructions I examined, L2ers had found it easier, for computational reasons, to transfer from the L1 into the L2 only canonical forms, then it would be difficult to explain the formation of sentences like (3) which appear in the corpus I have collected:
3.*You came to the party?
In Italian, in fact, both pro and lexicalised subjects are allowed (Poletto 2001). Yet, the former are generally considered to be more canonical than the latter (Poletto 2001, Benincà 2001, Rizzi 2001). What is more, lexicalised subjects in Italian admit free inversion and, consequently, they can appear both in thematic and focalised positions:
4a.Vieni alla festa? 4b.Tu, vieni alla festa? 4c.Vieni alla festa, tu?
Let us focus on the position of the subject in equivalent English Yes/No questions. In them, only one of the configurations above is licensed by the L2 (English) grammar, that is to say the one which presents an aux-subj-main verb order as in (5a):
5a Do you come to the party? 5b *You, do come to the party? 5c *Do come to the party, you?
If we followed RL1TC we should accept that in transferring features and parameters from the L1 into the L2, as Shi hypothesises, the Italian L2er should favour transfer of more canonical forms like (6) below:
6.*like [the] party?
which, in terms of subject-position, is equivalent to the Italian sentence (4a), rather than a construction like (7):
7.*you come to the party?
which is the equivalent to the Italian (4b). This is because a pro-subject, as pointed out above, is considered more canonical than a pre-verbal subject. Contrary to this hypothesis, the data I analysed show that the subject tends to be inserted either in a pre-verbal position (11 occurrences out of 26) or after the lexical verb (12 occurrences out of 16) but only rarely as pro-drop (3 occurrences out of 26). More so, the experimental data I collected refer to young learners whose L2 grammar is still very unsteady and thus based much more
preponderantly on canonical forms that non-canonical ones. Yet, they tend to transfer much more frequently constructions that appear less canonical, like
subject position in either thematic or focus position. Once again, we have to take into consideration the idea that IL competence has to be assessed in its own terms. The speakers Shi observed are adult speakers with an L1 probably at a steadier state than that of the learners I observed. This fact may be taken as evidence that the canonical vs non canonical configuration does not hold for young L2ers, as the grammatical judgement test I administered to them seems to confirm (see
appendix 9 in Chapter 7).
What I think, on the contrary, is that L2ers transfer features and parameters of the L1, both the canonical and the non canonical ones, into the L2 because they draw them from configurations that their IL is still in the process of coming to terms with. Hence, they gradually build up the grammar of the TL starting from that of the latter as a pure learning mechanism.
As regards Bley-Vroman’s CBA, one of the most interesting points that he raises is the hypothesis that second language learning is built up by accumulating constructions. These constructions, however, rather than being mere
‘epiphenomena’ are what characterise the very process of language acquisition (Bley-Vroman 1997: 4).
As an example of such assumptions, he suggests that L2ers can acquire lots of parameters and features related to question formation in English: 1.subject-verb inversion; 2.do-support and so on. Despite this, they may not learn, for example, the relevant restrictions posed by the position of adverbs. In the light of this, learning takes place through blocks or patterns whose function L2ers learn to recognise and assign the appropriate parameters (always in terms of IL) to them.
A construction, Bley-Vroman (1997:6) argues, is an arrangement of categories which is itself a category: a Det + NP is a NP construction; an NPsubject + Passive verb + optionalbyP is an example of a passive sentence construction and so on. The patterns above form a kind of taxonomy or (I add) a learning algorithm. For example, in the case of canonical English Yes/No questions, the learner may construct his/her knowledge on the following blocks:
1.Form yes/no questions by inserting the verb before the subject;
Both blocks 1 and 2 above tell the learner how to form Yes/No questions in English; but while (1) is too generic to instantiate the right configuration, (2) is specific enough to yield grammatical Yes/No questions.
Bley-Vroman suggests that constructions of the kind above become more or less prototypical according to the saliency of the input. This, however, raises a crucial question: how does the learner come to use a structure rather than another? What triggers his/her preference for it? Bley-Vroman introduces the concept of construction ‘strength’ or ‘weight’ to explain what triggers learners to choose a specific form rather than another. Such a proposal may help shed a light on the choice of a non target- like construction as the one below:
9.*Want you come to the party?
In (9) the learner may have accessed block 1 as a prototypical construction at a stage when he/she has not yet acquired the difference between strong and weak features of verbs, thus giving strength to the block ‘insert the verb’ and, consequently, yielding the ungrammatical sentence in (9).
Apart from this, the fact that the L2er may build up his/her representation of the L2 through blocks may also explain the presence in the corpus I have collected of idiosyncratic constructions like (10):
10.*You, do you want to come to my party?
In the sentence above, the learner may have merged each block in the derivation separately. More precisely, he/she may have merged block (3) and then block (4) below regardless of the constraints that both imply, as schematically shown below:
3.insert do-support + subject + lexical verb to form Yes/No questions;
4.insert the subject + do-support and you as a mono-morphemic unit + lexical verb to form Yes/No questions;
The reason why a construction above can be generated lies in the fact that, as I have extensively pointed out, we are dealing with a grammar which is in constant reshaping. This is more so if we consider that, as Bley-Vroman (1997: 15)
recognises, learners draw such constructions also from their L1. The blocks that they use, then, belong both to the L1 and to the L2 and thus they can yield the non-target like constructions I have illustrated so far.
Bley-Vroman envisages the possibility that a similar system may also work in L1 acquisition but in a different way from the L2 . While the former is acquired through constructions licensed by UG, the latter is constructed chunk by chunk through input (Bely-Vroman 1997:19)3. What this means is that while in L1 acquisition constructions are epiphenomena, in L2 acquisition they are the very object of acquisition, since they are learnt directly through conscious efforts. To sum up, both the hypotheses illustrated above hold that the L1 plays an important role in L2 acquisition, even though for different reasons. While Shi attributes L1 effects on the L2 to the performance system, Bley-Vroman addresses more cognitive phenomena. The two positions, however, add to those previously illustrated throughout this dissertation and the whole picture stresses once again how in this field of investigation new insights are continuously proliferating, also given the unsteady nature of IL.
To highlight how the latter works, we can exploit a metaphor used by Chomsky (2002 72) to explain the kind of computational mechanisms which may trigger dislocation phenomena in language. He resorts to the image of an engineer who has to solve three kinds of problems to explain which heads move where. Such an engineer, Chomsky hypothesises, has to know three basic features: 1.a feature that identifies the target and determines which expression may move to it; 2.a feature that identifies the thing that is to be dislocated and finally 3.a feature that decides whether the target has an extra position or not. Now, if we apply the same metaphor to IL studies a crucial difference immediately emerges: that is to say, the L2er’s computational system at an early stage of language acquisition lacks fixed ‘targets’, ‘fixed positions’ and ‘fixed movements’. Any object can move anywhere triggered by operations licensed by two internal grammars – the L1’s and the L2’s - which are often in competition between themselves, so as to yield constructions of the kind as in (10) above. In that construction, as explained in Chapter 7, an extra-subject position is created and objects licensed by one of the
3
grammar (e.g. the L1 Italian) but not by the other (the L2 English) are moved to it. A principle that I called SLA-Relativized Merge and Check is responsible, in my view, for such computational operations, whereby merging and checking mechanisms are triggered by objects lacking fixed targets, positions and movements. This, in any case, until a new IL in the continuum reshuffles the previous settings and a new competing system is created; and so on until a steady state is reached which may be more or less target-like. To this, I add, that the steady-state may be more or less target-like in certain dimensions (syntactic; lexical; morphological) but not others.
To conclude, the study of Interlanguage is a research field subject to constant counter-evidence of previous insights and intuitions. Yet, if we consider IL to be a natural language, as indeed it is, a crucial question has to be asked about the extent to which it offers an optimal design . By optimal design I mean, in Chomsky’s (2002:99) terms, whether it can satisfy in the best possible way the interface conditions it is inserted in (Chomsky 2002: 95). Take for example the notion of plurality both in verbs and nouns in English as an L2, in which the morpheme that realises it (e.g. -s) in surface forms is often dropped in the first phases of acquisition. If we consider such a construction simply as a non-target-like form, such an imperfection does not certainly satisfy the requirements of the TL system into which the language module is inserted. Instead, if we consider it as a natural language, we should admit that it has both an initial and a steady state. As such, it yields an ‘infinite number of interpretable expressions’(Chomsky 2002:80) and this means that there are no ‘dead ends’ in its acquisition.
Accordingly, if IL has various states we can safely posit that everything the L2er produces is designed to be an optimal solution to what his/her system (at a certain stage of language learning) yields.4
Now, one may wonder optimal according to what? Well, I think that the answer lies in considering the optimality of IL in relation to the internal system of the L2er’s mind that has produced it. This, as pointed out before, is neither the L1 nor the L2, but a continuum between the two that is in constant reshaping and
4
This is probably what Corder (1981) meant when he defined the L2er as a ‘native speaker of his/her own interlanguage’. Being a continuum, each stage is a ‘steady state’ and as such has to be
which, for this very reason, is capable of interacting with all the components that make up its grammar. To give an example from sentence (10) reproduced below as (11), if a L2er produces the sentence:
11.*You do you want to come to my party?
from the assumptions I have just made above, all the information contained in the sentence are perfectly interpretable to the system into which the L2er’s grammar is inserted and which, at an early stage, shifts from L1 to L2
constructions and parameters. Thus, the L2 grammar tells him/her that in English, Yes/No questions have to be realised through forms which require subjects to be placed after do- support; at the same time, his/her L1 grammar also tells him/her that in Italian ‘you’ can be placed in thematic, pre-verbal position. What is more, his/her articulatory system tells him/her that both constructions in his/her
transitional grammar, which satisfies different interface conditions, can receive phonetic realisation. Thus, no apparent redundancies and imperfections are perceived. At least, as long as input does not trigger further configurations which clash with those above and produce different, new and more productive settings in which the pre-verbal subject is eliminated and a new optimal design is established.
Given the picture above, the crucial point in investigating IL, I argue, is whether to address the main effort to build up the best theory possible which may describe in a satisfactory way an imperfect object or shift the focus on the object itself. If IL, as pointed out above, is considered to be, to all extents and purposes, a natural language, then, as Chomsky maintains (Chomsky 2002), the main point in investigating it is to see the extent to which it offers an optimal solution for the (external) system into which it is incorporated and with which it has to interface (the thought system of the L2er, his/her sensori-motor skills, and so on).
Accordingly, the fundamental question at stake is: how can IL offer an optimal design if the L2er who produces it has, in the majority of cases, fully acquired a native language that perfectly satisfies all the interface conditions that the external system to the language requires but which his/her IL, instead, does not seem to be able to fulfil? How can an ‘imperfect’, ‘deviant’ ‘non-target like language satisfy
those very interface conditions? The answer to these questions, in my view, is the major challenge for SLA studies in the near future.