Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:27:43.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The L3 syntax–discourse interface*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2013

ROUMYANA SLABAKOVA  and
MARÍA DEL PILAR GARCÍA MAYO
ROUMYANA SLABAKOVA*
Affiliation:
University of Southampton & University of Iowa
MARÍA DEL PILAR GARCÍA MAYO
Affiliation:
University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU
*
Address for correspondence: Roumyana Slabakova, Department of Modern Languages, Building 65, Faculty of Humanities, University of Southampton, Avenue Campus, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers the acquisition of three English syntax–discourse interface constructions: Topicalization, Focus Fronting and Left Dislocation. We use data from Basque–Spanish bilinguals learning English as a third language (L3) as a test case for the Interface Hypothesis (IH, Sorace, 2011). The IH has made specific predictions about second language (L2) acquisition and such predictions can be extrapolated to L3 on the basis of interface delay explanations. Thirty contexts and embedded test sentences with and without pronouns were used; participants had to rate the acceptability of each audio stimulus sentence in the context on a seven-point scale. We tested Basque–Spanish bilinguals dominant in Basque (n = 23), Basque–Spanish bilinguals dominant in Spanish (n = 24), Spanish L2 English learners (n = 39) as well as native English speakers (n = 24). Findings provide evidence against current L3 acquisition models and potential arguments for both cumulative enhancement as well as cumulative inhibition as possible processes in L3 acquisition.

Keywords

L3 acquisitionTopicalizationFocus FrontingLeft DislocationBasqueSpanishEnglishsyntax–discourse interface
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , Special Issue 2: L3 Acquisition: A Focus on Cognitive Approaches , April 2015 , pp. 208 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The two authors gratefully acknowledge the Ikerbasque Foundation visiting researcher fellowship, whose funding allowed us to undertake the research described in this article. The second author gratefully acknowledges funding from the following research grants: IT-311-10 from the Basque Government, UFI 11/06 from the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU and CSD2007-00012 from the Spanish Ministry of Education. We are extremely grateful to the participants in this test, and to Raquel Fernández Fuertes, Ainara Imaz Agirre and Cristóbal Lozano for recruiting participants. Thanks go to William Davies, Paula Kempchinsky and Christine Shea for sharing their native intuitions with us in the piloting of the test items and to Jorge González Alonso for the statistical analyses. Finally, we thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their useful suggestions on how to improve the article.

References

Anagnostopoulou, E. (1997a). Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou et al. (eds.), pp. 151–192.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E., van Riemsdijk, H., & Zwarts, F. (eds.) (1997b). Materials on left dislocation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23, 459–484.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P., & Munaro, N. (eds.) (2010). Mapping the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J., & Ward, G.. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2003). Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brunetti, L., Bott, S., Costa, J., & Vallduví, E. (2011). A multilingual annotated corpus for the study of Information Structure. In Konopka, M., Kubczak, J., Mair, C., Sticha, F. & Wassner, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the Grammar and Corpora 2009 Conference, pp. 305–327. Tübingen: Guenther Narr.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (1999). Topic. In Bosch, P. & van der Sand, R. (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive and computational perspectives, pp. 142–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe, pp. 145–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Chomsky, N., Studies on semantics in generative grammar, pp. 69–119. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, pp. 1–51. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1983). “Topic” constructions in some European languages and “connectedness”. In Ehlich, K. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Connectedness in sentence, discourse and text: Proceedings of the Tilburg conference held on 25 and 26 January 1982. Katholieke Hogeschool, Tilburg. [Reprinted in Anagnostopoulou et al. (eds.), 1997, pp. 93–118.]Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A′-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. (1991). Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. (2011). Left-dislocation in near-native French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 399–432.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. (2012). Syntax and discourse in near-native French: Clefts and focus. Language Learning, 62, 902–930.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. (ed.) (1995). Discourse configurational languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elordieta, A. (2001). Verb movement and constituent permutation in Basque. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 Status Factor. Second Language Research, 27, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children's patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, W. (2004). Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of German Left islocation. In Lohnstein, H. & Trissler, S. (eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left sentence periphery, pp. 203–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Rothman, J. (2012). L3 morphosyntax in the generative tradition: The initial stages and beyond. In Cabrelli Amparo, J., Flynn, S. & Rothman, J. (eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood, pp. 9–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goenaga, P. (1980). Gramatika bideetan. Donostia: ASJU.Google Scholar
Gregory, M., & Michaelis, L. (2001). Topicalization and left dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1665–1706.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (2002). Left dislocation as movement. In Mauck, S. & Mittelstaedt, J. (eds.), Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 2, 31–81.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. (2003). Prolific domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1986). Presupposition, theme and variations. Chicago Linguistic Society, 22, 168–192.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. (1995). Structural focus, structural case and the notion of feature assignment. In É. Kiss (ed.), pp. 28–64.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. (2010). Discourse-features, syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua, 120, 1346–1369.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I., & Ortiz de Urbina, J. (eds.) (2003). A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanov, I. (2012). L2 acquisition of Bulgarian clitic-doubling: A test case for the Interface Hypothesis. Second Language Research, 28, 345–368.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.[S.] (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, P. (2008). How much structure does the left periphery need? Presented at the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 38, University of Illinois–Urbana Champaign.Google Scholar
Laka, I. (1988). Configurational heads in inflectional morphology: The structure of the inflected forms in Basque. Anuario del seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” (ASJU), 23, 343–365.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2011). Who is the Interface Hypothesis about? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 48–53.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2001). Bilingualism, immersion programs and language learning in the Basque Country. Journal of Multilingualism and Multicultural Development, 22, 401–425.Google Scholar
López, L. (2009). A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Na Ranong, S., & Leung, Y-k. I. (2009). Null objects in L1 Thai-L2 English-L3 Chinese: An empiricist take on a theoretical problem. In Leung, Y-k. I. (ed.), Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar, pp. 162–191. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., Titov, E., van de Koot, H., & Vermeulen, R. (2009). A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In Van Craenbroeck, J. (ed.), Alternatives to cartography, pp. 15–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., & van de Koot, H. (2008). Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse Templates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 11, 137–189.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, J. (1989). Parameters in the grammar of Basque: A GB approach to Basque syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Parodi, T., & Tsimpli, I. M. (2005). “Real” and apparent optionality in second language grammars: Finiteness and pronouns in null operator structures. Second Language Research, 21, 250–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postolache, O. (2005). Information structure in written English: A corpus study. Presented at the International Graduate School (Saarbrücken/Edinburgh) Colloquium, December 8, 2005. http://www.coli.uni-saarland.de/projects/irtg/contents/Colloquium/WS-05/oana.pdf (accessed June 20, 2013).Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1984). Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional analysis. In White, S. & Teller, V. (eds.), Discourses in reading and linguistics, pp. 213–225. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–93.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, pp. 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. E. (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951–73.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2010). On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 48, 245–273.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The Typological Primacy Model. Second Language Research, 27, 107–127.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., Cabrelli Amaro, J., & de Bot, K. (2013). Third language (L3) acquisition. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 372–393. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salaburu, P. (1987). Kategoria gauzatuak eta kategoria isilak [Overt categories and covert categories]. In Salaburu, P. (ed.), Sintaxi arazoak [Syntax problems], pp. 13–35. Donostia: University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).Google Scholar
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., Filiaci, F., & Baldo, M. (2009). Bilingual children's sensitivity to specificity and genericity: Evidence from metalinguistic awareness. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 239–257.Google Scholar
Shaer, B., & Frey, W. (2004). “Integrated” and “Non-integrated” left-peripheral elements in German and English. In Shaer, B., Frey, W. & Meierborn, C (eds.), Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 35, 465–502.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research, 22, 302–338.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (in press). The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on L2 knowledge of the syntax–discourse interface. Applied Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., Kempchinsky, P., & Rothman, J. (2012). Clitic-doubled left dislocation and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: A case of successful acquisition at the syntax–discourse interface. Second Language Research, 28, 319–343.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–34.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2012). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism: A reply to peer commentaries. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 209–217.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Seratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 195–210.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., Seratrice, L., Filiaci, F., & Baldo, M. (2009). Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realizations: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua, 119, 460–477.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. [M.] (1995) Focusing in modern Greek. In É. Kiss (ed.), pp. 176–206.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax–semantics and syntax–discourse phenomena. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T. & Zaller, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, BUCLD 30, pp. 653–664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. [M.], Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 257–277.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, E. (2005). L2 ultimate attainment and the syntax–discourse interface: The acquisition of topic constructions in non-native Spanish and English. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, E. (2006). L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of the Spanish CLLD constructions. In Slabakova, R., Montrul, S. & Prévost, P. (eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor of Lydia White, pp. 283–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. (1992). The informational component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E., & Vilkuna, M. (1998). On rheme and constrast. Syntax and Semantics, 29, 79–108.Google Scholar
Vat, J. (1981). Left dislocation, connectedness, and reconstruction. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 20, 80–103. [Reprinted in Anagnostopoulou et al. (eds.), 1997, pp. 67–92.]Google Scholar
Ward, G. (1988). The semantics and pragmatics of preposing (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ward, G., & Birner, B. J. (2005). Information structure and non-canonical syntax. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, pp. 153–174. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
White, L. (2011). The Interface Hypothesis: How far does it extend? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 108–111.Google Scholar
Zagona, K. (2002). The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar