A more careful look at the syntax–discourse interface

Slabakova, Roumyana; Ivanov, Ivan

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.003

Cited by 54 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The acquisition of Ø topic provides further evidence to the claim that some aspects at the syntax-discourse external interface are acquirable (Ivanov 2012;Iverson et al 2008;Kraš 2008;Rothman 2007Rothman , 2009Slabakova et al 2012;Slabakova and Ivanov 2011;Zhao 2008Zhao , 2012a. The current study supports the proposals of White (2011) andYuan (2010) that interface vulnerability may not be domain-wide in that Ø topic at the syntax-discourse interface is acquired in comparison with some syntax-discourse properties that have proved to be vulnerable to ultimate fossilisation as discussed in Sorace and Filiaci (2006), among others.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…These findings are not fully consistent with the predictions of the IH, but this study is not the only one that has produced findings inconsistent with the IH. The non-acquisition of narrow syntactic properties is also found in Coppieter (1987), Sorace (1993) and Kraš (2011), while the acquirability of the syntax-discourse interface categories are consistent with Ivanov (2012), Iverson et al (2008), Kraš (2008), Rothman (2007), Slabakova et al (2012, Slabakova and Ivanov (2011) and Zhao (2008Zhao ( , 2012a. This study provides supporting evidence to the claim that the (non-)acquirability of a particular interface cannot be generalised (White 2011;Yuan 2010).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Rothman (2009) finds that some highly advanced L2 Spanish learners displayed correct distribution of overt and null subject pronouns that are subject to both syntactic and pragmatic constraints in different contexts in several tasks. Slabakova and Ivanov (2011) find no residue optionality in near-native speakers' L2 Bulgarian and L2…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 69%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ultimate attainment of anaphora resolution in L2 Chinese

Zhao

2014

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study tests the Interface Hypothesis through forward and backward anaphora in complex sentences with temporal subordinate clauses in highly proficient English-speaking learners' L2 Chinese. Forward anaphora is involved when the overt pronoun ta 'he/she' or a null element appears in the subject position of the main clause, whereas backward anaphora is involved when it is in the subject position of the temporal clause, because the main clause always follows the temporal clause in Chinese. Specifically, the article tests the syntactic and discourse constraints in the interpretation and representation of ta and the null element in complex sentences. Ta is constrained by the syntactic cyclic-c-command condition. Thus it is possible for ta refer to the other sentential subject in forward anaphora, but not in backward anaphora in Chinese. Unlike English, Chinese allows a null element in subject positions of finite subordinate and main clauses. It is proposed in the article that the null element in these positions is a Ø topic , a syntax-discourse interface category. Results from an acceptability judgement task and a picture judgment task indicate that Øtopic at the external interface has been acquired, whereas the cyclic-c-command condition within narrow

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ultimate attainment of anaphora resolution in L2 Chinese

Zhao

2014

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to these results, Ivanov (2009) and Slabakova and Ivanov (2011) report that advanced English-speaking learners of Bulgarian do know the discourse constraints on clitics (whereas intermediate level learners do not). In a task somewhat similar to Valenzuela's sentence selection task (in that L2ers have to assess the appropriateness of certain sentences in a given context), advanced L2ers perform like native speakers in permitting clitic doubling when the NP in question is a topic and excluding it when the NP is in focus.…”

Section: Syntax/discoursementioning

confidence: 60%

Second language acquisition at the interfaces

White

2011

Lingua

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Subsequent research has documented similar asymmetries with respect to other linguistic phenomena (Belletti & Leonini, 2004;Lozano, 2006;Valenzuela, 2006). However, other empirical studies have either failed to detect any apparent signs of instability in domains predicted by the Interface Hypothesis to be vulnerable or suggested that such interface-related difficulties are not pervasive (Donaldson, 2011(Donaldson, , 2012Ivanov, 2012;Iverson, Kempchinsky, & Rothman, 2008;Leal Méndez, Rothman, & Slabakova, in press;Slabakova & Ivanov, 2011;Slabakova, Kempchinsky, & Rothman, 2012). Researchers have also challenged some aspects of the hypothesis on theoretical grounds, including the imprecise formulation of the proposal, difficulty of distinguishing interface-related phenomena from noninterface-related phenomena (and, by the same token, external interfaces from internal interfaces), difficulty of positioning the hypothesis within specific theoretical models of language architecture, and potentially an overly "restrictive" focus of the proposal, originally formulated only for some bilingual populations and not others (Domínguez, 2013;Montrul, 2011;Rothman, 2009;Rothman & Slabakova, 2011;White, 2011).…”

Section: Interfaces: the Integration Problemmentioning

confidence: 95%

Between syntax and discourse

Laleko

Polinsky

2016

LAB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the knowledge of topic and subject particles in heritage speakers and L2 learners of Japanese and Korean. We assume that topic marking is mediated at the syntaxinformation structure interface, while subject marking pertains to narrow syntax. In comparing phenomena mediated at different levels of linguistic organization, we provide evidence for the hypothesis that information structure-level phenomena present greater challenges for bilingual speakers than those mediated within syntax. While these results may be interpreted as evidence of generalized interface-related deficits, we show that such a global explanation is not supported.Instead, a more nuanced account is developed, based on the recognition of different types of topic (anaphoric, generic, and contrastive) and different types of subject (descriptive and exhaustive). Under the proposed account, the non-native speakers' deficits follow from three unrelated effects: the status of topic as an interface category, structural complexity, and the memory demands necessary for its interpretation in context. Introduction Interfaces: The integration problem1 This project was supported in part by grants from Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) at the University of Maryland and from NSF (SMA-1429961) to the second author. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors. We would like to thank Sun-Hee Bae, Miwako Hisagi, Kenneth Mai, Hiroki Nomoto, Aika Taguchi, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this paper. All errors are our responsibility. 2Heritage language and second language (L2) acquisition represent two distinct pathways to adult bilingualism. They differ along a number of dimensions, including the specific circumstances of language exposure and the nature of competence deficits across different language modules. As early bilinguals, heritage speakers begin the acquisition of a socially non-dominant language in a family setting, and in this respect, their experience with the target language compares to that of early L1 learners, at least at the outset of the language acquisition process. The main difference is that heritage speakers' L1 language acquisition is subsequently interrupted by exposure to another language. Adult L2 learners, on the other hand, are late bilinguals whose exposure to the non-dominant language typically takes place in an instructed setting.Despite these differences in acquisition scenarios, both groups of speakers similarly fall short of exhibiting complete mastery of the target language. Even at the highest levels of proficiency, both populations remain in a state of near-native attainment, deviating from target native grammars represented by the monolingual baseline. In particular, early and late bilinguals (heritage speakers and L2 learners alike) have been reported to display deficits in the domain of inflectional morphology and narrow syntax, and both groups also seem to have difficulties with discourse-level phenome...

show abstract

A more careful look at the syntax–discourse interface

Cited by 54 publications

References 20 publications

Ultimate attainment of anaphora resolution in L2 Chinese

Ultimate attainment of anaphora resolution in L2 Chinese

Second language acquisition at the interfaces

Between syntax and discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About