Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences?: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface

Rothman, Jason

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007

Cited by 186 publications

(194 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

154

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Much previous research on second language (L2) acquisition has focused on the influence of the L1 on the L2 (Argyri & Sorace 2007;Belletti et al 2007;Hertel 2003;Hopp 2009;Lozano 2006Lozano , 2009Montrul 2004a;Paradis & Navarro 2003;Rothman 2009;Serratrice et al 2011;Serratrice et al 2004;), but to a much lesser extent on the influence that the L2 might have in the native language (L1) of nonnative speakers. This phenomenon is known as 'L1 attrition', and it refers to the changes in a speaker's L1 as the result of the acquisition of an L2.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selectivity in L1 Attrition: Differential Object Marking in Spanish Near-Native Speakers of English

Chamorro

Sturt

Sorace

2015

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown L1 attrition to be restricted to structures at the interfaces between syntax and pragmatics, but not to occur with syntactic properties that do not involve such interfaces ('Interface Hypothesis', Sorace and Filiaci 2006). The present study tested possible L1 attrition effects on a syntax-semantics interface structure (Differential Object Marking using the Spanish personal preposition) as well as the effects of recent L1 re-exposure on the potential attrition of these structures, using offline and eye-tracking measures. Participants included a group of native Spanish speakers experiencing attrition ('attriters'), a second group of attriters exposed exclusively to Spanish before they were tested, and a control group of Spanish monolinguals. The eyetracking results showed very early sensitivity to DOM violations, which was of an equal magnitude across all groups. The off-line results also showed an equal sensitivity across groups. These results reveal that structures involving 'internal' interfaces like the DOM do not undergo attrition either at the processing or representational level.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selectivity in L1 Attrition: Differential Object Marking in Spanish Near-Native Speakers of English

Chamorro

Sturt

Sorace

2015

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hertel 2003;Lozano 2006;Tsimpli & Sorace 2006;Belletti et al 2007;Rothman 2009). In the past, generative linguists have often relegated these problems to domains outside the grammar proper, e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Common to them all is that learners at high proficiency levels continue to grapple with the pragmatically appropriate distributional pattern (e.g. Carroll & Lambert 2003;Carroll & von Stutterheim 2003;Hertel 2003;Lozano 2006;Sorace & Filiaci 2006;Belletti et al 2007;Rothman 2009). Since in many of these studies the highest-proficiency group diverges from the native controls, some researchers have drawn the conclusion that information structuring in L2 acquisition never becomes fully native-like (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics

Bohnacker¹

2010

Nord J Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent study of the clause-initial position in verb-second declaratives (the prefield), Bohnacker & Rosén (2008) found significant differences between native Swedish and German concerning the frequencies with which constituents occurred in the prefield, as well as qualitative differences concerning the mapping of information structure and linear word order: Swedish exhibited a stronger tendency than German to place new information, the so-called rheme, later in the clause. Swedish-speaking learners of German transferred these patterns from their L1 to German. Their sentences were syntactically well-formed but had Swedish-style prefield frequencies and a strong pattern of Rheme Later, which native Germans perceive as unidiomatic, as an acceptability judgment and a rewrite-L2texts task showed. The present study extends Bohnacker & Rosén's work in three ways. Learners of the reverse language combination (L1 German, L2 Swedish) are investigated to see whether similar phenomena also manifest themselves there. Secondly, written and oral data from highly advanced learners are examined to see whether the learners' persistent problems can be overcome by extensive immersion (3, 6 and 9 years of L2 exposure). Thirdly, besides investigating theme-rheme (old vs. new information), some consideration is given to another information-structural level, background vs. focus. The learners are found to overuse the prefield at first, with non-Swedish, German-style frequency patterns (e.g. low proportions of clause-initial expletives and high proportions of clause-initial rhematic elements). This is interpreted as evidence for L1 transfer of informationstructural or discourse-pragmatic preferences. After 6 and 9 years, a substantial increase in clause-initial expletive subjects, clefts and lightweight given elements is indicative of development towards the target. The findings are related to current generative theorizing on the syntax-pragmatics interface, where it is often maintained that the integration of multiple types of information is one of the hardest areas for L2 learners to master.

show abstract

“…Results obtained from advanced speakers constitute evidence for the "syntax-before-discourse" hypothesis in second language acquisition (Pérez-Leroux & Glass, 1997;Polio, 1995;Rothman, 2007Rothman, , 2009) and adult L1 attrition (Sorace, 2004(Sorace, , 2011. According to this hypothesis, syntactic competence is acquired sooner and is more immune to attrition than discourse-pragmatic knowledge.…”

mentioning

confidence: 63%

“…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: 99%

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

Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences?: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface

Cited by 186 publications

References 53 publications

Selectivity in L1 Attrition: Differential Object Marking in Spanish Near-Native Speakers of English

Selectivity in L1 Attrition: Differential Object Marking in Spanish Near-Native Speakers of English

The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics

Between syntax and discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About