N-drop and Determiners in Native and Non-native Spanish:
More on the Role of Morphology in the Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge
clac
3/2000
Juana M. Liceras, Lourdes Díaz, Caroline Mongeon
University of Ottawa, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, University of
Ottawa
ABSTRACT
In order
to investigate whether the acquisition of N-drop (null nouns) is related to the
acquisition of the agreement system of Spanish determiners this paper analyzes
L1 longitudinal Spanish data from two children and L2 longitudinal data from
two children learning Spanish in a naturalistic setting. Based on the results,
it is argued that in L1, the acquisition of N-drop may be triggered by the
feature 'word marker' which constitutes the make-up of Spanish Nouns,
Adjectives and Determiners (Harris 1991, Berstein 1993). However, in the case
of L2 acquisition, projecting the abstract ‘word marker’ feature of the Spanish
DP the morphology of the Spanish determiner may not be a condition for the
productive use of Null Nouns. We base this conclusion on the following pieces
of evidence: (1) Monosyllabic place-holders (non-tonic vowels which appear
before referential categories) occur in child L1 Spanish, which leads us to propose
that these items play a role in the projection of the abstract [+word marker] syntactic feature in L1 Spanish; (2)
Monosyllabic place-holders do not occur in child non-native Spanish, which
leads us to propose that L2 acquires’ sophisticated phonological systems may
prevent them from dissecting the incoming input data (using a ‘bottom up’
processing strategy) which leads to the projection of abstract features; (3) In
L1 acquisition non-adult null determiners cease to occur when N-drop becomes
productive. This is not the case on L2 acquisition, which again leads us to
propose that L2 acquires do not rely on the ‘bottom up’ strategy to deal with
input data; (4) In L1 acquisition gender mismatches cease to occur when N-drop
becomes productive. In the case of L2 acquisition there is not correlation
between productive use of N-drop and the disappearance of gender mismatches.
Given the fact that the morphological realization of word markers and gender
markers is difficult to tease apart in Spanish, these results provide further
evidence that L1 learners make indirect use of morphological markers (via
phonological dissection) to project abstract syntactic features.
1.
Introduction
The focus on the lexicon
as depositary of syntactic learning that is so explicit in the Minimalist
Program (Chomsky 1995) has put the search for lexical triggers at the forefront
of the morphology/syntax interface. In fact, the role of morphology in the
acquisition of L1 and L2 syntax has been subject to scrutiny by various
researchers (Snyder 1995; Beck 1998a; Lardiere 1999).
Some researchers argue
that direct triggers for the acquisition of L1/ L2 structural properties are to
be found in the overt morphological paradigms (Vainikka & Young Sholten
1998). Others such as Borer, in press, or Phillips (1996) for L1, Grondin &
White (1996), Garuseva & Lardiere (1996), Haznedar & Schwartz (1997)
for child L2 or Sprouse (1998) for adult L2, argue that triggers are located in
the abstract features associated with functional categories, which implies that
the acquisition of explicit morphology is not a prerequisite for the
acquisition of syntactic operations.
Some researchers
(Hawkins & Chan 1997; Liceras et al. 1997; Beck 1998b) argue that adult L2
learners are not sensitive to the triggering effect of the abstract syntactic
features. Lardiere (1998; 1999) argues that when the adult L2 syntax is
native-like, rather than an indication of lack of knowledge of abstract
syntactic features, what omissions or variable production of particular affixes
reflect is a deficit in the post-syntactic area where morphological operations
lead to Phonological Form (PF).
In this paper we
investigate the relationship between the L1 and child L2 acquisition of the
Spanish determiner paradigm and the acquisition of null Noun constructions. We
argue that neither in primary nor in non-primary acquisition there is a direct relationship between the acquisition of the
morphological paradigm of Spanish determiners as such and the implementation of Null Nouns. However, in the case
of L1 acquisition there seems to be a relationship between the implementation
of the [+word marker/gender] feature and the production of Null Nouns.
It has been proposed
that Noun-drop (Null Nouns) is possible in Spanish with the various Determiner
Phrase (DP) complements due to the presence of an abstract ‘word marker’
feature (Harris 1991a; 1991b) which characterizes Spanish referential
categories (Nouns, Adjectives, Adverbs) as well as Spanish determiners
(Berstein 1993). This feature is morphologically realized as a specific vowel
which is difficult to tease apart from the gender marker. Thus, Null Nouns
occur with Spanish Adjectival Phrases (AP) as in (1b) – (3b) because Spanish
determiners (Ese, Uno, la…)
have morphological word markers which are syntactically realized as an abstract
[+word marker] feature.
(1)a Ese abrigo negro
[that black coat]
(1)b Ese
— negro (masc. sing.)
[that — black] “that black one”
(2)a Un traje negro
[a black suit]
(2)b Uno
— negro (masc. sing.)
[a — black]
(3)a La blusa roja
[the red blouse]
(3)b La —_roja (fem. sing.)
[the — red]
The presence of the ‘word marker’
explains why Null Nouns are also possible with Prepositional Phrase (PP) DP
complements as shown in (4b) to (6b):[1]
(4)a Esas
faldas de lunares
[those polka-dot skirts]
(4)b Esas
—de lunares (fem.plur.)
[those — of polka dot] “those
polka-dot skirts”
(5)a Unos zapatos de deporte
[some sport shoes]
(5)b Unos—
de deporte (masc. plur.)
[some — of sport] “sport
ones’
(6)a Los zapatos de deporte
[the sport shoes]
(6)b Los — de deporte (masc. plur)
[The — of sport]
Furthermore, when the DP complement
is a Complementizer Phrase (CP), Null Nouns are possible too, as shown in (7b)
– (9b):
(7)a Esa
falda que tiene lunares
[that skirt that has a
polka-dot pattern]
(7)b Esa
— que tiene lunares (fem. sing.)
[that —that has a polka-dot pattern] “that one with a polka-dot pattern”
(8)a Una blusa que sea barata
[a blouse that will be
cheap]
(8)b Una
—_que sea barata (fem. sing.)
[a
— that will be cheap]
(9)a El traje que tiene lunares
[the suit that has a polka-dot
pattern]
(9)b El — que tiene lunares (masc. sing.)
[the — that has a polka-dot pattern]
2. The syntax of null Nouns
The
descriptive assumptions that constitute the basis for our analysis of Null
Nouns are the so-called DP hypothesis (Abney 1997), the unified account of DP
complements proposed by Kayne (1994) and the Word Marker analysis of Spanish
categories (Harris 1991a, 1991b and Berstein 1993).
2.1.
Word markers
Harris (1991a; 1991b)
argues that Spanish Nouns, Adjectives and Adverbs (as has been proposed for
other languages) have a morpheme, a word marker which, is phonetically realized
in sincretism with the gender marker. According to Piera (1995), this morpheme,
which does not exist in languages such as English, as shown in (10a) versus
(10b), accounts for a number of differences between English and Spanish.[2]
(10)a. [ [perr- ] o]
(10)b. [dog]
Berstein (1993) goes even
further to propose that the Spanish Determiner also has a word marker which, in
her analysis, rather than a morphological feature, is a functional category, as
shown in (11) and (12):
(11) DP
D NumP
Num WMP
WM NP
N
Un libri ]oj t’i tj ti
(12) DP
D NumP
Num WMP
WM NP
N
Un-oj]Øk t’j tk
tj e
Structures (11) and (12) show is
that the word marker which occurs in Spanish Nouns, the –o in (10a), moves to the DP when the Determiner is used
intransitively, as it is the case in (12).
According to this
proposal, Spanish determiners, as listed in (1) to (9) above, are marked both
for number and for gender. Gender appears as a word marker projection. In other
words, it is the morphological nature of Spanish determiners which accounts for
the availability and productivity of N-Drop. Spanish grammarians as well as
modern syntacticians (Liceras, Díaz and Rosado 1998; Rosado 1998) have always
been aware of the morphological ‘richness’ of the Spanish determiner and have
in fact linked the availability of N-drop to this ‘richness’. However, only
recently has the category ‘word marker’ come to the forefront of the analysis
and a difference has been established between morphological paradigms and the
actual structure of words. In fact, what has been proposed is that a
distinction should be made between the morphological paradigm of the Spanish
determiner as such and the ‘specific nature’ of Spanish Nouns and Determiners. It is the latter (Snyder 1995;
Piera 1995) that, as depositary of language variation, is supposed to have
parametric consequences at the syntactic level.
2.2. A unified account of DP complements
Kayne (1994) and
Sánchez (1996) maintain that all three DP complements (AP, PP and CP) have a CP
structure, as shown in (13) and (14):
(13) DP
D CP
C IP
DP VP
V DP
Lai que
tu prefieres falda
(14) DP
D CP
C IP
DP VP
V D
D F
F N
La que
tu prefieres falda//[e]i
Lai de
lunares falda/[e]i
Lai rojai
falda/[e]i
What is important for us is the fact
that both an overt Noun and a null Noun can occur with all three DP complements
and that this is so due to the specific features of the Spanish Determiner. In
other words, Null Nouns are possible, in principle, in any language. However
their realization will depend on the specific features of the DP.
3.
Morphological
paradigms and N-drop: evidence from L1 acquisition
In terms of how the relationship between morphology and
syntax is represented in the mind, the above proposal places the locus of
parametric variation in the ‘word marker’ (feature or projection) rather than
in the ‘richness’ of morphological paradigms as such. In order to investigate
whether data from language acquisition can contribute to determine whether it
is the shape of words or morphological paradigms that play a role in the
acquisition of syntax, Snyder (1995) analyzed how various constructions were
acquired. He specifically investigated the relationship between the production
of null Nouns and the acquisition of the Spanish determiner.
3.1. Morphological paradigms and N-Drop
The analysis of L1 Spanish longitudinal data from Juan, the child of
Linaza’s corpus in CHILDES (MacWhinney and Snow 1990) from age 1;7 to age 3;5
leads Snyder (1995) to conclude that there is no evidence of the existence of a
relationship between mastering the morphological paradigm of Spanish
determiners (gender and number markings) and the production of N-drop
constructions as in (1b) above. [3]
However, since the first instances of N-drop with
AP Det
complements at age 2;8 coincide with a significant increase in the production
of –a determiners at the exact same
age, Snyder (1995) suggests that there
may be a relationship between the acquisition of gender and the acquisition of
N-drop, but that more evidence is needed.
In a subsequent study, Snyder and Shengas (1997) analyze L1
longitudinal data produced by Koki, the girl in Monte’s corpus in CHILDES
(MacWhinney & Snow 1990) from age 1;7 to 2;11. The fact that Koki mastered
the Spanish determiner system at age 2;2, four months before she produced the
first null Nouns (at age 2;6) leads the authors to conclude that there is no
relationship between mastering the morphological paradigm and acquiring N-drop.
3.2. Morphological paradigms and
‘protodeterminers’
In order to further
investigate the hypothesis that there may be a relationship between the
acquisition of the morphological paradigm of the Spanish determiner and the
production of N-drop, Liceras, Rosado and Díaz (1998) and Rosado (1998) analyze
L1 data from María (López Ornat 1994) and Magín (Aguirre 1995), and L2 data
from children learning Spanish both in natural and institutional settings.
Besides incorporating child L2 data, these studies looked into the production
of N-drop with AP, PP and CP complements. The main differences between the L1
and the L2 data were the presence of ‘protodeterminers’ in the L1 data but not
in the L2 data and the scarce production of N-drop in the L2 data.
The occurrence of
‘protodeterminers’ had been noticed by López Ornat (1997) but it had not been
mentioned in the case of Juan and Koki’s data.[4]
The ‘protodeterminers’ were non-tonic clitic vowels —mainly with “a” and “e” quality— which appeared
systematically before Nouns during the first months. They co-occurred with
other determiners and did not show up at the later stages.[5]
With respect to the relationship between the
production of N-drop and the mastering of the Spanish determiner, the data was
not very transparent. However, while in the case of the two L1 children the
number and gender mismatches seldom co-occurred with N-drop, this was not the
case with the L2 data.
The data analyzed in
Liceras, Rosado and Díaz (1998) and Rosado (1998) was only a partial sample of
the L1 and the L2 data available. In this paper we analyze all the available
data from Magín and María (L1 Spanish) and all the available data for Adil and
Madelin (child L2 Spanish in a ‘natural’ setting).
4. L1 Spanish: word markers as morphological
vocabulary
The L1 longitudinal data
that we have analyzed in this study appears in FIGURE 1. Both María and Magín
are Spanish children born in Spain. The data was collected in their respective
houses. In the case of María, the available transcripts are very detailed and
include the interviewers’ production. Aguirre (1995) provides comments related
to specific exchanges but does not provide the interviewer’s production.
Another important difference between the two sets of data is the fact that
Magín’s production was only recorded up to age 2;7 while Maria’s was recorded
up to age 3;11.
FIGURE 1. Spanish L1 Subjects
|
|
|
María (López Ornat 1994) |
1;7 - 1;8 -
1;9 - 1;10 - 1;11 - 2;0 - 2;1 - 2;2 - 2;3 - 2;4- 2;5 - 2;6 - 2;7 - 2;8 - 2;9 - 2;11 - 3;0 - 3;1 -
3;6- 3;7- 3;8 - 3;9 - 3;10 - 3;11 |
|
Magín (Aguirre 1995) |
1;8 - 1;9 – 1;10 – 1;11 – 2;0 – 2;1 – 2;2 – 2;3 – 2;4– 2;5 – 2;6 – 2;7 |
We will provide three
different pieces of evidence to argue that in primary language acquisition
there is an indirect relationship between the acquisition of the morphological
vocabulary (‘word marker/gender’ feature) and N-drop productivity in Spanish.
We will argue that the ‘protodeterminers’ or the ‘monosyllabic placeholders’
(MPHs)[6]
—our preferred term for the non-tonic vowels which occur before referential
categories (Nouns in this study) at the early stages of L1 acquisition—,
disappear when the ‘word marker’ feature is projected.[7]
We will first discuss the relationship between the production of MPHs and null
Nouns and then we will discuss the production of null determiners and agreement
mismatches with overt determiners.
4.1. Monosyllabic Place Holders
We use the term MPHs to
refer to the clitic vowels produced by Magín and María —examples (15) to (23)—
because the term protodeterminer (or ‘protoform’, in general) is linked to the
assumption that children do not have an innate computational system which
interacts with language specific input to project a given grammar. [8]
(15) a for / the flower [Magín 1;8]
(16) e nene / the boy [Magín 1;8]
(17) a bici / the bike [Magín 2;2]
(18) e
agua / the water [Magín 2;3]
(19) e pie / the foot [María 1;7]
(20) a
bota / the boot [María 1;8]
(21) as manos / the hands [María 2;1]
(22) e bolo (el globo) / the balloon [María
2;5]
(23) a tambor / the drum [María 2;5]
The term MPH, on the
other hand, refers to the innate presence of basic syntactic structure which
has to be filled in with data selected from the environment (a given language).
The assumption is that the input provides the elements that will fill in the
‘held places’ with actual (in our case Spanish) free morphemes (Bottari,
Chipriani and Chilosi 1993/1994).
TABLES 1 and 2 provide a
detailed account of the production of MPHs by Magín and María. Matching refers
to the use of ‘e’ with masculine Nouns and ‘a’ with feminine Nouns. These data
show that MPHs are produced from the first recordings up to age 2;6 (Magín) and
up to age 2;5 (María).
|
TABLE 1. L1 Spanish.
Magín. MPHs and Gender |
||||
|
|
Type |
Matching |
Non-Matching |
Total |
|
1;8 |
e a |
4 4/8 = 50% |
— 4/8 = 50% |
4 8 |
|
1;9 |
e a |
4 5/9 = 55.55% |
— 4/9 = 44.44% |
4 9 |
|
1;10 |
e a |
3 21/23 = 91.30% |
— 2/23 = 8.69% |
3 23 |
|
1;11 |
e a |
10 14/15 = 93.33% |
— 1/15 = 6.66% |
10 15 |
|
2;0 |
e a |
3/4 = 75% 2 |
1/4 = 25% — |
4 2 |
|
2;1 |
e a |
— 2 |
— — |
— 2 |
|
2;2 |
e a |
2 1 |
— — |
2 1 |
|
2;3 |
e |
1 |
— |
1 |
|
2;5 |
e |
1 |
— |
1 |
|
2;6 |
e |
2 |
— |
2 |
|
TABLE 2. L1 Spanish.
María. MPHs and Gender |
||||
|
|
Type |
Matching |
Non-Matching |
Total |
|
1;7 |
e a o |
32/34 = 94.11% 36/40 = 90% 1 |
2/34 = 5.88% 4/40 = 10% — |
34 40 1 |
|
1;8 |
e a o oa |
5 12/33 = 36.36% 2 1 |
— 21/33 = 63.63% — — |
5 33 2 — |
|
1;9 |
e a o |
36/38 = 94.73% 52/72 = 72.22% 1 |
2/36 = 5.26% 20/72 = 27.77% — |
38 72 1 |
|
1;10 |
e a o u |
27 48/57 = 84.21% 7/8 = 87.5% 24 |
— 9/57 = 15.7% 1/8 = 12.5% — |
27 57 8 — |
|
1;11 |
e a u |
13 18/19 = 94.73% 1 |
— 1/19 = 5.26% — |
13 19 1 |
|
2;0 |
e a o u as1 |
4 9/13 = 69.23% — 1 1 |
— 4/13 = 30.76% 1/1 = 100% — — |
4 13 1 — — |
|
2;1 |
e a u as2 |
10 6 2 1 |
— — — — |
10 6 2 1 |
|
2;2 |
e |
13 |
— |
13 |
|
2;5 |
e a |
4 — |
— 1/1 = 100% |
4 1 |
as1 used
as fem. plural; as2
used as fem. sing.
It is interesting to notice that
mismatches (the use of “e” with feminine Nouns and of “a” with masculine Nouns)
cease to occur at age 2;1. There is an isolated instance produced by María at
age 2;5. This indicates that, at the early stages of acquisition, learners are
not using these vowels as gender markers but as MPHs. In other words, as they
project the DP category the abstract feature ‘word marker’ is assigned to it.
4.2. N-drop
TABLES 3, 4 and 5 show
the production of AP, PP and CP complements (as for example in (3a) - (3b),
(6a) – (6b) and (9a) – (9b) that we repeat here for convenience) with overt
Nouns versus the production of DPs with null Nouns (N-drop) in the same
contexts:[9]
(3)a La blusa roja
[the red blouse]
(3)b La —_roja (fem. sing.)
[the
— red]
(6)a Los zapatos de deporte
[the sport shoes]
(6)b Los — de deporte (masc. plur)
[The — of sport]
(9)a El traje que tiene lunares
[the suit that has a polka-dot
pattern]
(9)b El — que tiene lunares (masc. sing.)
[the — that has a polka-dot pattern]
Examples of AP
complements appear in (24) to (29). The
first AP complements —examples (25) to (28)— are produced by Magín at age 1;10.
(24) un cachorrito pequeño / a little puppy
[María 3;10]
(25) un coche amarillo / a yellow car [Magín
1;10]
(26) otra
torre grande / another big tower [Magín 2;6]
(27)
la — azul /
the blue (one) [María 2;11]
(28)
otro —
amarillo / another yellow (one) [Magín 1;10]
(29)
otro —
pequeño / another small (one) [Magín 2;6]
In the case of Magín the
first instance of N-drop in an AP context occurs on the same month as the
production of overt Nouns (TABLE 3). María’s production of AP complements
starts one month later (at age 2;00) with only an AP complement following an
overt Noun. At age 2;3 she produces eight AP complements with overt Nouns and
four with null Nouns (TABLE 3).
It should also be pointed
out (bottom of TABLE 3), that there are no instances of MPHs with N-drop except
for one “e” produced by Magín, before age 2:00 (Superscript 1).
|
TABLE
3. L1 Spanish: Det N AP versus Det Ø AP |
|||||
|
MAGIN |
Det N AP1 |
Det Ø AP2 |
MARÍA |
Det N AP3 |
Det Ø AP4 |
|
1;10 |
2 |
1 |
2;0 |
1 |
— |
|
1;11 |
2 |
19 |
2;3 |
8 |
4 |
|
2;0 |
— |
1 |
2;4 |
1 |
— |
|
2;1 |
2
(*1) |
3 |
2;5 |
6 (*1) |
1 |
|
2;2 |
2 |
3 |
2;8 |
2 |
2 |
|
2;3 |
4 |
2 |
2;9 |
6 |
— |
|
2;4 |
4 |
3 |
2;11 |
2 |
2 |
|
2;5 |
4 |
4 |
3;6 |
1 |
— |
|
2;6 |
5 |
2 |
3;7 |
12 |
1 |
|
2;7 |
2 |
— |
3;9 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
3;10 |
3 |
1 |
|
TOTAL |
27 |
39 |
TOTAL |
43 |
14 |
|
% N-drop |
39/66 = 59.09% |
% N-drop |
14/57 = 24.56% |
||
1Det N AP: Un, el, a, la, una, e, los, las, otra 3Det
N AP: La, el, un, una, los, mis, las,
mi las, mi
2Det NØ AP: Otro, ese, este, un, uno, los,
las, e, el, toda, la, eso, una
4Det NØ Adj: Oto, ota, unos, una, uno, un,
la, el, los
The numbers in parentheses with
asterisks (columns 2 and 5 on TABLE 3 and column 2 on TABLE 4) refer to cases
of gender mismatches.
Examples of PP
complements produced by María and Magín appear in (30) to (33) and examples of
CP complements in (34) to (37):
(30) Una ‘cotita’ (gotita) de agua / a little
drop of water [María 1;1]
(31) La
bolsa de los señores / the bag of the men [Magín 2;2]
(32) El
— de las vaquitas / the (one) of the little cows [María 2;5]
(33) El
— del pollito /the (one) of the little chicken [Magín 2;5]
(34) Una cosa que he hecho / a thing that I
have done [María 2;6]
(35) La tortuga
que viene / the turtle that is coming [Magín 2;1]
(36)
La
— que está en mi cole / the (one) that is in my car [María 2;5]
(37)
Unos
— que te pican / Some (ones) that bite you [Magín 2;1]
TABLES 4 and 5 contain
the total production of PP and CP complements. The fact that, as it was the
case with the AP complements, no instances of MPHs with PP or CP complements
are found in these data (superscripts at bottom of TABLES 4 and 5) clearly
indicate that MPHs are not compatible with N-drop.
|
TABLE
4. L1 Spanish: Det N PP Versus Det Ø
PP |
|||||
MAGÍN
|
Det N PP1 |
Det Ø PP2 |
MARÍA |
Det N PP3 |
Det Ø PP4 |
|
2;1 |
2 |
1 |
1;11 |
1 |
|
|
2;2 |
1 |
|
2;1 |
|
1 |
|
2;3 |
2 |
|
2;2 |
1 |
|
|
2;4 |
2 |
|
2;3 |
4 |
4 |
|
2;5 |
1 |
1 |
2;4 |
1 |
|
|
2;6 |
9 (*1) |
|
2;5 |
1 |
2 |
|
2;7 |
1 |
1 |
2;8 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
2;9 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
2;11 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
3;1 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
3;6 |
6 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
3;7 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
3;9 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
3;10 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
3;11 |
3 |
|
|
TOTAL |
18 |
3 |
TOTAL |
48 |
13 |
|
% N-drop |
3/21 =
14.28% |
% N-drop |
13/61 =
21.31% |
||
1—Det N PP : E, todo, la, un, el, su, una, las
2—Det NØ PP: Las, el
3—Det N PP : Una, la, un, ota,
las, unas, el, los, ninguna, mi, unos
4—Det NØ PP : Eto,
el, los, una
|
TABLE
5. L1 Spanish: Det N CP versus Det Ø CP |
|||||
MAGÍN
|
Det N CP1 |
Det Ø CP2 |
MARÍA
|
Det N CP3 |
Det Ø CP4 |
|
2;1 |
1 |
1 |
2;3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
2;5 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
2;6 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
2;9 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
2;11 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
3;1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
3;6 |
1 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
3;7 |
4 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
3;9 |
|
3 |
|
TOTAL |
1 |
1 |
TOTAL |
12 |
13 |
|
% N-drop |
1/2 = 50% |
% N-drop |
13/25 = 52% |
||
1Det N CP
: La 2Det
NØ CP: Unos, el
3Det N CP
: Una, tu, el, la, un, los 4Det NØ CP: La, el, una, esta, uno, otro, esta
It is also important to point out
that N-drop occurs parallel to overt N constructions both for Magín and María
(TABLES 3, 4 and 5). There are always more instances of overt N except for the
large amount of APs (19) in Magín’s early data (TABLE 3). They happen to be
color adjectives that he uses to describe objects.
4.3. Null determiners
Both Magín and María produce
non-adult null Determiners (TABLES 6 and 7). Non-possible null Determiners
refer to cases of bare nouns which are not possible in adult Spanish. Namely, a
possible null determiner is (as it is the case in English), the one before casa in (38), and a non-possible null
Determiner would be the one before casa
in (39):
(38) Voy a — casa
I am going — home
(39) — Casa tiene muchas ventanas
— House has many windows
|
TABLE 6. L1 Spanish. Magín. Null
Determiners |
|||
|
Age |
Possible |
Non-possible |
Total % Non-possible |
|
1;8 |
14 |
2 |
2/16 = 12.5% |
|
1;9 |
25 |
8 |
8/33 = 24.24% |
|
1;10 |
62 |
14 |
14/76 = 18.42% |
|
1;11 |
22 |
4 |
4/26 = 15.38% |
|
2;0 |
10 |
3 |
3/13 = 23.07% |
|
2;1 |
8 |
3 |
3/11 = 27.27% |
|
2;2 |
17 |
7 |
7/24 = 29.16% |
|
2;3 |
16 |
3 |
3/19 = 15.78% |
|
2;4 |
14 |
2 |
2/16 = 12.5% |
|
2;5 |
4 |
4 |
4/8 = 50% |
|
2;6 |
13 |
7 |
7/20 = 35% |
|
2;7 |
15 |
— |
— |
|
TOTAL |
220 |
57 |
57/277 = 20.57% |
These data show that non-possible
(non-adult) null Determiners cease to occur at the same time as MPHs[10].
Notice that none is produce by Magín after age 2;6 (TABLE 6). This is specially
clear with María, who ceases to produce non-adult null Determiners after age
2;4 (TABLE 7) but for one instance at age 3;1.
TABLE 7. L1 Spanish.
María. Null Determiners
|
|||
|
Age |
Possible |
Non-possible |
Total % Non-possible |
|
1;7 |
156 |
21 |
21/177 = 11.86% |
|
1;8 |
67 |
1 |
1/68 = 1.47% |
|
1;9 |
103 |
6 |
6/109 = 55% |
|
1;10 |
61 |
3 |
3/64 = 4.68% |
|
1;11 |
37 |
9 |
9/46 = 19.56% |
|
2;0 |
26 |
9 |
9/35 = 25.71% |
|
2;1 |
33 |
2 |
2/35 = 5.71% |
|
2;2 |
24 |
8 |
8/32 = 2.5% |
|
2;3 |
9 |
1 |
1/10 = 10% |
|
2;4 |
18 |
1 |
1/19 = 5.2% |
|
2;5 |
42 |
— |
— |
|
2;6 |
14 |
— |
— |
|
2;7 |
4 |
— |
— |
|
2;8 |
16 |
— |
— |
|
2;9 |
15 |
— |
— |
|
2;11 |
9 |
— |
— |
|
3;1 |
20 |
1 |
1/21 = 4.76% |
|
3;6 |
15 |
— |
— |
|
3;7 |
13 |
— |
— |
|
3;9 |
19 |
— |
— |
|
3;10 |
6 |
— |
— |
|
3;11 |
4 |
— |
— |
|
Total |
711 |
62 |
62/773 = 8.02% |
We interpret these data as evidence
that non-adult null Determiners cease to occur when the [+word marker/gender]
feature is implemented. In other words, the children have to abandon the MPHs
in order for them to project a Spanish DP which incorporates this feature.
4.4. Gender
and number mismatches
Gender/agreement
mismatches also provide information about the relationship between morphology and
N-drop. Instances of actual gender and number mismatches are shown in (40) to
(47).
(40) Otro rama (otra rama) / another branch [Magín 1;9] G
(41) Eso colita (esa colita) / that little tail [Magín 2;5] G
(42) En el jaula (en la jaula) / in the cage [Magín 2;7] G
(43) Este apa (esta tapa) / this lid [María
1;7] G
(44) Una cuento (un cuento) / a story [María
1;7] G
(45) Los caramelo (los caramelos) / the
candies [Magín 1;11] N
(46) Una medias (unas medias) / some
stockings [María 2;2] N
(47) La bocas (las bocas) / the mouths [María
2;2] N
TABLES 8 and 9 show that mismatches
are rather irrelevant in absolute terms: 0.57% in the case of María (TABLE 8)
and 2.26% overall in the case of Magín (TABLE 9).
TABLE 8. L1 Spanish. María
Overt Determiner: Gender
and Number Mismatches
|
|||||
|
|
Possible |
Non-possible |
Total % Non-possible |
||
|
Age |
|
Gender |
Number |
Total |
|
|
1;7 |
11 |
2 |
— |
2 |
2/13 = 15.38% |
|
1;8 |
10 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
1;9 |
12 |
1 |
— |
1 |
1/13 = 7.69% |
|
1;10 |
28 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
1;11 |
22 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
2;0 |
58 |
— |
1 |
1 |
1/59 = 1.69% |
|
2;1 |
85 |
— |
1 |
1 |
1/86 = 1.16% |
|
2;2 |
98 |
— |
1 |
1 |
1/99 = 1.01% |
|
2;3 |
129 |
1 |
— |
1 |
1/130 = 0.76% |
|
2;4 |
71 |
— |
1 |
1 |
1/72= 1.38%
* |
|
2;5 |
144 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
2;6 |
98 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
2;7 |
37 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
2;8 |
63 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
2;9 |
111 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
2;11 |
72 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
3;1 |
64 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
3;6 |
138 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
3;7 |
160 |
— |
1 |
1 |
1/161 = 0.62% |
|
3;9 |
75 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
3;10 |
41 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
3;11 |
42 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
TOTAL |
1569 |
4 |
5 |
9 |
9/1578 = 0.57% |
·
8/532 = 1.5%
If we cut off Maria’s
production at the level when Magin’s recordings stopped we find that the
percentage is very similar: the total for María up to 2;4 (*below TABLE 8) is
1.5% while the total % for Magín up to age 2;5 (*below TABLE 9) is 2.41%
(shadowed part on tables 9 and 8 respectively).
This
is the overall pattern for both gender and number mismatches. However, gender
mismatches show an interesting pattern if we look at them in relative terms
because, in the case of María, these data show that she does produce only three
instances (2+1+1) of gender mismatches before age 2;00 and one at age 2;3
(column 3 on TABLE 8). In the case of Magín there is a 50% reduction after 2;0
(column 3 on TABLE 9), since out of 12 gender mismatches, 8 (3+4+1) occur
before age 2;00 while only 4 (1+1+2) after age 2;00. They then seem to
disappear after age 2;5.
TABLE 9. L1 Spanish.
Magín.
Overt Determiner: Gender
and Number Mismatches
|
|||||
|
|
Possible |
Non-possible |
Total %
Non-possible |
||
|
Age |
|
Gender |
Number |
Total |
|
|
1;8 |
14 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
1;9 |
65 |
3 |
— |
3 |
3/68 = 4.41% |
|
1;10 |
104 |
4 |
— |
4 |
4/108 = 3.70% |
|
1;11 |
65 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2/67 = 2.98% |
|
2;0 |
49 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
2;1 |
24 |
— |
1 |
1 |
1/25 = 4% |
|
2;2 |
117 |
1 |
— |
1 |
1/118 = 0.84% |
|
2;3 |
89 |
— |
2 |
2 |
2/91 = 2.19% |
|
2;4 |
74 |
1 |
— |
1 |
1/75 = 1.33% |
|
2;5 |
45 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2/47 = 4.25%
* |
|
2;6 |
108 |
— |
1 |
1 |
1/109 = 0.91% |
|
2;7 |
67 |
— |
1 |
2 |
2/69 = 2.89% |
|
TOTAL |
821 |
12 |
7 |
19 |
19/840 = 2.26% |
* 16/662 = 2.41%
Thus
these data show that gender mismatches occur mainly with MPHs, as we have
indicated in TABLES 1 and 2 above, and they continue to occur when Null Nouns
are already a productive construction in the L1 data (TABLES 3 and 4 above).
However, gender mismatches cease to occur once [+word marker/gender] feature is
activated. We should point out that while Null Nouns co-occur with gender
mismatches in time, no instances of gender mismatches with Null Noun
complements have been attested (TABLES 3 and 4 above).
5. Child
L2 Spanish in a natural context
The child L2 Spanish longitudinal data that we have analyzed
appears in FIGURE 2. Both Adil and
Madelin were living in Madrid (Spain) at the time of the recordings. They had
only been in Madrid for two months when the first interview was carried out.[11]
Adil was four years old, his mother tongue was Arabic and he was given some
Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) instruction in public school. Madlin was 8
years, she spoke Farshi and Swedish (she was born in Persia and had lived in
Sweden before immigrating to Spain with her parents) and was attending the same
public school as Adil but was not receiving any SFL instruction. Madelin had
also been in Canada with her parents for a month before going to Spain.[12]
FIGURE 2. Spanish L2 Subjects
|
|
|
Adil |
INT# 1 (14-10-96) to INT #18 (15-12-97) [Age 4-5] |
|
Madelin |
INT #1 (29-10-96) to INT #15 (15-12-97)
[Age 8-9] |
The first relevant
difference between the L1 and the L2 data is the absence of MPHs in the L2
data. In fact, there are only two instances of vowels produced by Adil (Rosado
1998) and they are tonic vowels. The patterns of production of N-drop, the
production of null Determiners and the distribution of agreement mismatches
also show interesting differences.
It is not surprising that
the L2 children, having a more sophisticated phonological system, do not
produce the non-tonic vowels that we have labeled MPHs. However, we would like
to propose that this phonological sophistication prevents these children from
dissecting the language input in the same way as L1 children do, which in turn
may interfere with their marking Spanish DPs with the [+word marker] feature.
In other words, L2 children may differ from L1 children in the way in which
they approach input data. We will come back to this below.
5.1. N-Drop
With respect to N-drop,
both Adil and Madelin produce AP complements as in (48) to (53). However, unlike it is the case with the L1, AP
complements with color adjectives are not favored.
(48) un
gato persa / a Persian cat [Madelin #4]
(49) una cosa buena / a good thing [Madelin #15]
(50) un
niño pequeñito / a little boy [Adil 6]
(51) una — pequeña / a little (one) [Madelin
#11]
(52) los — pequeños / the little (ones)
[Madelin #15]
(53) los — grandes / the big (ones) [Adil #9]
Adil y
Madelin also produce PP complements as in (54) to (60) and CP complements as in
(61) to (64).
(54) Un niño con
sus papas / A boy with his father [Madelin #3]
(55) Una tienda
de hamburguesas / A store of hamburgers [Madelin #15]
(56) Los
amiguitos de Paquito / The friends of Paquito [Adil #8]
(57) La excursión
al zoo / The outing to the zoo [Adil #13]
(58) Una — con
hamburguesa / A (one) with hamburger [Madelin #4]
(59)
Una
— de chucherías / A (one) of junk food [Madelin #15]
(60)
La
— de arriba / The (one) of upstairs [Adil #16]
(61) El mes que
viene / The month that comes [Madelin #13]
(62) Este perro
que está hablando por teléfono / The dog that is talking on the phone [Adil
#11]
(63) El — que
está allí / The (one) that is there [Madelin #15]
(64) La que tiene
ocho / The (one) that has eight [Adil #18]
TABLES 10, 11 and 12 show
that N-drop has a similar pattern to the one we saw in the L1 data discussed,
since both Adil and Madelin produce AP, PP and CP complements with both overt
and null Nouns.
The numbers in
parentheses with an asterisk refer to gender mismatches.
|
TABLE
10. L2 Spanish: Det N AP versus Det Ø
AP |
|||||
Adil
|
Det
N AP1 |
Det
Ø AP2 |
Madelin
|
Det
N AP3 |
Det
Ø AP4 |
|
#4 |
|
|
#4
|
2 (*1) |
— |
|
#5 |
|
|
#5
|
2 |
— |
|
#6
|
1 |
— |
#6 |
|
|
|
#7 |
|
|
#7
|
2 |
— |
|
#8
|
2 |
— |
#8 |
3 (*1) |
— |
|
#9 |
1 |
1 |
#9 |
|
|
|
#10
|
2
|
— |
#10 |
|
|
|
#11 |
|
|
#11 |
2 |
5 |
|
#12 |
|
|
#12 |
2 (*1) |
— |
|
#13
|
2 |
2 |
#13
|
2 (*2) |
— |
|
#14
|
1 |
— |
#14
|
3 |
— |
|
#15
|
1 |
— |
#15
|
2 |
2 |
|
#16 |
2 |
— |
|
|
|
|
#17
|
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
#18
|
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
17 |
6 |
TOTAL |
20 |
7 |
|
%
N-drop |
6/23 =
26% |
% N-drop |
7/27 = 25.92% |
||
1Det
N AP: Un, los, una, esa, el, mi 2Det NØ AP: Los, el, la
3Det
N AP: Un, este, el, mi, los, una 4Det NØ AP: Los, una, dos
Even
though both the L1 and the L2 children produce the three types of CP
complements, if we compare these data with the L1 data, we see that the L2 children
produce less variety of determiners with overt Nouns than the L1 children
(superscripts Det N AP, Det N PP, Det N CP below TABLES 10, 11 and 12 versus
TABLES 3, 4, 5). However, the type and quantity of determiners used before null
Nouns by the L2 children is rather similar to that of the null Nouns produced
by the L1 children (superscripts Det Ø AP, Det Ø PP, Det Ø CP below TABLES 10,
11 and 12 versus TABLES 3, 4, 5).
|
TABLE 11. L2 Spanish:
Det N PP versus Det Ø PP |
|||||
Adil
|
Det N PP1 |
Det Ø PP2 |
Madelin
|
Det N PP3 |
Det Ø PP4 |
|
#3 |
|
|
#3 |
2 |
|
|
#4 |
|
|
#4 |
6 |
1 |
|
#6 |
|
|
#6 |
1 |
|
|
#7 |
|
|
#7 |
3 |
|
|
#8 |
2 |
|
#8 |
5 (*2) |
|
|
#9 |
|
|
#9 |
3 (*1) |
2 |
|
#10 |
3 |
|
#10 |
5 (*1) |
4 |
|
#11 |
|
|
#11 |
2 |
2 |
|
#12 |
1 |
|
#12 |
3 |
1 |
|
#13 |
1 |
|
#13 |
3 |
|
|
#14 |
|
|
#14 |
2 |
1 |
|
#15 |
1 |
|
#15 |
5 |
2 |
|
#16 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
#17 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
#18 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
10 |
3 |
TOTAL |
40 |
13 |
|
% N-drop |
3/13 = 23.07% |
% N-drop |
13/53 = 24.52% |
||
1Det N PP: :Los, las, el, la, un, 2Det
Ø PP: La, esa esas
3Det N PP::Un, mi, el, una, las, mucho, la, los,
muchas, esas
4Det Ø
PP:Una, uno, otra
|
TABLE 12. L2 Spanish: Det N CP versus Det Ø CP |
||||||
|
ADIL |
Det N CP1
|
Det Ø CP2 |
MADELIN |
Det N CP3 |
Det Ø CP4 |
|
|
#11 |
1 |
|
#11 |
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
|
#12 |
|
3 |
|
|
#13 |
|
|
#13 |
2 |
|
|
|
#14 |
|
|
#14 |
|
1 |
|
|
#15 |
|
|
#15 |
|
1 |
|
|
#16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
5 |
1 |
TOTAL |
2 |
5 |
|
|
% N-drop |
1/6 = 16.66% |
% N-drop |
5/7 = 71.42% |
|||
1Det N CP :
Este, un, esa, una 3Det
N CP : El
2Det Ø CP: La 4Det
Ø CP: El, un, los
5.2.
Null determiners
With respect to Null determiners
(TABLES 13 and 14), these data show that there are more non-Spanish
(non-possible) null determiners than in the case of the L1 data discussed and
that Adil is different from Madelin.
TABLE 13. Spanish L2.
Adil. Null Determiners
|
|||
|
Interview |
Possible |
Non-possible |
Total % Non-possible |
|
#2 |
5 |
— |
— |
|
#3 |
5 |
— |
— |
|
#4 |
4 |
1 |
1/5 = 20% |
|
#5 |
1 |
1 |
1/2 = 50% |
|
#6 |
1 |
— |
— |
|
#7 |
6 |
4 |
4/10 = 40% |
|
#8 |
1 |
2 |
2/3 = 66.66% |
|
#9 |
— |
— |
— |
|
#10 |
8 |
1 |
1/9 = 11.11% |
|
#11 |
1 |
— |
— |
|
#12 |
10 |
— |
— |
|
#13 |
12 |
— |
— |
|
#14 |
3 |
— |
— |
|
#15 |
5 |
— |
— |
|
#16 |
14 |
— |
— |
|
#17 |
14 |
— |
— |
|
#18 |
22 |
1 |
1/23 = 4.34% |
|
TOTAL |
112 |
10 |
10/122 = 8.19% |
There are 8.19% cases of
non-possible null determiners in Adil’s data (TABLE 13), while there are 25.25%
cases of non-possible null determiners in Madelin’s data (TABLE 14). Also, in
the case of Adil, non-possible null determiners cease to occur after interview
#10. However, Madelin’s non-possible null determiners decrease but they do not
disappear during the time she was interviewed.
TABLE 14. L2 Spanish.
Madelin. Null Determiners
|
|||
|
Interview |
Possible |
Non-possible |
Total % Non-possible |
|
#1 |
16 |
1 |
1/17
= 5.88% |
|
#2 |
8 |
8 |
8/16 = 50% |
|
#3 |
3 |
10 |
10/13 = 76.92% |
|
#4 |
21 |
7 |
7/28 = 25% |
|
#5 |
9 |
5 |
5/14 = 35.71% |
|
#6 |
13 |
4 |
4/17 = 23.52% |
|
#7 |
9 |
9 |
9/18 = 50% |
|
#8 |
24 |
20 |
20/44 = 45.45 % |
|
#9 |
12 |
3 |
3/15 = 20% |
|
#10 |
17 |
2 |
2/19 = 10.52% |
|
#11 |
7 |
4 |
4/11 = 36.36% |
|
#12 |
20 |
4 |
4/24 = 16.66% |
|
#13 |
16 |
1 |
1/17 = 5.88% |
|
#14 |
24 |
1 |
1/25 = 4% |
|
#15 |
34 |
1 |
1/35 = 2.85% |
|
TOTAL |
233 |
80 |
80/313 = 25.55% |
5.3. Overt determiners and number/gender
mismatches
Gender agreement
mismatches with overt determiners present a similar pattern to the one we find
in the case of null determiners, as shown in TABLES 15 and 16. First of all,
Adil produces a total of 2.02% of non-possible overt determiners, while Madelin
produces a total of 6.17%. This difference is significant considering the high
numbers involved.
The actual distribution
of non-possible determiners is also different. Adil does not produce any non-possible
overt determiner due to number markings and the three cases due to gender
markings occur during interviews #11, #12 and #13.
Madelin’s data contain
some cases of non-possible number markings and her production of non-possible
gender markings does not stop until the last interview.
|
TABLE 15. L2 Spanish. Adil. Overt
Determiner |
|||||
|
|
Possible |
Non-possible |
Total % Non-possible |
||
|
Int. |
|
Gender |
Number |
Total |
|
|
#2 |
6 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#3 |
2 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#4 |
1 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#5 |
5 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#6 |
8 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#7 |
4 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#8 |
6 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#9 |
13 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#10 |
19 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#11 |
18 |
1 |
— |
1 |
1/19 = 5.26% |
|
#12 |
21 |
3 |
— |
3 |
3/24 = 12.5% |
|
#13 |
29 |
2 |
— |
2 |
2/31 = 6.45% |
|
#14 |
20 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#15 |
22 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#16 |
34 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#17 |
30 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
#18 |
53 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
TOTAL |
291 |
6 |
— |
6 |
6/297 = 2.02% |
TABLE 16. L2 Spanish.
Madelin. Overt Determiner
|
|||||
|
|
Possible |
Non-Possible
|
Total % Non-possible |
||
|
Int. |
|
Gender |
Number |
Total |
|
|
#1 |
7 |
1 |
— |
1 |
1/8 = 12.50% |
|
#2 |
4 |
4 |
— |
4 |
4/8 = 50% |
|
#3 |
16 |
1 |
— |
1 |
1/17 = 5.88% |
|
#4 |
34 |
2 |
— |
2 |
2/36 = 5.55% |
|
#5 |
24 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
4/28 = 14.28% |
|
#6 |
14 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
3/17 = 17.64% |
|
#7 |
40 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
3/43 = 6.97% |
|
#8 |
56 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
4/60 = 6.66% |
|
#9 |
37 |
4 |
— |
4 |
4/41 = 9.75% |
|
#10 |
63 |
6 |
— |
6 |
6/69 = 8.69% |
|
#11 |
50 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
3/53 = 5.66% |
|
#12 |
64 |
6 |
— |
6 |
6/70 = 8.57% |
|
#13 |
147 |
6 |
— |
6 |
6/153 = 3.92% |
|
#14 |
105 |
2 |
— |
2 |
2/107 = 2.86% |
|
#15 |
84 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
TOTAL |
745 |
40 |
9 |
49 |
49/794 = 6.17% |
Examples of gender are number mismatches produced with overt
determiners are listed in (65) to (70):
(65) Unas
peces (unos peces) / some fish [Adil #9] G
(66) Esta
gusano (este gusano) / this worm [Adil #13] G
(67)
Esto tarta (esta tarta) / this cake
[Madelin #2] G
(68)
El cama (la cama) / the bed
[Madelin #2] G
(69) El
zapatos (los zapatos) / the shows [Madelin #4] N
(70) El
niños (los niños) / the boys [Madelin #5] N
Madelin’s and Adil’s
production of gender mismatches present a different distribution. Madelin
produces double the amount of gender mismatches through all the interviews
(TABLE 16) while Adil’s mismatches only show in interviews #11 to #13 (TABLE
15). In fact, the total amount of gender mismatches is rather small for both
children. However, as it was the case with the the total percentage of
mismatches, the total percentage of gender mismatches is also significantly
different (TABLE 17).
|
TABLE 17. L1/L2
Spanish: Gender mismatches with overt determiners |
|
|
María Magín |
4/1578 (0.25%) [TABLE 8] 12/840
(1.42%) [TABLE 9] |
|
Adil Madelin |
6/297
(2.02%) [TABLE 15] 40/794 (5.03%) [TABLE 16] |
TABLE 17 also shows that
Adil is closer to the L1 children, María and Magín, than to Madelin in terms of
the total production of gender mismatches. Adil is also closer to the L1
children in the amount of gender mismatches produced with AP and PP, which appeared
marked with an asterisk in TABLES 3 and 4 (Magín and María) and in TABLES 10
and 11 (Adil and Madelin), summarized below in TABLE 18.
|
TABLE
18. L1/L2 Spanish: Gender mismatches with SDet complements |
|||
|
|
AP |
PP |
CP |
|
Magín María |
1/27
(3.70%) [TABLE 3) 1/43 (2.32%) [TABLE 3] |
1/18 (5.55%) [TABLE 4] — [TABLE 4] |
— — |
|
Adil Madelin |
— [TABLE 10] 5/20 (25%) [TABLE 10] |
— [TABLE 11] 4/40 (10%) [TABLE 11] |
— — |
Neither the L1 nor the L2
children produce mismatches with Null Noun complements. Nonetheless, Madelin
continues to use null determiners which are not possible in adult Spanish, as
well as gender and number mismatches up to the last interview, while Adil stops
using non- Spanish null determiners at #10 and mismatches at #13. It is also
important to point out that instances of gender mismatches with overt
determiners are larger than in L1 and they again are different for Adil and
Madelin because Adil does not produce any instance.
Therefore,
Madelin is the one who has active N-drop while she continues to have problems
with the morphology. Adil is more like the L1 children in that he produces very
few gender mismatches.
It is also important to
notice that Madeline’s gender mismatches occur in spite of the fact that her
production of N-drop is much higher.
6. Conclusion
We have argued that MPHs
are the evidence needed by children to activate the [+word marker/gender]
feature of Spanish determiners. These MPHs are morphological vocabulary that
has to be learned to specify the appropriate features. We have also hinted at
the fact that it may be precisely the lack of phonological sophistication with
which L1 children relate to the input data that allows them to implement the
[+word marker/gender] feature of Spanish DPs. We should like to propose that
this kind of phonological dissection of incoming data is an instance of the
‘bottom up’ strategy which is typical of native and possibly L2 language
learning by very young children (Liceras et al., forthcoming).
We have also argued that
MPHs have a direct bearing on the productivity of N-drop because they are
incompatible: it is only when the [+word marker/gender] feature is specified as
part of the DP projection that N-Drop becomes productive.
MPHs do not occur in our L2 data, which is not surprising because
our L2 children have reached a high degree of phonological sophistication, which implies that they will use a different
strategy to relate to input triggers. In other words, it may not be a ‘bottom
up’ strategy. Nonetheless, we find different patterns of mismatches between
Adil and Madelin. It is highly possible that these differences are due to the
different age of the two children (as it was said above, Adil was 4 years old
when the first interview took place while Madelin was eight years old).
However, the previous linguistic experience of the two children was different
too: Adil’s L1 was Arabic and Madelin was bilingual (Farshi and Swedish) and
she also had some knowledge of English.[13]
Judging from the results,
it is not obvious to us whether Adil activates the [+word marker/gender]
feature at all and if so, whether he uses a processing ‘bottom up’ procedure in
relation to comprehension and not in relation to production, because his
production is closer to the L1 production than Madelin’s. Nonetheless it is
still rather different from the L1 pattern. Adil’s production seems to indicate
that he goes through a silent period and produces very few non-Spanish forms.
Madelin, on the other hand, produces more non-Spanish forms. It is also
possible that the differences between Adil and Madelin’s data be due to L1
influence, since Arabic (Adil’s L1) seems to pattern with Spanish in that it
has a [+word marker] feature, while neither Farshi nor Swedish (Madelin’s L1s)
do. This could have made Adil more aware of the characteristics of Spanish DPs.
© Juana M. Liceras,
Lourdes Díaz, and Caroline Mongeon. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la
Comunicación/ Circle of Linguistics Applied to Communication/ clac, 3,
september 2000. To appear in Ronald P. Leow and Cristina Sanz (2000) Current
Research on the Acquisition of Spanish. Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Press.
ISSN 1576-4737.
http://www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no3/liceras.htm.
Back to contents of clac
3.
Home.