How students acquire things you never teach them

How students acquire things you never teach them Robert Kluender Department of Linguistics, UCSD UCCLLT Workshop on Grammar and Language Teaching June 20, 2004

Is L 2 acquisition like L 1 acquisition? The results of critical period research: o there is a definite decline in ultimate attainment with age across childhood o it affects L 1 A more than L 2 A o unclear how much of it is biological o phonology correlates better with Ao. A than morphosyntax (but accentless non-native speakers seem to exist)

Is L 2 acquisition like L 1 acquisition? o o Often it is assumed that L 2 A differs from L 1 A most in terms of implicit learning However, there is also very clear evidence of implicit learning in L 2 A

What would constitute proof? o o o The best evidence for implicit learning in L 1 A is reorganization We identify L 1 reorganization by a temporary increase in systematic errors, the “U-shaped” learning curve Is there any evidence for a U-shaped learning curve in L 2 acquisition?

The strange case of unaccusatives Why unaccusative verbs are a good test case for implicit learning: o they are found in every language, i. e. are a well-attested linguistic universal o they behave systematically o they are not theory-dependent o nobody knows about them, so they can’t possibly be explicitly taught

An aside/exhortation from my hobbyhorse soapbox bully pulpit

An aside/exhortation from my hobbyhorse soapbox bully pulpit o “Stop drilling!” (BVP)

An aside/exhortation from my hobbyhorse soapbox bully pulpit o “Stop drilling for UG!” (RK)

An aside/exhortation from my hobbyhorse soapbox bully pulpit o “Stop drilling for Universal Grammar!”

An aside/exhortation from my hobbyhorse soapbox bully pulpit o “Stop drilling for L 2 evidence of -movement constraints !” wh

An aside/exhortation from my hobbyhorse soapbox bully pulpit o o Even assuming that they are part of Universal Grammar, wh-movement constraints are a moving target as to – their overall status in theory – their current theoretical formulation Accumulating evidence that they are instead a processing phenomenon

The strange case of unaccusatives o o native speakers are naturally unaware of this phenomenon in their 1 st language it’s never taught to them in school 2 nd language learners are never exposed to it, because 2 nd language teachers don’t know about it, either 2 nd language learners acquire it nonetheless

What are “unaccusative” verbs? o o o the unfortunate name stems from Perlmutter (1977), who first discussed the phenomenon unaccusatives are intransitive verbs whose subject is the undergoer (also called “patient” or “theme”) rather than the agent of the action

Two types of intransitive verbs unergative verbs subject is AGENT o o o She left. She lay down. She hid. unaccusative verbs subject is UNDERGOER o o o She arrived. She fell. She disappeared.

Some unaccusative verbs have transitive counterparts o o transitive form: The heat melted the butter. unaccusative form: The butter melted. transitive form: The children broke the vase. unaccusative form: The vase broke.

Some unaccusative verbs have transitive counterparts o o transitive form: The heat melted the butter. unaccusative form: The butter melted. transitive form: The children broke the vase. unaccusative form: The vase broke.

Tests for unaccusativity: agentive -er suffixation in English o o o She arrived. She fell. She disappeared. o o o *arriver *faller *disappearer

Tests for unaccusativity o Italian: auxiliary selection in passato prossimo (Lei) è arrivata / caduta / sparita. she is arrived fallen disappeared *ha arrivata / caduta / sparita. has arrived fallen disappeared

Tests for unaccusativity o o Italian passive and reflexive verbs also take essere (‘to be’) as auxiliary in passato prossimo This means that all undergoer subjects take essere as auxiliary in Italian passato prossimo

Tests for unaccusativity Of all the Romance languages, o Italian has best retained the Latin distinction between esse and habere, o French has retained it to some degree but lost other parts of it, o while the other Romance languages have lost it altogether

Tests for unaccusativity o o German and Dutch make very similar distinctions in the perfect tenses (e. g. Sie ist hingefallen in German) The distinction used to exist in English, but now is found only in archaic usage (e. g. Christian hymns) – “Joy to the world, the Lord is come” – “Alleluia, He is risen”

Another appeal for the inclusion of linguistic knowledge in L 2 teaching o o Consider how torturous it is using traditional grammar to explain which verbs take ‘be’ as auxiliary in perfect tenses of European languages, and then consider how much easier your life might be in this regard if you referred to the L 2 literature on unaccusative verbs (Sorace 1993 a)

Tests for unaccusativity Italian: ne-cliticization o transitive verbs: Mario ha letto molte lettere Mario has read many letters Mario ne ha letto molte Mario of=them has read many

Tests for unaccusativity Italian: ne-cliticization o intransitive (unergative) verbs: Hanno lavorato molte persone have worked many persons *Ne hanno lavorato molte of=them have worked many

Tests for unaccusativity Italian: ne-cliticization o intransitive (unaccusative) verbs: Sono arrivate molte persone arrived many persons Ne sono arrivate molte of=them are arrived many

Tests for unaccusativity Italian: ne-cliticization o transitive verbs: Mario ha letto molte lettere Mario has read many letters Mario ne ha letto molte Mario of=them has read many

Generalizations from our tests o o o English unaccusatives do not allow agentive -er suffixation because they do not take agent arguments only verbs with undergoer subjects (unaccusative, passive, and reflexive) take essere as auxiliary in Italian only verbs with undergoer arguments (i. e. transitive objects & unaccusative subjects) allow Italian ne-cliticization

Preliminary conclusions o o Unaccusative verbs have undergoer subjects Remarkably enough, L 2 learners unconsciously seem to pick up on this

The unaccusative hierarchy (Sorace 1993 a/2000) o o o o change of location [selects BE ] change of state/condition continuation of a pre-existing state existence of state/condition change of state-transitive counterpart uncontrolled process (motional) controlled process (non-motional) [selects HAVE ]

The unaccusative hierarchy (Sorace 2000) o o o o arrive, fall [selects BE ] change of state/condition continuation of a pre-existing state existence of state/condition change of state-transitive counterpart uncontrolled process (motional) controlled process (non-motional) [selects HAVE ]

The unaccusative hierarchy (Sorace 2000) o o o o arrive, fall [selects BE ] become, disappear, die continuation of a pre-existing state existence of state/condition change of state-transitive counterpart uncontrolled process (motional) controlled process (non-motional) [selects HAVE ]

The unaccusative hierarchy (Sorace 2000) o o o o arrive, fall [selects BE ] become, disappear, die stay, remain existence of state/condition change of state-transitive counterpart uncontrolled process (motional) controlled process (non-motional) [selects HAVE ]

The unaccusative hierarchy (Sorace 2000) o o o o arrive, fall [selects BE ] become, disappear, die stay, remain be, seem change of state-transitive counterpart uncontrolled process (motional) controlled process (non-motional) [selects HAVE ]

The unaccusative hierarchy (Sorace 2000) o o o o arrive, fall [selects BE ] become, disappear, die stay, remain be, seem break, melt, sink uncontrolled process (motional) controlled process (non-motional) [selects HAVE ]

The unaccusative hierarchy (Sorace 2000) o o o o arrive, fall [selects BE ] become, disappear, die stay, remain be, seem break, melt, sink blush, tremble, shine controlled process (motional) controlled process (non-motional) [selects HAVE ]

The unaccusative hierarchy (Sorace 2000) o o o o arrive, fall [selects BE ] become, disappear, die stay, remain be, seem break, melt, sink blush, tremble, shine run, dance, swim controlled process (non-motional) [selects HAVE ]

The unaccusative hierarchy (Sorace 2000) o o o o arrive, fall [selects BE ] become, disappear, die stay, remain be, seem break, melt, sink blush, tremble, shine run, dance, swim talk, work [selects HAVE ]

The unaccusative hierarchy (Sorace 1993 a) “The hierarchy embodies the fact that the notion of dynamic change, whose most concrete manifestation is change of location, is at the root of unaccusativity, and identifies verbs of directed motion as core cases for essere/être-selection. ” (Sorace 1993 a: 81)

L 2 sensitivity to semantic aspects of unaccusativity (Sorace 1993 b) Subjects – English/French near-native speakers of Italian in Italy, no Italian origins – began learning after age 15 (18 -27), average 9 years of exposure (5 -15) o Materials and Procedure – acceptability judgements on auxiliary selection with unaccusative verbs o

L 2 sensitivity to semantic aspects of unaccusativity (Sorace 1993 b)

L 2 sensitivity to semantic aspects of unaccusativity (Sorace 1993 b) o o o L 2 speakers were sensitive to unaccusative hierarchy categories Only native speakers had significantly different judgements between the two auxiliaries in every category L 2 speakers had significantly different judgements between auxiliaries only at the high end of the hierarchy (two highest categories)

L 2 sensitivity to semantic aspects of unaccusativity (Sorace 1993 b)

L 2 sensitivity to unaccusativity o o L 2 learners are sensitive to the unaccusative hierarchy and the semantic distinctions between verb subtypes that it represents Is this only because these are highly advanced, near-native learners?

Is there any evidence for a Ushaped learning curve in L 2 A? L 2 learners passivize unaccusatives *He was arrived early. *My mother was died when I was just a baby. *This problem is existed for many years. *Most of people are fallen in love and marry with somebody. o

Unaccusative passivization errors (Oshita 1998/2000)

Unaccusative passivization errors (Oshita 1998/2000)

Is there any evidence for a Ushaped learning curve in L 2 A? o o Learners are never exposed to these errors in input from native speakers They occur in the output of ESL students of diverse L 1 backgrounds They appear only at advanced or high intermediate levels of L 2 instruction Even at this level, L 2 usage of unaccusatives is 90% error-free

Why these particular errors? o o Recall that unaccusative verbs pattern with passive verbs in Italian with regard to auxiliary selection, as both have undergoer subjects Passive verbs in English also have undergoer subjects, and require passive verbal morphology

Why these particular errors?

Why these particular errors?

Why these particular errors?

Why these particular errors?

Why these particular errors?

Why these particular errors?

Why these particular errors?

Why these particular errors?

Why these particular errors?

Why these particular errors? o o By hypothesis, when learners recognize that there is an undergoer (patient) in subject position, they associate this with passive morphology on the verb (be), and therefore passivize the verb even if it is not needed, as is the case with unaccusative verbs (Oshita 1998/2000)

Why these particular errors? o o Note that this is a perfectly reasonable mistake to be making: it shows unconscious sensitivity to the presence of undergoer arguments in subject position, and analogizes a known morphosyntactic pattern for such subjects. This is pretty sophisticated; presumably this is why it occurs late.

Is this a U-shaped learning curve? o o Oshita (1998/2000) claims that it is But there was no empirical evidence: The data show the middle of a slump, but no early error-free period, and no subsequent recovery So is this a U-shaped learning curve or just a nose dive that learners never pull out of?

Follow-up: Klieman & Kluender Corpus study of writing samples from advanced ESL students in the Chinese Learner English Corpus o 6% unaccusative passivization rate o passivization more than twice as frequent as other unaccusative errors o more errors at intermediate levels, but same % of passivization errors

Percentage of passivization errors

Percentage of passivization errors

Follow-up: Klieman & Kluender Spoken/written production, error detection in Russian L 2 speakers of English o modified ILR OPI o no differences in spoken elicitation, but errors only at level 2+ and below o ability in error detection significantly different by proficiency level

Error detection by proficiency level

Follow-up: Klieman & Kluender Spoken/written production, error detection in Russian L 2 speakers of English o no differences in spoken elicitation, but errors only at level 2+ and below o ability in error detection significantly different by proficiency level

Follow-up: Klieman & Kluender Spoken/written production, error detection in Russian L 2 speakers of English o no differences in spoken elicitation, but errors only at level 2+ and below o ability in error detection significantly different by proficiency level o written production errors only at level 2+ and below

Follow-up: Klieman & Kluender o o Clear evidence for recovery at level 3 But is this merely circular evidence? No unaccusative passivization errors because “no systematic errors” of grammar at level 3 and above? But unaccusativity is not targeted by, or even on the radar screen of OPI In any case, the problem goes away

But is it a U-shaped learning curve? o o o It’s at least a J-shaped learning curve Still no reliable data from early L 2 A: Initial attempts to use the same procedures on low-proficiency Russian learners failed At a minimum, there is evidence for implicit learning and reorganization

Summary: L 2 sensitivity to unaccusativity o o L 2 learners are sensitive to semantic verb subtype distinctions on the unaccusative hierarchy (auxiliary selection in Italian) L 2 learners show sensitivity to the fact that unaccusative verbs take undergoer subjects by overgeneralizing passive morphology (passivization errors in English)

What would constitute proof? o o o The best evidence for implicit learning in L 1 A is reorganization We identify L 1 reorganization by a temporary increase in systematic errors, the “U-shaped” learning curve Is there any evidence for a U-shaped learning curve in L 2 acquisition?

Is L 2 acquisition like L 1 acquisition? L 2 acquisition of unaccusativity: o an indisputable language universal o implicit learning with no explicit input o overgeneralization o low error rates o eventual recovery