- Email: [email protected]
Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua
Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis Abdelkader Hermas * Université du Québec À Montréal, Canada Received 8 February 2018; received in revised form 24 May 2018; accepted 24 May 2018
Abstract This study tests the Interface Hypothesis in the field of L3 acquisition. The learners are L1 Arabic--L2 French adults at the intermediate and advanced levels in L3 English. A forced multiple-choice written task tests non-d-linked and d-linked wh-questions, representing narrow syntax and the syntax--discourse interface. The intermediate learners of L3 English used the two constructions interchangeably regardless of the context. Comparatively, the advanced L3 learners diverge from the English native speakers on the syntactic construction but converge with them on its interface variant. They show sensitivity to the discourse-appropriateness distinction between d-linked and non-d-linked questions, contra the predictions of the Interface Hypothesis. We maintain that external interface properties such as d-linking are not necessarily destined for permanent representational deficit in the L3. © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: L3 English; wh-Questions; d-Linking; Interface Hypothesis; Syntax--discourse interface
1. Introduction Since the early 2000s, generative research on second language acquisition (L2A) has shifted focus from formal aspects of core syntax to its interfaces. According to Jackendoff (2002) and Ramchand and Reiss (2007), an interface refers to a point of interaction or connection between two or more modules within the grammar (e.g., syntax-semantics) or between these modules and other aspects of cognition (e.g., syntax-attention/processing). An influential account of language interfaces in L2A is Sorace's Interface Hypothesis (e.g., Sorace, 2005, 2006, 2011). It claims that delayed acquisition, learning difficulties and even permanent failure are characteristics of interface properties in the ultimate attainment of adult L2A. This study aims to test the predictive power of the hypothesis in third language acquisition (L3A). We investigate in L3 English the acquisition of a construction at the interface between discourse and syntax: discourselinked wh-questions. Since investigating knowledge of syntax--discourse presupposes well-established syntax in the L3 interlanguage, we consider quantificational (non-discourse-linked) wh-questions as well. The learners are adult L1 Arabic--L2 French bilinguals at the intermediate and advanced levels of L3 English. Garcia Mayo and Rothman (2012) and Rothman et al. (2013) point out that most work within L3A has focused on morphosyntax in the initial stages and the involvement of L1/L2 transfer, admitting the scarcity of studies on L3 advanced stages. It is time to complete the picture and consider the advanced stage if we want a better coverage of the field
* Correspondence to: Pavillon J.-A. De Sève, DS-3405 320, rue Sainte-Catherine est. Montréal (Québec) H2X 1L7, Canada. E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004 0024-3841/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
2
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
(Slabakova, 2016). This study expands the scope of L3 research beyond the acquisition of formal grammar and adds a new population of trilinguals to the literature on interfaces. We investigate whether discourse-linked wh-questions present some form of permanent deficiency, as the Interface Hypothesis predicts, or whether they are ultimately acquirable, as is claimed for other aspects of formal syntax. This article is structured as follows. The next section expands on interfaces and the IH. Section 3 reviews contrasting interpretations of the difficulty related to the syntax--discourse interface in the L2 and the L3. Two proposals are addressed: a representational vs. a processing account. Section 4 describes the tested structures, d-linked and non-dlinked wh-questions. Section 5 presents the empirical study followed by the results and discussion in Sections 6 and 7 and finally a highlight of the findings in the conclusion. 2. Language interfaces and the Interface Hypothesis In the acquisition literature, an interface is generally defined as a point where a module of the linguistic system interacts with another one or with other cognitive modules. There are two types. Internal interfaces describe connections between different modules of grammar such as the interface between syntax and semantics or morphology and phonology. For example, the articles a/the are elements of morphology, but in semantics they may have an existential interpretation referring to a specific entity or a generic one referring to a set of entities or kind. External interfaces involve these modules in contact with grammar-external components like syntax--discourse or semantics--pragmatics. For instance, in scalar implicature, pragmatic inferences relating to quantifiers such as none, some, and all do not depend on their semantic meaning only but are also derived from the assumption that the speaker obeys certain rules of behavior typically dictated by rationality (Schlenker, 2016). The Interface Hypothesis (IH) was proposed to account for non-native attainment in the L2 endstate, with particular emphasis on near-native grammar. The original proposal (e.g., Sorace, 2003, 2005, 2006) claims the relative ease of learning narrow syntax compared to interface syntax which is claimed to be more vulnerable to different types of nonnativeness (indeterminacy, optionality or long-term L1 effects). However, further research suggested that not all interfaces were equally vulnerable. For example, Slabakova (2006, 2008) discusses properties at the syntax-semantics interface that are successfully acquired in the L2. A refinement of the IH introduces a distinction between internal interfaces and external ones and proposes that the latter are more difficult to learn than the former (Sorace, 2011, 2012; Sorace and Filiaci, 2006; Sorace and Serratrice, 2009; Tsimpli and Sorace, 2006). This implies that a syntax-semantics phenomenon like pre/post-nominal adjective interpretation in L2 Spanish is expected to resist learning according to the first version of the IH but becomes unproblematic in the second. However, in both versions, the property we test, d-linking, belongs to the external syntax--discourse interface and so would present some form of permanent non-nativeness in the L2 grammar. Sorace and colleagues have considered external interfaces to be the main locus of learning difficulties, which take the form of delays in L1 acquisition, failure in bilingual and L2A, or indeterminacy and residual optionality at near-native levels. The current version of the IH attributes the difficulties to computational/processing rather than representational matters. In particular, to handle an interface phenomenon, even if learners have acquired the grammatical representation, they need an efficient processing ability that allow them to assess extra-linguistic (context/discourse) information, access the appropriate representation and then integrate everything in a felicitous output. The following section presents two different positions. One interprets problematic external interfaces as failure at the representational level. The other supports Sorace and colleagues’ account that problems have a processing origin due to the task of integrating elements distributed over different modules. 3. Syntax--discourse interface in LnA Empirical studies in L2A have reported that properties at the syntax--discourse interface are generally liable to developmental delays, but findings have been inconclusive. Some support permanent failure or a representational deficit in the endstate (e.g., Belletti et al., 2007; Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou, 2007; Valenzuela, 2005) while others argue for ultimate success and attribute non-target-like performance to processing defects (Donaldson, 2011, 2012; Ivanov, 2009; Leal Méndez and Slabakova, 2014; Rothman, 2009; Slabakova et al., 2012). We review two L2 studies on d-linking, namely Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) and Leal Méndez and Slabakova (2014), in addition to two others on interface properties in L3A, namely Lozano (2003) and Slabakova and Garcia Mayo (2015). We start with Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) who studied d-linked wh-interrogatives in L2A. They maintained that adult learners could not attain nativelike competence. They tested a group of L1 Greek speakers intermediate and advanced in L2 English using a bi-modal (aural and written) paced acceptability judgment task with animacy, d-linking, syntactic function (subject vs. object) and presence/absence of the complementizer as conditions. The tested items were decontextualized embedded questions. It was predicted that resumptive pronouns or clitics would be impossible to Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
3
abandon in L2 English since they encoded the uninterpretable features of case and agreement in L1 Greek. The L2ers would accept subject and object resumptives in the L2. However, the interpretable features of animacy and d-linking, active in L1 Greek, would have a ‘compensatory’ facilitative effect and reduce the acceptability of illicit resumptives in the extraction site like in the L2ers’ native language. The results showed that the two learner groups diverged significantly from the English natives. They accepted (illicit) resumptive pronouns at high rates in subject and object wh-interrogatives. Additionally, the advanced L2ers judged objects more accurately than subject resumptives. Resumptive pronouns were deemed highly acceptable in the subject position, a finding attributed to L1 Greek transfer. Moreover, the L2ers judged animate resumptive wh-interrogatives more accurately (i.e., high rejection rates) than inanimate resumptive ones. This was interpreted to reflect the facilitative effect of the interpretable feature of animacy. Regarding the effect of d-linking, the advanced L2ers incorrectly accepted more resumptives associated with a d-linked wh-phrase in the object condition. As in Greek, d-linking increased significantly the acceptability of object resumptives in L2 English. Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) concluded that the interpretable features of animacy and d-linking compensated for the ‘unacquirable’ uninterpretable case and agreement features by helping the L2ers reduce the non-target resumptive use of the L2 pronouns. However, they never performed in a nativelike way (Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou, 2007, p. 237). Leal Méndez and Slabakova (2014) partially replicated the study and maintained the opposite stance. There were two groups of L2ers advanced in English: one group accepted resumptive pronouns in their L1 Spanish and the other did not. Contra Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007), both L2 groups rejected ungrammatical resumptive subject/object wh-questions in L2 English comparably to the controls, in spite of residual L1 effects. Leal Méndez and Slabakova (2014) also examined the facilitative impact of animacy and d-linking. Their results confirmed the effect of animacy observed in Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007). Wh-questions were rejected more when used with the resumptive of an animate referent than with an inanimate one. The effect of d-linking was not attested, however. The L2ers were not more accurate with d-linked than non-d-linked resumptive pronouns. For both features, the advanced L2ers converged with the English controls. As regards within-group comparisons, the three groups made a significant contrast between the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Even the L2ers whose L1 tolerates resumptives accepted gapped wh-questions and rejected the resumptive variants like the English controls. The distinction between gapped and resumptive wh-questions was not affected by animacy or d-linking. Leal Méndez and Slabakova (2014) concluded that the ungrammatical status of resumptive wh-questions was acquirable in L2A; they were eventually replaced by gapped wh-questions. They pointed out that their findings differed from Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) probably due to their L2ers’ higher proficiency and the use of contextualized instead of isolated test items. We add that their task was not paced, which means that the L2ers were not under time pressure to respond. We look now at the L3 scene, considering two studies on external interfaces which illustrate two contrasting views of the nature of L3 ultimate attainment. Lozano (2003) supports L3 permanent failure while Slabakova and Garcia Mayo (2015) defend successful acquisition. Lozano (2003) investigated advanced L3 Spanish in L1 Greek adults who were advanced in L2 English. The study tested focus in terms of overt/null pronominal subjects and SV/VS word order. The two phenomena are constrained by universal principles as well as language-specific constraints that govern the distribution of overt and null (pronominal) subjects in null subject languages. The distribution of pronominal subjects is regulated by the Contrastive Focus Constraint (CFC), operative in Greek and Spanish but not in English (L1 ≠ L2, L1 = L3). SV/VS word order is constrained by the Presentational Focus Constraint (PFC), active in Spanish but not in Greek and English (L1 = L2 ≠ L3). The results of an acceptability judgment task indicated that the L3ers had no difficulty with the universal principles, as expected. However, they diverged from the native norm on the parametric discourse constraints not previously activated in the L1. Specifically, the L1 Greek--L2 English learners of L3 Spanish converged with the Spanish controls on pronoun distribution regulated by the CFC active in L1 Greek (L1 ≠ L2, L1 = L3) but diverged from them on SV/VS word order regulated by the PFC because the constraint regulating the sequence in L3 Spanish is not active in the L3ers’ native Greek (L1 = L2 ≠ L3). Lozano (2003:245--246) concluded that the L1 had an irreversible negative effect on parametric properties in the L3 endstate if these were not previously operative in the L1 while the L2 was of no use even when it patterned with the L3. Lozano (2003) supported a representational deficit account of the syntax--discourse interface in L3A. Slabakova and Garcia Mayo (2015) found the opposite in L3 English. The study tested the IH by investigating the acquisition of topicalization, focus fronting and left dislocation in root clauses. The learners were adult Basque-Spanish bilinguals advanced in the L3: a group of Basque-Spanish bilinguals dominant in Basque and another of Basque-Spanish bilinguals dominant in Spanish. They had to rate the acceptability of contextualized audio sentences. The data provided evidence against the IH and arguments for both facilitative and non-facilitative transfer in the L3. The authors were cautious about interpreting the data of left dislocation (English = Spanish ≠ Basque). The L3ers and the Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
4
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
English natives were rather tolerant of illicit left dislocated tokens lacking clitic pronouns. Concerning focus fronting (English = Spanish = Basque), the L3ers and the English controls differentiated between acceptable and unacceptable sentences. For topicalization (English = Basque ≠ Spanish), it is concluded that Spanish, whether an L1 or L2, had a negative effect on the L3. Nonetheless, individual results provided evidence for ultimate success. The IH predicted residual optionality for both similar and dissimilar constructions due to processing difficulties. However, the L3ers performed in a nativelike way on focus fronting due to facilitative transfer. For topicalization, the majority of the L3ers were not able to overcome L1 or L2 non-facilitative transfer. For left dislocation, where Spanish is similar to English, the L3ers seemed to have some advantage. In summary, in an extensive review of the L2 literature on interfaces, White (2011) concludes that we should be cautious about assuming that external interfaces are necessarily problematic or unproblematic for the L2er. The author points out that different linguistic properties pertaining to the same interface do not necessarily behave similarly.1 Acquisition failure is not inevitable. Variation in results across the studies is due in part to differences in methodologies or to the range of linguistic aspects involved in a single tested phenomenon (Slabakova and Ivanov, 2011). White (2011) warns that the IH has sometimes been interpreted in a manner that is too sweeping and calls for a more nuanced approach. In this respect, we provide empirical evidence that highlights the limits of such interpretations and even shows that an interface construction (d-linked questions) can be easier to learn than its formal equivalent (quantificational questions). 4. Linguistic background We examine root wh-questions in English. We also describe the constructions in French, the learners’ L2. The two languages form d-linked ([+DL]) and non-d-linked ([ DL]) interrogatives using the gap strategy. On the other hand, Moroccan Arabic (MA), a null subject language, uses two different strategies: the movement strategy in non-d-linked questions and the resumptive strategy in d-linked variants. English, French and MA form [ DL] wh-interrogatives by raising the wh-phrase from its base position to SpecCP. Here is a simplified representation: (1) [SpecCPWhati [C’did Mary take ti yesterday]]? According to Chomsky (2000, 2001), there is an agreement relationship between the interrogative C carrying an unvalued uninterpretable wh-feature [uwh] and the wh-phrase with a matching interpretable feature [+wh]. The agreement between the two elements is established by raising the wh-phrase into SpecCP. The EPP feature of C requires this movement. The same derivation applies to non-d-linked questions in MA and French (Fassi Fehri, 1982:119, n. 16; Pollock, 1997:188): (2) a. [SpecCP ʔasˇ i [C’ [TP zar Ali ti]]]? MA what visited.3MS Ali ‘What did Ali visit?’ b. [SpecCP Quii [C’ as-tu vu ti]]? Fr. Who have-you seen ‘Who did you see?’ As far as d-linked wh-questions are concerned, English uses a distinct wh-phrase, which (+NP). French patterns with English and uses quel (+NP) or its gender-number agreeing variants: (3) a. Which cityi did you visit ti? b. Quelle villei as-tu visitée ti? Fr. which city have-you visited ‘Which city did you visit?’ In (3), the phrase ‘which city’ moves into SpecCP. Pesetsky (1987, 2000) points out that the context restricts the range of felicitous referents of a d-linked wh-phrase (which (NP)) by a reference set that forms the interlocutors’ common ground and from which the appropriate answer is drawn. The referents need not be verbally specified before as long as the
1 More striking is that the same interface property may be differentially acquired by comparable learning groups. An example is Parodi (2009) who tested two groups of L1 English learners advanced in L2 Spanish and L2 Greek. They were tested on topic and CLLD using the same task (grammaticality judgment) but the two groups performed differently. The L2ers of Spanish distinguished between CLLD with definite versus indefinite topics, like the native speakers, whereas the advanced L2ers of Greek failed to do so.
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
5
interlocutors have the same assumptions about the context. Thus, the reference set for which city is the set of all discourse-relevant cities. The question words who and what do not necessarily carry any implication about familiar discourse entities because the reference set for who/what are all humans/places without necessarily linking to a set. Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) propose that which bears the interpretable feature [+DL].2 MA differs from English by using the resumptive strategy to form d-linked questions. This operation merges the wh-item sentence-initially and a corresponding pronoun in the base position: (4) Ali wə Kamal ja-w Ali and Kamal came-3PM. ‘Ali and Kamal came.’ Sˇ kuni tlaqi-ti-hi f-s.suq? who met-2SM-him in.the.market ‘Which did you meet in the market?’ (5) Kayən r-rap wə tekno is the-rap and techno ‘We have rap and techno.’ ʔasˇ i mən musiqa t-ħəb t-smə?-hai? what of music 2SM-like 2SM-listen-it.FEM ‘Which music would you like to listen to?’ Unlike English and French, MA uses the same interrogative words sˇ kun (who) and ʔasˇ (what) used in non-d-linked questions. However, in d-linked interrogatives, they are additionally specified for the interpretable feature [+DL], implying the existence of a set of contextually-determined entities (men, music types) from which the speaker is asking for a choice. These wh-phrases are not extracted like in English but externally merged in SpecCP while a matching resumptive clitic pronoun occupies the base position. Fassi Fehri (1982) states that the resumptive pronoun is licit only with a d-linked whexpression and that the context conditions its use. Feature checking is accomplished by the operation Merge, not Move. In summary, English and French uses a single wh-interrogative configuration where the wh-phrase, d-linked or non-dlinked, is fronted leaving a gap. The two constructions are superficially similar, but underlyingly, d-linked wh-phrases bear an extra interface feature [+DL] and are context-bound while non-d-linked exponents carry only the formal feature [+wh] and are discourse-free. Comparatively, MA uses two different structures. A non-d-linked question is derived by whmovement and a gap. A d-linked question is formed by merging a wh-phrase sentence-initially and a resumptive in the base. In terms of feature selection, there are two types of features. [+wh] is formal and uninterpretable and it is essential for the syntactic derivation of non-d-linked questions. [+DL] is an interpretable interface property, and because of its discursive import, affects the interpretive domain. 5. Method 5.1. Predictions for L3 English This study sets out to test the IH in L3A. The hypothesis predicts that the L3ers would have difficulty incorporating discourse information to choose the most felicitous wh-expression (which+N) for d-linked contexts in L3 English, even at an advanced proficiency level. In contrast, learning non-d-linked wh-questions would be straightforward since they are not a property of external interfaces. While we expect some degree of difficulty affecting the d-linking condition, this should not amount to permanent failure among the advanced L3ers. 5.2. Participants Fifty subjects participated in this study, including a control group of 12 native speakers of American English (mean age 31.7 years) and two experimental groups of L3 learners of English whose L1 was Moroccan Arabic. The intermediate L3er group comprised 16 participants with a mean age of 18.2 years. They started learning L2 French and L3 English as compulsory subjects at school at the ages of 8 and 15 respectively. Their level in the L2 is intermediate to post-
2 Androulakis (1998:158), Boeckx and Grohmann (2004:253) and Grohmann (2006) propose that d-linked wh-phrases are wh-topics. If this interpretation is on the right track, non-d-linked wh-interrogatives would have a quantificational interpretation (narrow syntax) while d-linked ones bear a topic interpretation (syntax--discource interface).
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
Table 1 Performance in non-d-linked interrogatives (percentages, with n in parentheses).
L3 intermediates L3 advanced EngNS
Target (who/what)
Non-target (which)
Both options
62.50% (70/112) 59.74% (92/154) 86.90% (73/84)
37.50% (42/112) 37.01% (57/154) 11.90% (10/84)
0% (0/112) 3.24% (5/154) 1.19% (1/84)
intermediate (proficiency score range 26--40 over 50) while they are intermediate in the L3 (proficiency score range 21--30 over 50) according to the grammar-oriented Oxford placement tests for the two languages.3 The L3 advanced group had 22 members with a similar language and school background (mean age 36.7 years). Their level in the L2 is postintermediate to advanced (score range 36--48) while they are all advanced in the L3 (score range 41--49). The learning context is English as a foreign language. 5.3. Instrument There were two written forced-choice elicitation tasks A and B. We tested two conditions: d-linked and non-d-linked root questions. All the wh-expressions were object arguments. They were also preceded by contexts that the L3ers needed to take into consideration and analyze their components when they selected d-linked or non-d-linked whexpressions (which vs. who/what). There were seven sentences per condition embedded under an appropriate context for a total of 14 (see Appendix). The task also included 32 contextualized items testing article usage, which we do not report on here. The participants were instructed to pay attention to preceding contexts and were told that these could influence their answers. They had to circle a d-linked wh-phrase, a non-d-linked one, or both options. Each group completed the two tasks, with half of the members starting with task A and the other half with task B for counterbalancing. The full list of the items is in the appendix. Here are two examples of d-linked and non-d-linked items: (6) D-linked wh-question: At the museum, my class saw paintings by Monet and Dali. But everyone liked those of Picasso. Question: ________ did the class admire? (which paintings -- what) (7) Non-d-linked wh-question: John told his son Tom to watch a documentary on wildlife. But he didn’t. Question: ________ did Tom have to watch? (which documentary -- what)
6. Results Table 1 displays the results of the non-d-linked condition. It shows how often the participant selected ‘who/what’ vs. ‘which N’ in raw scores and percentages. The scores were calculated by multiplying the number of test items per condition (7 items) by the number of participants in each group. The experimental design had one between-subjects variable (GROUP), with three levels (English controls, intermediate and advanced L3ers) and one within-subjects variable (CONDITION), with two values (d-linked and non-d-linked questions). The dependent variable was the total of the target answers. A one-way ANOVA performed on the non-d-linked data revealed a highly significant main effect of GROUP on CONDITION, (F(2, 47) = 10.26, p < .001, r = .55). Post hoc Bonferroni showed significant intergroup differences between the English controls and each of the L3er groups ( p < .01), who performed comparably ( p > .05). Within-group comparisons with a paired-samples t-test confirm that the three groups distinguish significantly between the target usage of who/what and the non-target usage of which in non-d-linked wh-questions. That is, they do not treat them interchangeably. The t values are as follows: for the intermediate L3ers, [t(15) = 3.42, p = .004], for the advanced
3
http://www.lang.ox.ac.uk/tests/ (French and English tests).
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
Table 2 Performance in d-linked interrogatives (percentages, with n in parentheses).
L3 intermediates L3 advanced EngNS
Target (which)
Non-target (who/what)
Both options
53.57% (60/112) 87.01% (134/154) 84.52% (71/84)
46.42% (52/112) 11.68% (18/154) 13.09% (11/84)
0% (0/112) 1.29% (2/154) 2.38% (2/84)
L3ers [t(21) = 2.60, p = .017], and for the English natives [t(11) = 11.35, p < .001]. Even though there is a substantial degree of infelicitous usage of [+DL] which in non-d-linked contexts among the L3ers (37.50% for the intermediates and 37.01% for the advanced), they strongly prefer the more appropriate quantified wh-words in these contexts. White (2003) points out that establishing a significant difference between the target and non-target properties is more revealing of the learners’ acquisition progress than comparing their performance with that of the native speakers. The data of the d-linked condition are in Table 2. A one-way ANOVA indicated a highly significant effect among the three groups (F(2, 47) = 23.1, p < .001, r = .7). Post hoc Bonferroni revealed significant differences between the intermediate L3ers and each of the other two groups ( p < .001). On the other hand, the advanced L3ers’ performance was similar to that of the English controls ( p = 1). Using paired-samples t-tests, within-group comparisons showed that the intermediate L3ers did not yet establish the distinction between the felicitous usage of [+DL] which in d-linked questions and the inappropriate usage of [ DL] who and what, [t(15) = .71, p > .05]. Comparatively, the advanced L3ers and the English controls did, [t(21) = 14.83, p < .001] and [t(11) = 8.47, p < .001] respectively. This clearly indicates that the [+DL] and [ DL] wh-words do not alternate freely in the two groups’ grammars. That is, they treat d-linked and non-d-linked wh-constructions categorically. 7. Discussion In light of the data analysis, we consider the learning predictions repeated for convenience: According to the IH, the L3ers would have difficulty incorporating discourse information in order to choose the most felicitous wh-expression (which+N) for d-linked contexts in L3 English, even at an advanced proficiency level. Comparatively, learning non-d-linked wh-questions would be straightforward since it is not an interface property. Contra the IH prediction, we obtained the reverse scenario: the advanced L3ers of English converged with the native speakers on the d-linked condition (external interface) and diverged from them on the non-d-linked equivalent (narrow syntax). Thus, their acquisition of d-linking and quantification/non-d-linking was asymmetric but in the opposite direction of what the IH would predict. Furthermore, the data demonstrates that the acquisition of non-interface knowledge, viz. quantificational wh-questions, is not a prerequisite for the acquisition of interface constructions, viz. syntax--discourse. As for the intermediate L3ers, their attainment fell short of the target performance in both constructions, which is expected considering their limited level. With regard to the non-interface syntactic construction, non-d-linked wh-questions, the advanced L3ers’ score was 59.74% accuracy, which is comparable to the intermediate L3ers but far short of the English native speakers. The advanced L3ers used the [+DL] which in non-d-linked contexts 37.01% of the times, a substantial rate of infelicitous usage. This is not unprecedented since the L2 literature reports that several morpho-syntactic properties may not be fully acquired, e.g., Lardiere (2009). Since d-linking in English is a property of some wh-exponents but not others, the L3er has to map the feature [+DL] exclusively to the exponent which+N. However, many L3ers either (1) misinterpreted the contexts, misusing which+N in non-d-linked constructions, or (2) wrongly mapping the interpretive feature [+DL] with the formal feature [+wh] on the wrong quantificational hosts who/what. The learning difficulty with non-d-linked questions may be due to L1 non-facilitative influence. Specifically, while the three languages use the same computation (wh-movement), they differ on the operators that move. English and French have specific wh-items (who/what) for non-d-linked questions while MA uses the same set of exponents whether the question is d-linked or non-d-linked. Therefore, the L3ers continued to use English wh-items indiscriminately in non-d-linked questions the way they did in their L1.4
4 One reviewer rightly remarks that the learners’ difficulty with quantificational wh-questions disconfirms the claim of some L3 models predicting facilitative transfer of the L2 (and L1) into the L3. We cannot venture into the debate of the L2 role because the learners’ proficiency in French varies from post-intermediate to advanced and we did not test them in the L2, a limitation we concede. It can be objected that nativelike proficiency in the L2 is a prerequisite to induce L2 facilitative transfer.
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
8
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
The advanced L3ers performed comparably to the English speakers on the d-linked condition scoring 87.01% accuracy. Contra the IH, the external (syntax--discourse) interface is not destined for failure more than other internal interfaces or even purely formal aspects of the language. The advanced L3ers’ inappropriate use of [ DL] wh-items in d-linked contexts is limited to 11.68%, similar to the native controls.5 It is worth noting that L1 transfer cannot be facilitative because MA uses resumptive pronouns in the base position of a d-linked question and base-generate the same wh-items used in non-d-linked questions. It is unlikely that L2 knowledge played a facilitative role considering the learners’ limited (post-intermediate to advanced) L2 proficiency. To ascertain that group performance is not due to the achievement of a minority of L3ers, we analyzed the individual results of the L3 advanced. Following the analysis, 12 of the 22 advanced learners had the following non-target answers: one overused [ DL] who/what, three overused [+DL] which in the two contexts (overgeneralization), and nine used the two sets of wh-items interchangeably in non-d-linked contexts. Finally, nine of the 22 learners differentiated categorically between d-linked and non-d-linked conditions. That is, they succeeded integrating key elements of discourse in the process of selecting the most felicitous wh-item. The analysis of individual results shows that the integration of syntactic and discourse information can be challenging for some L3ers but it is not insurmountable as the success of the other nine L3ers demonstrate. Therefore, learning difficulty does not necessarily lead to permanent failure. We maintain that the advanced L3ers who had difficulty learning d-linked wh-questions faced a temporary representational problem. D-linking is already active in their L1 and they did not have to establish it anew in the L3 grammar. They needed to develop enough discourse-sensitivity to detect whether context referents were available, and if they existed this would guide their choice of the most felicitous wh-operator, viz. [+wh, +DL] which or [+wh] who/what. Adult (L3) learners can acquire properties relating to the external interface to ultimate success. This squares with previous findings related to the acquisition of external interfaces whether in L2A like Ivanov (2009), Rothman (2009), Slabakova et al. (2012), and Leal Méndez and Slabakova (2014) or in L3A like Slabakova and Garcia Mayo (2015). Concluding her review of the L2 literature on interfaces, White (2011:587) alerted us to the fact that interfaces are not monolithic. That is, not all phenomena at a particular interface are necessarily problematic or necessarily straightforward. Our results support this observation. 8. Conclusion This study investigated two constructions that represent narrow syntax and the syntax--discourse interface: quantificational (non-d-linked) and d-linked wh-questions. The learners were L1 Moroccan Arabic--L2 French adults at the intermediate and advanced levels of L3 English. The results of a forced multiple-choice elicitation task with contexts indicated that the intermediate L3ers used the two constructions in free variation, which we expected considering their proficiency level. As for the advanced L3ers, their performance disconfirms the IH. They were nativelike on external interface discourse-linked wh-questions but diverged from the native performance on non-interface quantificational questions. This study aligns L3ers with L2ers with respect to the acquisition of interface properties. We offered a syntactic account using data of an offline measure to disconfirm the IH. Needless to say that more research is required using trilingual learners with nativelike proficiency in L2 French. Hence, we would see if nonfacilitative L1 transfer would still override facilitative L2 knowledge in the acquisition of external interfaces in L3A. Appendix. Experimental task
D-linked wh-question At the museum, my class saw paintings by Monet and Dali. But everyone liked those of Picasso. ________ did the class admire? (which paintings -- what) Jamel likes to play soccer with his friends. But his favorite pastime is chess. ________ does Jamel prefer to play? (what -- which game) Kamal always brings his textbook to class. However, yesterday he left his workbook at home. ________ did Kamal forget yesterday? (what -- which book) Alex often buys packaged food but rarely fresh food. He wants to eat healthy but he needs money.
5 The scores of the controls are not unprecedented. Previous studies found that interface properties were challenging even for native speakers whose performances showed optionality (e.g. Paradis and Navarro, 2003; Lozano, 2006; Valenzuela, 2005; Belletti et al., 2007).
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
9
________ does Alex find cheaper? (what -- which food) Charlie Chaplin, Woody Allen and Eddie Murphy are comedian actors. ________ does your grandmother admire? (who -- which actor) Anna has pairs of sports shoes, boots and sandals. Winter has started. ________ will Anna wear for cold in winter? (what -- which shoes) The Pyramids, the Coliseum and the Eiffel Tower are among the Seven Wonders of the world. ________ do tourists visit most? (what -- which monument) Non-d-linked wh-question John told his son Tom to watch a documentary on wildlife. But he didn’t. ________ did Tom have to watch? (which documentary -- what) A travel agent rents cars for foreign tourists going to the countryside. ________ does the agent rent cars for? (which people -- who) Alex promised that he would invite his teacher to the party. ________ would Alex invite? (who -- which person) At a wedding party, Fred talked to all the guests except a lady. ________ did Fred ignore? (which person -- who) Jack told his mom that he met his aunt at the theatre. ________ did Jack see at the theatre? (who -- which person) At school, Liz was very frustrated as she failed her final exams. ________ did Liz fail? (what -- which tests) Ken wants Nancy to watch a documentary but she is not interested. ________ should Nancy watch? (what -- which movie)
References Androulakis, A., 1998. Wh- and direct object clitics revisited. In: Joseph, B.D., Horrocks, G.C., Philippaki-Warburton, I. (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 131--167. Belletti, A., Bennati, E., Sorace, A., 2007. Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: evidence from near-native Italian. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 25 (4), 657--689. Boeckx, C., Grohmann, K., 2004. SubMove: towards a unified account of scrambling and D-Linking. In: Adger, D., De Cat, C., Tsoulas, G. (Eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their Effects. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 241--257. Chomsky, N., 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D., Urigareka, J. (Eds.), Steps by Steps: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 89--155. Chomsky, N., 2001. Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Halle: A Life in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 1--52. Donaldson, B., 2011. Left-dislocation in near-native French. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 33, 399--432. Donaldson, B., 2012. Syntax and discourse in near-native French: clefts and focus. Lang. Learn. 62, 902--930. Fassi Fehri, A., 1982. Linguistique arabe: Forme et interprétation. Publications de la Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, Rabat. Garcia Mayo, M., Rothman, J., 2012. L3 Morphosyntax in the generative tradition: the initial stages and beyond. In: Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., Rothman, J. (Eds.), Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 9--32. Grohmann, K.K., 2006. Top issues in questions: topics, topicalization and topicality. In: Cheng, L.L.-S., Corver, N. (Eds.), Wh-Movement: Moving on. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 249--288. Ivanov, I., 2009. Second Language Acquisition of Bulgarian Object Clitics: A Test Case for the Interface Hypothesis (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Iowa. Jackendoff, R., 2002. Foundations of Language. OUP, Oxford. Lardiere, D., 2009. Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Lang. Res. 25 (2), 173--227. Leal Méndez, T., Slabakova, R., 2014. The Interpretability Hypothesis again: a partial replication of Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007). Int. J. Biling. 18 (6), 537--557. Lozano, C., 2003. Focus, Pronouns and Word Order in the Acquisition of L2 and L3 Spanish (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Essex, England. Lozano, C., 2006. Focus and split intransitivity: the acquisition of word order alternations and unaccusativity in L2 Spanish. Second Lang. Res. 22, 145--187. Paradis, J., Navarro, S., 2003. What is the role of the input? J. Child Lang. 30, 1--23. Parodi, T., 2009. Clitic doubling and clitic left dislocation in Spanish and Greek L2 grammars. In: Snape, N., Leung, Y.-K.I., Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.), Representational Deficits in SLA: Studies in Honor of Roger Hawkins. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 167--185. Pesetsky, D., 1987. Wh-in situ: movement and unselective binding. In: Reuland, E.J., Ter Meulen, A.G.B. (Eds.), The Representation of (In) definiteness. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 98--129. Pesetsky, D., 2000. Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Pollock, J.-Y., 1997. Langage et cognition: Introduction au programme minimaliste de la grammaire générative. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. Ramchand, G., Reiss, C., 2007. Introduction. In: Ramchand, G., Reiss, C. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. OUP, Oxford, pp. 1--7.
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
10
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
Rothman, J., 2009. Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax--pragmatics interface. J. Pragmat. 41 (5), 951--973. 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. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 372--393. Schlenker, P., 2016. The semantics--pragmatics interface. In: Aloni, M., Dekker, P. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 664--727. Slabakova, R., 2006. Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Lang. Res. 22 (3), 302--338. Slabakova, R., 2008. Meaning in the Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Slabakova, R., 2016. The Scalpel Model of third language acquisition. Int. J. Biling.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006916655413 Slabakova, R., Garcia Mayo, M., 2015. The L3 syntax--discourse interface. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 18, 208--226. Slabakova, R., Ivanov, I., 2011. A more careful look at the syntax--discourse interface. Lingua 121 (4), 637--651. 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 Lang. Res. 28 (3), 319--343. Sorace, A., 2003. Near-nativeness. In: Long, M., Doughty, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 130--151. Sorace, A., 2005. Selective optionality in language development. In: Cornips, L., Corrigan, K.P. (Eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 55--80. Sorace, A., 2006. Gradedness and optionality in mature and developing grammars. In: Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Vogel, R., Schlesewsky, M. (Eds.), Gradience in Grammar. OUP, Oxford, pp. 106--123. Sorace, A., 2011. Pinning down the concept of ‘‘interface’’ in bilingualism. Linguist. Approach. Biling. 1, 1--34. Sorace, A., 2012. Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism: a reply to peer commentaries. Linguist. Approach. Biling. 1, 209--217. Sorace, A., Filiaci, F., 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Lang. Res. 22, 339--368. Sorace, A., Serratrice, L., 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: beyond structural overlap. Int. J. Biling. 13, 195--210. Tsimpli, I., Dimitrakopoulou, M., 2007. The Interpretability Hypothesis: evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Lang. Res. 23, 215--242. Tsimpli, I., 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 BUCLD. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, pp. 653--664. 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, Canada. White, L., 2003. On the nature of interlanguage representations: Universal Grammar in the second language. In: Doughty, C., Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 19--42. White, L., 2011. Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua 121 (4), 577--590.
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua
Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis Abdelkader Hermas * Université du Québec À Montréal, Canada Received 8 February 2018; received in revised form 24 May 2018; accepted 24 May 2018
Abstract This study tests the Interface Hypothesis in the field of L3 acquisition. The learners are L1 Arabic--L2 French adults at the intermediate and advanced levels in L3 English. A forced multiple-choice written task tests non-d-linked and d-linked wh-questions, representing narrow syntax and the syntax--discourse interface. The intermediate learners of L3 English used the two constructions interchangeably regardless of the context. Comparatively, the advanced L3 learners diverge from the English native speakers on the syntactic construction but converge with them on its interface variant. They show sensitivity to the discourse-appropriateness distinction between d-linked and non-d-linked questions, contra the predictions of the Interface Hypothesis. We maintain that external interface properties such as d-linking are not necessarily destined for permanent representational deficit in the L3. © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: L3 English; wh-Questions; d-Linking; Interface Hypothesis; Syntax--discourse interface
1. Introduction Since the early 2000s, generative research on second language acquisition (L2A) has shifted focus from formal aspects of core syntax to its interfaces. According to Jackendoff (2002) and Ramchand and Reiss (2007), an interface refers to a point of interaction or connection between two or more modules within the grammar (e.g., syntax-semantics) or between these modules and other aspects of cognition (e.g., syntax-attention/processing). An influential account of language interfaces in L2A is Sorace's Interface Hypothesis (e.g., Sorace, 2005, 2006, 2011). It claims that delayed acquisition, learning difficulties and even permanent failure are characteristics of interface properties in the ultimate attainment of adult L2A. This study aims to test the predictive power of the hypothesis in third language acquisition (L3A). We investigate in L3 English the acquisition of a construction at the interface between discourse and syntax: discourselinked wh-questions. Since investigating knowledge of syntax--discourse presupposes well-established syntax in the L3 interlanguage, we consider quantificational (non-discourse-linked) wh-questions as well. The learners are adult L1 Arabic--L2 French bilinguals at the intermediate and advanced levels of L3 English. Garcia Mayo and Rothman (2012) and Rothman et al. (2013) point out that most work within L3A has focused on morphosyntax in the initial stages and the involvement of L1/L2 transfer, admitting the scarcity of studies on L3 advanced stages. It is time to complete the picture and consider the advanced stage if we want a better coverage of the field
* Correspondence to: Pavillon J.-A. De Sève, DS-3405 320, rue Sainte-Catherine est. Montréal (Québec) H2X 1L7, Canada. E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004 0024-3841/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
2
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
(Slabakova, 2016). This study expands the scope of L3 research beyond the acquisition of formal grammar and adds a new population of trilinguals to the literature on interfaces. We investigate whether discourse-linked wh-questions present some form of permanent deficiency, as the Interface Hypothesis predicts, or whether they are ultimately acquirable, as is claimed for other aspects of formal syntax. This article is structured as follows. The next section expands on interfaces and the IH. Section 3 reviews contrasting interpretations of the difficulty related to the syntax--discourse interface in the L2 and the L3. Two proposals are addressed: a representational vs. a processing account. Section 4 describes the tested structures, d-linked and non-dlinked wh-questions. Section 5 presents the empirical study followed by the results and discussion in Sections 6 and 7 and finally a highlight of the findings in the conclusion. 2. Language interfaces and the Interface Hypothesis In the acquisition literature, an interface is generally defined as a point where a module of the linguistic system interacts with another one or with other cognitive modules. There are two types. Internal interfaces describe connections between different modules of grammar such as the interface between syntax and semantics or morphology and phonology. For example, the articles a/the are elements of morphology, but in semantics they may have an existential interpretation referring to a specific entity or a generic one referring to a set of entities or kind. External interfaces involve these modules in contact with grammar-external components like syntax--discourse or semantics--pragmatics. For instance, in scalar implicature, pragmatic inferences relating to quantifiers such as none, some, and all do not depend on their semantic meaning only but are also derived from the assumption that the speaker obeys certain rules of behavior typically dictated by rationality (Schlenker, 2016). The Interface Hypothesis (IH) was proposed to account for non-native attainment in the L2 endstate, with particular emphasis on near-native grammar. The original proposal (e.g., Sorace, 2003, 2005, 2006) claims the relative ease of learning narrow syntax compared to interface syntax which is claimed to be more vulnerable to different types of nonnativeness (indeterminacy, optionality or long-term L1 effects). However, further research suggested that not all interfaces were equally vulnerable. For example, Slabakova (2006, 2008) discusses properties at the syntax-semantics interface that are successfully acquired in the L2. A refinement of the IH introduces a distinction between internal interfaces and external ones and proposes that the latter are more difficult to learn than the former (Sorace, 2011, 2012; Sorace and Filiaci, 2006; Sorace and Serratrice, 2009; Tsimpli and Sorace, 2006). This implies that a syntax-semantics phenomenon like pre/post-nominal adjective interpretation in L2 Spanish is expected to resist learning according to the first version of the IH but becomes unproblematic in the second. However, in both versions, the property we test, d-linking, belongs to the external syntax--discourse interface and so would present some form of permanent non-nativeness in the L2 grammar. Sorace and colleagues have considered external interfaces to be the main locus of learning difficulties, which take the form of delays in L1 acquisition, failure in bilingual and L2A, or indeterminacy and residual optionality at near-native levels. The current version of the IH attributes the difficulties to computational/processing rather than representational matters. In particular, to handle an interface phenomenon, even if learners have acquired the grammatical representation, they need an efficient processing ability that allow them to assess extra-linguistic (context/discourse) information, access the appropriate representation and then integrate everything in a felicitous output. The following section presents two different positions. One interprets problematic external interfaces as failure at the representational level. The other supports Sorace and colleagues’ account that problems have a processing origin due to the task of integrating elements distributed over different modules. 3. Syntax--discourse interface in LnA Empirical studies in L2A have reported that properties at the syntax--discourse interface are generally liable to developmental delays, but findings have been inconclusive. Some support permanent failure or a representational deficit in the endstate (e.g., Belletti et al., 2007; Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou, 2007; Valenzuela, 2005) while others argue for ultimate success and attribute non-target-like performance to processing defects (Donaldson, 2011, 2012; Ivanov, 2009; Leal Méndez and Slabakova, 2014; Rothman, 2009; Slabakova et al., 2012). We review two L2 studies on d-linking, namely Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) and Leal Méndez and Slabakova (2014), in addition to two others on interface properties in L3A, namely Lozano (2003) and Slabakova and Garcia Mayo (2015). We start with Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) who studied d-linked wh-interrogatives in L2A. They maintained that adult learners could not attain nativelike competence. They tested a group of L1 Greek speakers intermediate and advanced in L2 English using a bi-modal (aural and written) paced acceptability judgment task with animacy, d-linking, syntactic function (subject vs. object) and presence/absence of the complementizer as conditions. The tested items were decontextualized embedded questions. It was predicted that resumptive pronouns or clitics would be impossible to Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
3
abandon in L2 English since they encoded the uninterpretable features of case and agreement in L1 Greek. The L2ers would accept subject and object resumptives in the L2. However, the interpretable features of animacy and d-linking, active in L1 Greek, would have a ‘compensatory’ facilitative effect and reduce the acceptability of illicit resumptives in the extraction site like in the L2ers’ native language. The results showed that the two learner groups diverged significantly from the English natives. They accepted (illicit) resumptive pronouns at high rates in subject and object wh-interrogatives. Additionally, the advanced L2ers judged objects more accurately than subject resumptives. Resumptive pronouns were deemed highly acceptable in the subject position, a finding attributed to L1 Greek transfer. Moreover, the L2ers judged animate resumptive wh-interrogatives more accurately (i.e., high rejection rates) than inanimate resumptive ones. This was interpreted to reflect the facilitative effect of the interpretable feature of animacy. Regarding the effect of d-linking, the advanced L2ers incorrectly accepted more resumptives associated with a d-linked wh-phrase in the object condition. As in Greek, d-linking increased significantly the acceptability of object resumptives in L2 English. Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) concluded that the interpretable features of animacy and d-linking compensated for the ‘unacquirable’ uninterpretable case and agreement features by helping the L2ers reduce the non-target resumptive use of the L2 pronouns. However, they never performed in a nativelike way (Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou, 2007, p. 237). Leal Méndez and Slabakova (2014) partially replicated the study and maintained the opposite stance. There were two groups of L2ers advanced in English: one group accepted resumptive pronouns in their L1 Spanish and the other did not. Contra Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007), both L2 groups rejected ungrammatical resumptive subject/object wh-questions in L2 English comparably to the controls, in spite of residual L1 effects. Leal Méndez and Slabakova (2014) also examined the facilitative impact of animacy and d-linking. Their results confirmed the effect of animacy observed in Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007). Wh-questions were rejected more when used with the resumptive of an animate referent than with an inanimate one. The effect of d-linking was not attested, however. The L2ers were not more accurate with d-linked than non-d-linked resumptive pronouns. For both features, the advanced L2ers converged with the English controls. As regards within-group comparisons, the three groups made a significant contrast between the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Even the L2ers whose L1 tolerates resumptives accepted gapped wh-questions and rejected the resumptive variants like the English controls. The distinction between gapped and resumptive wh-questions was not affected by animacy or d-linking. Leal Méndez and Slabakova (2014) concluded that the ungrammatical status of resumptive wh-questions was acquirable in L2A; they were eventually replaced by gapped wh-questions. They pointed out that their findings differed from Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) probably due to their L2ers’ higher proficiency and the use of contextualized instead of isolated test items. We add that their task was not paced, which means that the L2ers were not under time pressure to respond. We look now at the L3 scene, considering two studies on external interfaces which illustrate two contrasting views of the nature of L3 ultimate attainment. Lozano (2003) supports L3 permanent failure while Slabakova and Garcia Mayo (2015) defend successful acquisition. Lozano (2003) investigated advanced L3 Spanish in L1 Greek adults who were advanced in L2 English. The study tested focus in terms of overt/null pronominal subjects and SV/VS word order. The two phenomena are constrained by universal principles as well as language-specific constraints that govern the distribution of overt and null (pronominal) subjects in null subject languages. The distribution of pronominal subjects is regulated by the Contrastive Focus Constraint (CFC), operative in Greek and Spanish but not in English (L1 ≠ L2, L1 = L3). SV/VS word order is constrained by the Presentational Focus Constraint (PFC), active in Spanish but not in Greek and English (L1 = L2 ≠ L3). The results of an acceptability judgment task indicated that the L3ers had no difficulty with the universal principles, as expected. However, they diverged from the native norm on the parametric discourse constraints not previously activated in the L1. Specifically, the L1 Greek--L2 English learners of L3 Spanish converged with the Spanish controls on pronoun distribution regulated by the CFC active in L1 Greek (L1 ≠ L2, L1 = L3) but diverged from them on SV/VS word order regulated by the PFC because the constraint regulating the sequence in L3 Spanish is not active in the L3ers’ native Greek (L1 = L2 ≠ L3). Lozano (2003:245--246) concluded that the L1 had an irreversible negative effect on parametric properties in the L3 endstate if these were not previously operative in the L1 while the L2 was of no use even when it patterned with the L3. Lozano (2003) supported a representational deficit account of the syntax--discourse interface in L3A. Slabakova and Garcia Mayo (2015) found the opposite in L3 English. The study tested the IH by investigating the acquisition of topicalization, focus fronting and left dislocation in root clauses. The learners were adult Basque-Spanish bilinguals advanced in the L3: a group of Basque-Spanish bilinguals dominant in Basque and another of Basque-Spanish bilinguals dominant in Spanish. They had to rate the acceptability of contextualized audio sentences. The data provided evidence against the IH and arguments for both facilitative and non-facilitative transfer in the L3. The authors were cautious about interpreting the data of left dislocation (English = Spanish ≠ Basque). The L3ers and the Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
4
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
English natives were rather tolerant of illicit left dislocated tokens lacking clitic pronouns. Concerning focus fronting (English = Spanish = Basque), the L3ers and the English controls differentiated between acceptable and unacceptable sentences. For topicalization (English = Basque ≠ Spanish), it is concluded that Spanish, whether an L1 or L2, had a negative effect on the L3. Nonetheless, individual results provided evidence for ultimate success. The IH predicted residual optionality for both similar and dissimilar constructions due to processing difficulties. However, the L3ers performed in a nativelike way on focus fronting due to facilitative transfer. For topicalization, the majority of the L3ers were not able to overcome L1 or L2 non-facilitative transfer. For left dislocation, where Spanish is similar to English, the L3ers seemed to have some advantage. In summary, in an extensive review of the L2 literature on interfaces, White (2011) concludes that we should be cautious about assuming that external interfaces are necessarily problematic or unproblematic for the L2er. The author points out that different linguistic properties pertaining to the same interface do not necessarily behave similarly.1 Acquisition failure is not inevitable. Variation in results across the studies is due in part to differences in methodologies or to the range of linguistic aspects involved in a single tested phenomenon (Slabakova and Ivanov, 2011). White (2011) warns that the IH has sometimes been interpreted in a manner that is too sweeping and calls for a more nuanced approach. In this respect, we provide empirical evidence that highlights the limits of such interpretations and even shows that an interface construction (d-linked questions) can be easier to learn than its formal equivalent (quantificational questions). 4. Linguistic background We examine root wh-questions in English. We also describe the constructions in French, the learners’ L2. The two languages form d-linked ([+DL]) and non-d-linked ([ DL]) interrogatives using the gap strategy. On the other hand, Moroccan Arabic (MA), a null subject language, uses two different strategies: the movement strategy in non-d-linked questions and the resumptive strategy in d-linked variants. English, French and MA form [ DL] wh-interrogatives by raising the wh-phrase from its base position to SpecCP. Here is a simplified representation: (1) [SpecCPWhati [C’did Mary take ti yesterday]]? According to Chomsky (2000, 2001), there is an agreement relationship between the interrogative C carrying an unvalued uninterpretable wh-feature [uwh] and the wh-phrase with a matching interpretable feature [+wh]. The agreement between the two elements is established by raising the wh-phrase into SpecCP. The EPP feature of C requires this movement. The same derivation applies to non-d-linked questions in MA and French (Fassi Fehri, 1982:119, n. 16; Pollock, 1997:188): (2) a. [SpecCP ʔasˇ i [C’ [TP zar Ali ti]]]? MA what visited.3MS Ali ‘What did Ali visit?’ b. [SpecCP Quii [C’ as-tu vu ti]]? Fr. Who have-you seen ‘Who did you see?’ As far as d-linked wh-questions are concerned, English uses a distinct wh-phrase, which (+NP). French patterns with English and uses quel (+NP) or its gender-number agreeing variants: (3) a. Which cityi did you visit ti? b. Quelle villei as-tu visitée ti? Fr. which city have-you visited ‘Which city did you visit?’ In (3), the phrase ‘which city’ moves into SpecCP. Pesetsky (1987, 2000) points out that the context restricts the range of felicitous referents of a d-linked wh-phrase (which (NP)) by a reference set that forms the interlocutors’ common ground and from which the appropriate answer is drawn. The referents need not be verbally specified before as long as the
1 More striking is that the same interface property may be differentially acquired by comparable learning groups. An example is Parodi (2009) who tested two groups of L1 English learners advanced in L2 Spanish and L2 Greek. They were tested on topic and CLLD using the same task (grammaticality judgment) but the two groups performed differently. The L2ers of Spanish distinguished between CLLD with definite versus indefinite topics, like the native speakers, whereas the advanced L2ers of Greek failed to do so.
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
5
interlocutors have the same assumptions about the context. Thus, the reference set for which city is the set of all discourse-relevant cities. The question words who and what do not necessarily carry any implication about familiar discourse entities because the reference set for who/what are all humans/places without necessarily linking to a set. Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) propose that which bears the interpretable feature [+DL].2 MA differs from English by using the resumptive strategy to form d-linked questions. This operation merges the wh-item sentence-initially and a corresponding pronoun in the base position: (4) Ali wə Kamal ja-w Ali and Kamal came-3PM. ‘Ali and Kamal came.’ Sˇ kuni tlaqi-ti-hi f-s.suq? who met-2SM-him in.the.market ‘Which did you meet in the market?’ (5) Kayən r-rap wə tekno is the-rap and techno ‘We have rap and techno.’ ʔasˇ i mən musiqa t-ħəb t-smə?-hai? what of music 2SM-like 2SM-listen-it.FEM ‘Which music would you like to listen to?’ Unlike English and French, MA uses the same interrogative words sˇ kun (who) and ʔasˇ (what) used in non-d-linked questions. However, in d-linked interrogatives, they are additionally specified for the interpretable feature [+DL], implying the existence of a set of contextually-determined entities (men, music types) from which the speaker is asking for a choice. These wh-phrases are not extracted like in English but externally merged in SpecCP while a matching resumptive clitic pronoun occupies the base position. Fassi Fehri (1982) states that the resumptive pronoun is licit only with a d-linked whexpression and that the context conditions its use. Feature checking is accomplished by the operation Merge, not Move. In summary, English and French uses a single wh-interrogative configuration where the wh-phrase, d-linked or non-dlinked, is fronted leaving a gap. The two constructions are superficially similar, but underlyingly, d-linked wh-phrases bear an extra interface feature [+DL] and are context-bound while non-d-linked exponents carry only the formal feature [+wh] and are discourse-free. Comparatively, MA uses two different structures. A non-d-linked question is derived by whmovement and a gap. A d-linked question is formed by merging a wh-phrase sentence-initially and a resumptive in the base. In terms of feature selection, there are two types of features. [+wh] is formal and uninterpretable and it is essential for the syntactic derivation of non-d-linked questions. [+DL] is an interpretable interface property, and because of its discursive import, affects the interpretive domain. 5. Method 5.1. Predictions for L3 English This study sets out to test the IH in L3A. The hypothesis predicts that the L3ers would have difficulty incorporating discourse information to choose the most felicitous wh-expression (which+N) for d-linked contexts in L3 English, even at an advanced proficiency level. In contrast, learning non-d-linked wh-questions would be straightforward since they are not a property of external interfaces. While we expect some degree of difficulty affecting the d-linking condition, this should not amount to permanent failure among the advanced L3ers. 5.2. Participants Fifty subjects participated in this study, including a control group of 12 native speakers of American English (mean age 31.7 years) and two experimental groups of L3 learners of English whose L1 was Moroccan Arabic. The intermediate L3er group comprised 16 participants with a mean age of 18.2 years. They started learning L2 French and L3 English as compulsory subjects at school at the ages of 8 and 15 respectively. Their level in the L2 is intermediate to post-
2 Androulakis (1998:158), Boeckx and Grohmann (2004:253) and Grohmann (2006) propose that d-linked wh-phrases are wh-topics. If this interpretation is on the right track, non-d-linked wh-interrogatives would have a quantificational interpretation (narrow syntax) while d-linked ones bear a topic interpretation (syntax--discource interface).
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
Table 1 Performance in non-d-linked interrogatives (percentages, with n in parentheses).
L3 intermediates L3 advanced EngNS
Target (who/what)
Non-target (which)
Both options
62.50% (70/112) 59.74% (92/154) 86.90% (73/84)
37.50% (42/112) 37.01% (57/154) 11.90% (10/84)
0% (0/112) 3.24% (5/154) 1.19% (1/84)
intermediate (proficiency score range 26--40 over 50) while they are intermediate in the L3 (proficiency score range 21--30 over 50) according to the grammar-oriented Oxford placement tests for the two languages.3 The L3 advanced group had 22 members with a similar language and school background (mean age 36.7 years). Their level in the L2 is postintermediate to advanced (score range 36--48) while they are all advanced in the L3 (score range 41--49). The learning context is English as a foreign language. 5.3. Instrument There were two written forced-choice elicitation tasks A and B. We tested two conditions: d-linked and non-d-linked root questions. All the wh-expressions were object arguments. They were also preceded by contexts that the L3ers needed to take into consideration and analyze their components when they selected d-linked or non-d-linked whexpressions (which vs. who/what). There were seven sentences per condition embedded under an appropriate context for a total of 14 (see Appendix). The task also included 32 contextualized items testing article usage, which we do not report on here. The participants were instructed to pay attention to preceding contexts and were told that these could influence their answers. They had to circle a d-linked wh-phrase, a non-d-linked one, or both options. Each group completed the two tasks, with half of the members starting with task A and the other half with task B for counterbalancing. The full list of the items is in the appendix. Here are two examples of d-linked and non-d-linked items: (6) D-linked wh-question: At the museum, my class saw paintings by Monet and Dali. But everyone liked those of Picasso. Question: ________ did the class admire? (which paintings -- what) (7) Non-d-linked wh-question: John told his son Tom to watch a documentary on wildlife. But he didn’t. Question: ________ did Tom have to watch? (which documentary -- what)
6. Results Table 1 displays the results of the non-d-linked condition. It shows how often the participant selected ‘who/what’ vs. ‘which N’ in raw scores and percentages. The scores were calculated by multiplying the number of test items per condition (7 items) by the number of participants in each group. The experimental design had one between-subjects variable (GROUP), with three levels (English controls, intermediate and advanced L3ers) and one within-subjects variable (CONDITION), with two values (d-linked and non-d-linked questions). The dependent variable was the total of the target answers. A one-way ANOVA performed on the non-d-linked data revealed a highly significant main effect of GROUP on CONDITION, (F(2, 47) = 10.26, p < .001, r = .55). Post hoc Bonferroni showed significant intergroup differences between the English controls and each of the L3er groups ( p < .01), who performed comparably ( p > .05). Within-group comparisons with a paired-samples t-test confirm that the three groups distinguish significantly between the target usage of who/what and the non-target usage of which in non-d-linked wh-questions. That is, they do not treat them interchangeably. The t values are as follows: for the intermediate L3ers, [t(15) = 3.42, p = .004], for the advanced
3
http://www.lang.ox.ac.uk/tests/ (French and English tests).
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
Table 2 Performance in d-linked interrogatives (percentages, with n in parentheses).
L3 intermediates L3 advanced EngNS
Target (which)
Non-target (who/what)
Both options
53.57% (60/112) 87.01% (134/154) 84.52% (71/84)
46.42% (52/112) 11.68% (18/154) 13.09% (11/84)
0% (0/112) 1.29% (2/154) 2.38% (2/84)
L3ers [t(21) = 2.60, p = .017], and for the English natives [t(11) = 11.35, p < .001]. Even though there is a substantial degree of infelicitous usage of [+DL] which in non-d-linked contexts among the L3ers (37.50% for the intermediates and 37.01% for the advanced), they strongly prefer the more appropriate quantified wh-words in these contexts. White (2003) points out that establishing a significant difference between the target and non-target properties is more revealing of the learners’ acquisition progress than comparing their performance with that of the native speakers. The data of the d-linked condition are in Table 2. A one-way ANOVA indicated a highly significant effect among the three groups (F(2, 47) = 23.1, p < .001, r = .7). Post hoc Bonferroni revealed significant differences between the intermediate L3ers and each of the other two groups ( p < .001). On the other hand, the advanced L3ers’ performance was similar to that of the English controls ( p = 1). Using paired-samples t-tests, within-group comparisons showed that the intermediate L3ers did not yet establish the distinction between the felicitous usage of [+DL] which in d-linked questions and the inappropriate usage of [ DL] who and what, [t(15) = .71, p > .05]. Comparatively, the advanced L3ers and the English controls did, [t(21) = 14.83, p < .001] and [t(11) = 8.47, p < .001] respectively. This clearly indicates that the [+DL] and [ DL] wh-words do not alternate freely in the two groups’ grammars. That is, they treat d-linked and non-d-linked wh-constructions categorically. 7. Discussion In light of the data analysis, we consider the learning predictions repeated for convenience: According to the IH, the L3ers would have difficulty incorporating discourse information in order to choose the most felicitous wh-expression (which+N) for d-linked contexts in L3 English, even at an advanced proficiency level. Comparatively, learning non-d-linked wh-questions would be straightforward since it is not an interface property. Contra the IH prediction, we obtained the reverse scenario: the advanced L3ers of English converged with the native speakers on the d-linked condition (external interface) and diverged from them on the non-d-linked equivalent (narrow syntax). Thus, their acquisition of d-linking and quantification/non-d-linking was asymmetric but in the opposite direction of what the IH would predict. Furthermore, the data demonstrates that the acquisition of non-interface knowledge, viz. quantificational wh-questions, is not a prerequisite for the acquisition of interface constructions, viz. syntax--discourse. As for the intermediate L3ers, their attainment fell short of the target performance in both constructions, which is expected considering their limited level. With regard to the non-interface syntactic construction, non-d-linked wh-questions, the advanced L3ers’ score was 59.74% accuracy, which is comparable to the intermediate L3ers but far short of the English native speakers. The advanced L3ers used the [+DL] which in non-d-linked contexts 37.01% of the times, a substantial rate of infelicitous usage. This is not unprecedented since the L2 literature reports that several morpho-syntactic properties may not be fully acquired, e.g., Lardiere (2009). Since d-linking in English is a property of some wh-exponents but not others, the L3er has to map the feature [+DL] exclusively to the exponent which+N. However, many L3ers either (1) misinterpreted the contexts, misusing which+N in non-d-linked constructions, or (2) wrongly mapping the interpretive feature [+DL] with the formal feature [+wh] on the wrong quantificational hosts who/what. The learning difficulty with non-d-linked questions may be due to L1 non-facilitative influence. Specifically, while the three languages use the same computation (wh-movement), they differ on the operators that move. English and French have specific wh-items (who/what) for non-d-linked questions while MA uses the same set of exponents whether the question is d-linked or non-d-linked. Therefore, the L3ers continued to use English wh-items indiscriminately in non-d-linked questions the way they did in their L1.4
4 One reviewer rightly remarks that the learners’ difficulty with quantificational wh-questions disconfirms the claim of some L3 models predicting facilitative transfer of the L2 (and L1) into the L3. We cannot venture into the debate of the L2 role because the learners’ proficiency in French varies from post-intermediate to advanced and we did not test them in the L2, a limitation we concede. It can be objected that nativelike proficiency in the L2 is a prerequisite to induce L2 facilitative transfer.
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
8
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
The advanced L3ers performed comparably to the English speakers on the d-linked condition scoring 87.01% accuracy. Contra the IH, the external (syntax--discourse) interface is not destined for failure more than other internal interfaces or even purely formal aspects of the language. The advanced L3ers’ inappropriate use of [ DL] wh-items in d-linked contexts is limited to 11.68%, similar to the native controls.5 It is worth noting that L1 transfer cannot be facilitative because MA uses resumptive pronouns in the base position of a d-linked question and base-generate the same wh-items used in non-d-linked questions. It is unlikely that L2 knowledge played a facilitative role considering the learners’ limited (post-intermediate to advanced) L2 proficiency. To ascertain that group performance is not due to the achievement of a minority of L3ers, we analyzed the individual results of the L3 advanced. Following the analysis, 12 of the 22 advanced learners had the following non-target answers: one overused [ DL] who/what, three overused [+DL] which in the two contexts (overgeneralization), and nine used the two sets of wh-items interchangeably in non-d-linked contexts. Finally, nine of the 22 learners differentiated categorically between d-linked and non-d-linked conditions. That is, they succeeded integrating key elements of discourse in the process of selecting the most felicitous wh-item. The analysis of individual results shows that the integration of syntactic and discourse information can be challenging for some L3ers but it is not insurmountable as the success of the other nine L3ers demonstrate. Therefore, learning difficulty does not necessarily lead to permanent failure. We maintain that the advanced L3ers who had difficulty learning d-linked wh-questions faced a temporary representational problem. D-linking is already active in their L1 and they did not have to establish it anew in the L3 grammar. They needed to develop enough discourse-sensitivity to detect whether context referents were available, and if they existed this would guide their choice of the most felicitous wh-operator, viz. [+wh, +DL] which or [+wh] who/what. Adult (L3) learners can acquire properties relating to the external interface to ultimate success. This squares with previous findings related to the acquisition of external interfaces whether in L2A like Ivanov (2009), Rothman (2009), Slabakova et al. (2012), and Leal Méndez and Slabakova (2014) or in L3A like Slabakova and Garcia Mayo (2015). Concluding her review of the L2 literature on interfaces, White (2011:587) alerted us to the fact that interfaces are not monolithic. That is, not all phenomena at a particular interface are necessarily problematic or necessarily straightforward. Our results support this observation. 8. Conclusion This study investigated two constructions that represent narrow syntax and the syntax--discourse interface: quantificational (non-d-linked) and d-linked wh-questions. The learners were L1 Moroccan Arabic--L2 French adults at the intermediate and advanced levels of L3 English. The results of a forced multiple-choice elicitation task with contexts indicated that the intermediate L3ers used the two constructions in free variation, which we expected considering their proficiency level. As for the advanced L3ers, their performance disconfirms the IH. They were nativelike on external interface discourse-linked wh-questions but diverged from the native performance on non-interface quantificational questions. This study aligns L3ers with L2ers with respect to the acquisition of interface properties. We offered a syntactic account using data of an offline measure to disconfirm the IH. Needless to say that more research is required using trilingual learners with nativelike proficiency in L2 French. Hence, we would see if nonfacilitative L1 transfer would still override facilitative L2 knowledge in the acquisition of external interfaces in L3A. Appendix. Experimental task
D-linked wh-question At the museum, my class saw paintings by Monet and Dali. But everyone liked those of Picasso. ________ did the class admire? (which paintings -- what) Jamel likes to play soccer with his friends. But his favorite pastime is chess. ________ does Jamel prefer to play? (what -- which game) Kamal always brings his textbook to class. However, yesterday he left his workbook at home. ________ did Kamal forget yesterday? (what -- which book) Alex often buys packaged food but rarely fresh food. He wants to eat healthy but he needs money.
5 The scores of the controls are not unprecedented. Previous studies found that interface properties were challenging even for native speakers whose performances showed optionality (e.g. Paradis and Navarro, 2003; Lozano, 2006; Valenzuela, 2005; Belletti et al., 2007).
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
9
________ does Alex find cheaper? (what -- which food) Charlie Chaplin, Woody Allen and Eddie Murphy are comedian actors. ________ does your grandmother admire? (who -- which actor) Anna has pairs of sports shoes, boots and sandals. Winter has started. ________ will Anna wear for cold in winter? (what -- which shoes) The Pyramids, the Coliseum and the Eiffel Tower are among the Seven Wonders of the world. ________ do tourists visit most? (what -- which monument) Non-d-linked wh-question John told his son Tom to watch a documentary on wildlife. But he didn’t. ________ did Tom have to watch? (which documentary -- what) A travel agent rents cars for foreign tourists going to the countryside. ________ does the agent rent cars for? (which people -- who) Alex promised that he would invite his teacher to the party. ________ would Alex invite? (who -- which person) At a wedding party, Fred talked to all the guests except a lady. ________ did Fred ignore? (which person -- who) Jack told his mom that he met his aunt at the theatre. ________ did Jack see at the theatre? (who -- which person) At school, Liz was very frustrated as she failed her final exams. ________ did Liz fail? (what -- which tests) Ken wants Nancy to watch a documentary but she is not interested. ________ should Nancy watch? (what -- which movie)
References Androulakis, A., 1998. Wh- and direct object clitics revisited. In: Joseph, B.D., Horrocks, G.C., Philippaki-Warburton, I. (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 131--167. Belletti, A., Bennati, E., Sorace, A., 2007. Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: evidence from near-native Italian. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 25 (4), 657--689. Boeckx, C., Grohmann, K., 2004. SubMove: towards a unified account of scrambling and D-Linking. In: Adger, D., De Cat, C., Tsoulas, G. (Eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their Effects. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 241--257. Chomsky, N., 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D., Urigareka, J. (Eds.), Steps by Steps: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 89--155. Chomsky, N., 2001. Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Halle: A Life in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 1--52. Donaldson, B., 2011. Left-dislocation in near-native French. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 33, 399--432. Donaldson, B., 2012. Syntax and discourse in near-native French: clefts and focus. Lang. Learn. 62, 902--930. Fassi Fehri, A., 1982. Linguistique arabe: Forme et interprétation. Publications de la Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, Rabat. Garcia Mayo, M., Rothman, J., 2012. L3 Morphosyntax in the generative tradition: the initial stages and beyond. In: Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., Rothman, J. (Eds.), Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 9--32. Grohmann, K.K., 2006. Top issues in questions: topics, topicalization and topicality. In: Cheng, L.L.-S., Corver, N. (Eds.), Wh-Movement: Moving on. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 249--288. Ivanov, I., 2009. Second Language Acquisition of Bulgarian Object Clitics: A Test Case for the Interface Hypothesis (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Iowa. Jackendoff, R., 2002. Foundations of Language. OUP, Oxford. Lardiere, D., 2009. Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Lang. Res. 25 (2), 173--227. Leal Méndez, T., Slabakova, R., 2014. The Interpretability Hypothesis again: a partial replication of Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007). Int. J. Biling. 18 (6), 537--557. Lozano, C., 2003. Focus, Pronouns and Word Order in the Acquisition of L2 and L3 Spanish (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Essex, England. Lozano, C., 2006. Focus and split intransitivity: the acquisition of word order alternations and unaccusativity in L2 Spanish. Second Lang. Res. 22, 145--187. Paradis, J., Navarro, S., 2003. What is the role of the input? J. Child Lang. 30, 1--23. Parodi, T., 2009. Clitic doubling and clitic left dislocation in Spanish and Greek L2 grammars. In: Snape, N., Leung, Y.-K.I., Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.), Representational Deficits in SLA: Studies in Honor of Roger Hawkins. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 167--185. Pesetsky, D., 1987. Wh-in situ: movement and unselective binding. In: Reuland, E.J., Ter Meulen, A.G.B. (Eds.), The Representation of (In) definiteness. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 98--129. Pesetsky, D., 2000. Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Pollock, J.-Y., 1997. Langage et cognition: Introduction au programme minimaliste de la grammaire générative. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. Ramchand, G., Reiss, C., 2007. Introduction. In: Ramchand, G., Reiss, C. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. OUP, Oxford, pp. 1--7.
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004
+ Models
LINGUA-2613; No. of Pages 10
10
A. Hermas / Lingua xxx (2018) xxx--xxx
Rothman, J., 2009. Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax--pragmatics interface. J. Pragmat. 41 (5), 951--973. 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. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 372--393. Schlenker, P., 2016. The semantics--pragmatics interface. In: Aloni, M., Dekker, P. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 664--727. Slabakova, R., 2006. Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Lang. Res. 22 (3), 302--338. Slabakova, R., 2008. Meaning in the Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Slabakova, R., 2016. The Scalpel Model of third language acquisition. Int. J. Biling.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006916655413 Slabakova, R., Garcia Mayo, M., 2015. The L3 syntax--discourse interface. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 18, 208--226. Slabakova, R., Ivanov, I., 2011. A more careful look at the syntax--discourse interface. Lingua 121 (4), 637--651. 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 Lang. Res. 28 (3), 319--343. Sorace, A., 2003. Near-nativeness. In: Long, M., Doughty, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 130--151. Sorace, A., 2005. Selective optionality in language development. In: Cornips, L., Corrigan, K.P. (Eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 55--80. Sorace, A., 2006. Gradedness and optionality in mature and developing grammars. In: Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Vogel, R., Schlesewsky, M. (Eds.), Gradience in Grammar. OUP, Oxford, pp. 106--123. Sorace, A., 2011. Pinning down the concept of ‘‘interface’’ in bilingualism. Linguist. Approach. Biling. 1, 1--34. Sorace, A., 2012. Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism: a reply to peer commentaries. Linguist. Approach. Biling. 1, 209--217. Sorace, A., Filiaci, F., 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Lang. Res. 22, 339--368. Sorace, A., Serratrice, L., 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: beyond structural overlap. Int. J. Biling. 13, 195--210. Tsimpli, I., Dimitrakopoulou, M., 2007. The Interpretability Hypothesis: evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Lang. Res. 23, 215--242. Tsimpli, I., 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 BUCLD. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, pp. 653--664. 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, Canada. White, L., 2003. On the nature of interlanguage representations: Universal Grammar in the second language. In: Doughty, C., Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 19--42. White, L., 2011. Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua 121 (4), 577--590.
Please cite this article in press as: Hermas, A., Discourse-linking in advanced L3 English: Testing the Interface Hypothesis. Lingua (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.004