Inalienable Possession in L2 Spanish

  • Ana T. Perez-Leroux
  • Erin O’rourke
  • Gillian Lord
  • Beatriz Centeno-Cortes
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 31)

Abstract

The study of second language acquisition is defined by two types of problems: the projection problem and the developmental problem. The projection problem, or poverty of the stimulus problem (Chomsky 1986, Flynn & O’Neill 1988, White 1989, etc.) concerns the question of why learners’ knowledge seems to go beyond experience. To address this problem one must build an account for why certain features of the target grammar are easily or automatically acquired despite limited input and absent from explicit instruction. The developmental problem is the problem of how syntax develops over time: why some properties are acquired earlier, while others take more time (Hawkins 2001). In adult language learning, there are properties of the target grammar are not learned easily or well, despite being robustly represented in the input, and targeted for explicit instruction. In the child literature developmental issues are generally dealt in terms of cognitive and processing constraints on the child capacities. In SLA, developmental explanations vary. Specific cases of imperfect learning have led to questioning of the possibility of parameter resetting in adult SLA (Liceras 1998), and more recently, to questioning the role of the morphology in syntactic development (Epstein et al 1996, Beck 1999).

Keywords

Nash Poss Como Alan Cola 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AlKasey, Tamara, and Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux. 1998. Second language acquisition of Spanish null subjects. In The generative study of second language acquisition, ed. by Suzanne Flynn, Gita Martohardjono and Wayne O’Neil. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Authier, Jean-Marc. 1988. The syntax of unselective binding. Ph.D., University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Balcom, Patricia. 1997. Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research 13:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauw, Sergio 2000. Grammatical features and the acquisition of reference. University of Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, Maria-Louise. 1998. Morphology and its interfaces in second language knowledge. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Butt, John, and Carmen Benjamin. 1988. A new reference grammar of modern Spanish. Lincolnwood, Ill.: NTC Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1993. Principles and Parameters Theory. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Stemefeld and Theo Venneman. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dortrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use.New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dechaine, Rose-Marie, Teun Hoekstra, and Johan Rooryck. 1995. Augmented and non-augmented HAVE. Actes du premier colloque Langues & Grammaire, Paris VIII. ed. by Léa Nash & Georges Tsoulas, 85–101.Google Scholar
  13. Dekydtspotter, Laurent, Rex Sprouse, and Bruce Anderson. 1997. The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: the process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage grammars. Language Acquisition 6:297–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demonte, Violeta. 1991. Detrás de la palabra. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Google Scholar
  15. Dozier, Eleanor, and Zulma Iguina. 1999. Manual de Gramática. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  16. Epstein, Samuel, Suzanne Flynn, and Gita Martohardjono. 1996. Second language acquisition:theoretical and experimental issues. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19:677–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Español-Echeverría, Manuel. 1997. Inalienable possession incopulative contexts and the DP- structure. Lingua 101:211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Espinosa, Aurelio, and John P. Wonder. 1976. Gramática analítica. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and company.Google Scholar
  19. Eubank, Lynn, and Sabine Thépaut Grace. 1998. V-to-I and inflection in non-native grammars. In Morphology and its interfaces in second language knowledge, ed. by Maria Louise Beck. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  20. Flynn, Suzanne, and Wayne O’Neil, eds. 1988. Linguistic theory and second language acquisition. Dortrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Guéron, Jacqueline. 1985. Inalienable possession, PRO-inclusion and lexical chains. In Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  22. Guéron, Jacqueline. 1999. Inalienable possession, ms.Google Scholar
  23. Hawkins, Roger. 2001. Second language syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Hertel, Tammy Jandrey, and Ana T. Pérez-Leroux. 1999. The second language acquisition of Spanish word order for unaccusative verbs. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual Boston University conference on language development, ed. by Annabel Greenhill, Heather Littlefield and Cheryl Tano. Sommerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hertel, Tammy. 2000. The second language acquisition of Spanish word order: lexical and discourse factors. Pennsylvania State University dissertation.Google Scholar
  26. Hirakawa, Makiko. 2000. Surface unaccusativity in L2 Japanese speakers. Proceedings of GASLA IV, ed. by Alan Juffs, Tim W. Talpas, Greg Mizera, and Brian Burtt. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  27. Jarvis, Ana C., Raquel Lebredo, and Francisco Mena-Ayllón. 1999. ¡Continuemos! Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  28. Juffs, Alan. 1996. Semantics-syntax correspondences in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 12:177–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kempchinsky, Paola. 1992. Syntactic constraints in the expression of possession in Spanish. Hispania 75:697–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kliffer, Michael. 1994. Gradience, Determiners and Null Possessors: Revisiting French Inalienable Syntax. Linguistica Atlantica 16:59–84.Google Scholar
  32. Liceras, Juana, and Lourdes Díaz. 1998. On the nature of the relationship between morphology and syntax: inflectional typology, f-features and nulUovert pronouns in Spanish interlanguage. In Morphology and its interfaces in second language knowledge, ed. by Maria Louise Beck. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. Liceras, Juana M. 1998. On the specific nature of non-native grammars. In Issues in second language acquisition and learning, ed. by Jesús Fernández-González and Javier de SantiagoGuervós. Valencia: Lynx.Google Scholar
  34. Liceras, Juana. 1988. Syntax and stylistics: more on the pro-drop parameter. In Leamability and second languages, ed. by James Pankhurst, Michael Sharwood and Peter VanBuren. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  35. Montrul, Silvina. 1997. Gustar psych verbs and the unaccusative se construction: the case of dative experiencers in SLA. In Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish, ed. by Ana T. Pérez-Leroux and William R. Glass. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  36. Munn, Alan, and Cristina Schmidtt. 2000. Bare nouns, morphosyntax and the nominal mapping parameter.Google Scholar
  37. Neale-Silva, Eduardo, and John Lipski. 1981. El español en síntesis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  38. Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Noguchi, Tohru. 1995. The role of syntactic categories in anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  40. Prévost, Philippe, and Lydia White. 2000. Accounting for morphological variation in second language acquisition: truncation or missing inflection? In The acquisition of syntax: issues on comparative developmental linguistics, ed. by Luigi Rizzi and Marc-Aurel Friedemann, 202–235. London: Longman Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Roldán Vendrell, Mercedez 1993. “No rompas tu cabeza”: un error frecuente. In II Jomadas sobre aspectos de la enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera, ed. by Pilar BarrósGarcía, Ana Martínez-González and José Antonio de Molina-Redondo. Granada: Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
  43. Siloni, Tal. 1997. Noun phrases and nominalizations: the syntax of DPs. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  44. Snyder, William, and Annie Senghas. 1997. Agreement morphology and the acquisition of noun drop in Spanish. In Proceedings of the 21 Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. by Elizabeth Hughes, Mary Hughes and Annabel Greenhill. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sorace, Antonella. 1993. Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in near-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research 9:22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sprouse, Rex. 1998. Some notes on the relationship betwen inflectional morphology and parameter setting in first and second language acquisition. In Morphology and its interfaces in second language knowledge, ed. by Marie-Louise Beck. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  47. Szabolci, Anna. 1983. The possessor who ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3:89102.Google Scholar
  48. Tellier, Christine. 1991. Licensing theory and French parasitic gaps. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  49. Towell, Richard, and Roger Hawkins. 1994. Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  50. Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria, and Anne Roussau. 1991. Parameter setting in L2? University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 3:149–169.Google Scholar
  51. Vainikka, Anne, and Martha Young-Scholten. 1998. Morphosyntactic triggers in adult SLA. In Morphology and its interfaces in second language knowledge, ed. by Marie-Louise Beck. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  52. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. 1992. The definite determiner in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23:595–652.Google Scholar
  53. White, Lydia. 1986. Implications of parametric variation for adult second language acquisition: an investigation of the Pro-drop parameter. In Experimental approaches to second language learning, ed. by Vivian Cook. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  54. White, Lydia. 1989. Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  55. Zobl, Helmut. 1989. Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, ed. by Susan Gass and Jacqueline Schacter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Zobl, Helmut. 1990. Evidence for parameter-sensitive acquisition: a contribution to the domain specific versus central processes debate. Second Language Research 6:39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana T. Perez-Leroux
  • Erin O’rourke
  • Gillian Lord
  • Beatriz Centeno-Cortes

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations