Author:
Corinne Helland
Professional Address: Departament de Filologia Anglesa i Alemanya
Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 585
Universitat de Barcelona
08007 Barcelona
Title:
The Definiteness Effect in Second Language Acquisition
This paper examines the Definiteness Effect (Milsark 1974, 1978) within the
context of second language acquisition in a classroom setting. The results from
five different groups of subjects, divided in terms of age, are studied. Following
Milsark (1974, 1978), it is claimed that the Definiteness Effect is a universal
principle, although Diesing’s (1992) proposal, that the formal realization of the
Definiteness Effect is a consequence of semantic interpretation rather than of
purely syntactic factors, is adopted to account for the knowledge the subjects in
this study have of the Definiteness Effect in English.
1
1. Introduction
Milsark (1974, 1978), working within the framework of generative grammar, was the first
to define the Definiteness Effect (hereon DE), which he characterized as a universal
principle.1 A descriptive characterization of the DE is best illustrated within the context of
unaccusative verbs.2 Consider the examples in (1) and (2):
(1) a. *
b.
(2) a.
b. *
The misunderstanding occurred between John and Mary.3
A misunderstanding occurred between John and Mary.
There occurred a misunderstanding between John and Mary.
There occurred the misunderstanding between John and Mary.
In certain syntactic contexts, as shown by the contrast in (2a) and (2b), an indefinite noun
phrase must appear. If the DE is a universal principle, a reasonable hypothesis with respect to
second language acquisition is that once learners have attained a given level of competence in
both comprehension and production, there should be evidence of the DE in their grammars.4
In this paper a series of data from second language learners is analyzed and shown to support
the claim that the DE is a universal principle and its manifestation a reflection of semantic
interpretation rather than of purely syntactic factors, as proposed by Diesing (1992).
2. Subjects, Design and Materials
The subjects involved in this study are school children attending public schools in middle
class neighborhoods of Barcelona (Catalunya, Spain). Their school levels range from fifth
year through COU.5 They have been selected among those students who have had no prior
instruction in English and in their majority are bilingual in Catalan and Spanish, although one
or the other may be the preferred or maternal language.6
This project is part of a much larger project directed by Dr. Carme Muñoz with its main
focus on the role of age in the acquisition of English as a second language.7 The main project
includes a variety of exercises completed by the subjects in a classroom setting (a personal
essay, a reading comprehension exercise, a cloze test, a multiple choice grammar test and
listening comprehension exercises, personal interviews). This sub-project focuses on the
personal interviews, which have been carried out with a limited number of subjects per class.8
In this study a total of twenty-five of the interviews are analyzed.
The transcribed texts of the personal interviews consist of a series of pre-established
questions and the subjects’ responses to these questions. In principle, with slight variation
2
due to differences in interviewer style, the questions remain consistent irrespective of age and
level of the interviewees. The interview question which appears in (3) is the focus of this
study:
(3) What is there in your room?
In principle, the question consistently elicits responses containing a series of indefinite noun
phrases.9
An important factor to rule out, however, is the possible confusion that may arise for second
language learners among the various markers of definiteness and indefiniteness. In each interview
analyzed evidence is proposed to support the claim that the subjects are able to differentiate
between both classes of markers. Thus, in addition to citing the response to question (3), evidence
of each subject’s knowledge of the notions of definiteness and indefiniteness in the form of the
overt marker the in English is cited. Two examples representative of each age group are discussed
here.
The subjects enrolled in COU have attained the highest proficiency in English. Their
knowledge of both the DE and markers of the notions of definiteness and indefiniteness are
directly determinable from their interviews.
In the interview of Subject 1COU, the following exchange occurs:
(4) a.
b.
What is there in your room?
A table, a computer.
The response in (4b) is clearly indefinite in terms of the noun phrases included. Subject 1COU
also has a clear notion of definiteness, as the exchange in (5) indicates:
(5) a.
b.
You don’t study after lunch?
No, in the afternoon?
In the interview of Subject 2COU, the following exchange occurs:
(6) a.
b.
What is there in your room?
Many books, three tables, some chairs.
The response in (6b) is clearly indefinite in terms of the noun phrases included and even includes
some variation in the markers of indefiniteness used. Subject 2COU also has a clear notion of
definiteness, as the exchange in (7) indicates:
(7) a.
b.
What do you do after watching (name of television program)?
I do the homework.
3
The results are similar with respect to the students enrolled in the first year of ESO. The transcript
from the interview of Subject 1ESO presents the following exchange:
(8) a.
b.
What is there in your room?
One bed, one chair.
Although the marker used, one, qualifies as indefinite, its usage here is perhaps less natural than
the indefinite article. Nevertheless, Subject 1ESO employs the possessive article correctly, as the
examples in (9) indicate:
(9) a.
b.
Where do you have lunch?
In my house.
Subject 2ESO, despite variation of the central question, what is there in your room, responds with
an indefinite noun phrase:
(10) a.
b.
Can you describe your bedroom please?
My bedroom is small. Has got a window.
The evidence of knowledge of the definite article is not as strong, however, in the case of
Subject 2ESO, as the following exchange reveals:
(11) a.
b.
Do you go fishing in the river or in the sea?
In the sea.
Subject 2ESO repeats the interviewer’s usage of the definite article.
The results are similar for subjects enrolled in the first year of BUP. The exchange below is
from Subject 1BUP:
(12) a.
b.
What is there in your room?
A bed, a table, a television.
(13) a.
b.
Which teacher do you like the best?
The teacher of science.
Subject 2BUP presents the same basic pattern, although the structure there is / are is replaced by
an alternate structure:
(14) a.
b.
What is there in your room?
Have a television, one ordenador.
(15) a.
b.
Where do you play?
The (name of swimming club).
Subjects 1Seventh year and 2Seventh year present similar patterns of data, which appear below
in their respective orders:
4
(16) a.
b.
Describe your room.
It has got a big table, it have a computer.
(17) a.
b.
Sunday what did you do?
I’m going out the city.
(18) a.
b.
What is there in your room?
Have got a one table, one bed.
(19) a.
b.
What do you do?
Look the television.
With respect to the exchanges of interviewer and interviewee cited for the older subjects, that is,
those subjects enrolled in COU, ESO or BUP, it is clear that the younger subjects have a less
advanced level of expression. Nevertheless, evidence of the DE appears in the speech of the
younger learners.
The final two sets of exchanges cited are those of Subjects 1 and 2 Fifth year. The range of
structures in these interviews as a whole tends to be much more limited and this limitation
extends to a certain degree to the evidence of the DE. The exchange in (20) is from the interview
of Subject 1Fifth year:
(20) a.
b.
What is there in your room? (in Catalan)
Ah, em … em, a desk and books, and pilotes de football.
The indefinite article appears in its correct form, and, as well, the plural nouns appear in their
correct indefinite form, although there seems to be no clear evidence to determine whether the
forms used are truly indefinite forms or bare forms due to subject doubt or lack of knowledge of
the correct form. Furthermore, in the younger learners, there tends to be no overt indication of
knowledge of the notion or markers of definiteness in English. The exchange in (21) is from the
interview of Subject 2Fifth year:
(21) a.
b.
What is there in your room?
Tables, chair, bed.
The issue arises with the data from Subject 2Fifth year as well and in the interview of this subject
no indefinite article appears. Nor is there any evidence of usage or knowledge of the definite
article in the interview of this subject.
3. Results and discussion
5
If the DE is taken to be a result of semantic interpretation rather than of purely syntactic factors
as proposed in Diesing (1992), there is a principled explanation for the knowledge the subjects
have of the DE in English. As a point of departure, Diesing (1992) relies on the Kamp-Heim
approach to the semantics of NPs (Heim 1982, Kamp 1981). Diesing points out that a primary
motivation for this approach is based on observations concerning the quantificational variability
of indefinites that precludes their being analyzed as existential quantifiers.10 Indefinites can vary
in quantificational force depending on the context in which they appear. The examples below,
taken directly from Diesing (1992), show this contrast:
(22)
a.
b.
a.
b.
(23)
A contrasbassonist usually plays too loudly
Most contrasbassonists play too loudly
Cellists seldom play out of tune
Few cellists play out of tune
The point exemplified by these examples is that indefinites, rather than being simply existentially
quantified, can take their quantificational force from other elements in the sentence such as the
adverbs like usually, seldom and often. The main point is that indefinites are therefore not
inherently quantified, but introduce variables into the logical representation. In other words,
indefinites have no quantificational force of their own, but must receive quantificational force by
being bound by some other operator. To illustrate this proposal, Diesing (1992) analyzes the
structures below:
(24) a. A man owns a llama
b. [x is a man /\ y is a llama /\ x owns y]
The analysis works as follows. In this structure there is no quantificational element such as the
adverbs usually or seldom. Instead, the variable introduced by the indefinite is bound by an
implicit existential quantifier that "existentially" closes off the nuclear scope preventing the
occurrence of unbound variables. Diesing (1992) departs from the Kamp-Heim approach in the
definition of the domain of existential closure. Within the Kamp-Heim theory, existential closure
applies to sentences, and further, an existential closure operation applies to the entire text or
discourse. In contrast, Diesing defines the domain of existential closure as the VP of the clause.11
With respect to the data examined in this paper, the assumption is that the domain of existential
closure is the VP of the respose to the question What is there in your room?
4. Conclusions
6
The data appear to support the conclusion that the DE is a universal principle, as proposed by
Milsark (1974, 1978). Whether the subjects have a fully developed grammar of English is
doubtful, and, thus, Diesing’s (1992) system captures the nature of the data as an effect of
universal semantic interpretation. The manifestations of the DE seen here seem not to be sensitive
to the age factor and, in fact, an initial analysis of the production results of the subjects, based on
scales designed within the central project to gauge production performance, seems to support this
claim. Of the subjects studied here, all scored in the intermediate range in terms of production
with the single exception of the fifth year subjects, whose scores are at the lowest ranges of the
scale. Thus, those subjects whose grammars show overt DE effects have attained similar levels of
production capability, despite age variation. Certainly, in terms of directions for future research, it
would be worthwhile to devise an instrument adequate to test for evidence of the DE in the
grammars of the fifth year subjects in order to further study the correlations between the age
factor, production ability and manifestations of the DE.
REFERENCES
Alvarez, Esther. 2001. Developing narratives: A bilingual case study. Universidad de Barcelona
doctoral disseration. Barcelona.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Cortés, C. 1996. “Indefiniteness in English.” Barcelona Language and Literature Studies.
University of Barcelona.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. University of Massachusetts
doctoral dissertation, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Kamp, J.A.W. 1981. “A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation,” in J. Groenendijk, T.
Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre,
Amsterdam.
Longa, Victor M., Lorenzo, Guillermo and Gemma Rigau. 1994. ms., U. de Santiago de
Compostela/UMass at Amherst, U. de Oviedo/MIT, U. Autònoma de Barcelona/MIT.
Milsark, G. 1974. Existential Sentences in English, MIT doctoral dissertation, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Milsark, G. 1978. “Towards an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction
in English,” Linguistic Analysis 3, 1-29.
Muñoz, C. 1977. “Text Coherence in Young Learners’ EFL Elicited Narratives.” Proceedings of
EUROSLA, 323-328.
Perlmutter, David. 1978. “Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis,” Berkeley
Linguistic Society IV, 157-189, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Russell, B. 1919. “On Denoting,” Mind, 14, 479-493.
7
1
It has been claimed that the effects of the DE are not consistent cross-linguistically or cross-dialectically. See Longa,
Lorenzo and Rigau (1994), for example, who claim that there are no DE effects in Catalan.
2
The unaccusative hypothesis, as most prominently formulated by Perlmutter (1978) and Burzio (1986), establishes the
existence of a class of verbs termed unaccusative.
3
Example (1a) may be considered grammatical given the adequate context, unlike example in (2b), which is
categorically ungrammatical.
4
See Alvarez (2001) for an analysis of the DE in narrative organization within the context of bilingual acquisition.
5
The subjects include fifth year students, seventh year students, students in the first year of BUP, students in the first
year of ESO and students of COU, of respectively ten years, twelve years, fourteen years, twelve years and nineteen
years old on average. Note also that the subjects represent two different and overlapping national educational
systems.
6
Prior exposure to English by means other than public school instruction (academies, summer courses, English speaking
relatives and so on) has been determined by means of a personal written interview and those students with prior
exposure to English have been excluded both from this study and the major project.
7
Financed by the Ministerio de Cultura y Ciencia (PB97-0944).
8
Approximately five subjects per class for the time limitations imposed by such an exercise.
9
See, however, Muñoz (1997) working within the framework of referential coherence where it is claimed that existential
expressions may be the result of the application of an indefinite formulaic expression.
10
This line of inquiry goes back to Russell (1919). I provide only a brief outline of the major points. For more details
and complete references, see Heim (1982) and Kamp (1981).
11
Diesing (1992) applies the proposal to English and German data. The analysis is much more complex than is
suggested here. One complexity is that existential closure may apply either at the covert or overt level of the syntax.
8