Minimally Raising the Verb Issue
Julia Herschensohn
University of Washington
1.
Introduction
Using grammaticality judgments of negation and adverb placement, several
recent studies examining the Verb Raising Parameter (VRP) in L2 French
indicate that learners do not set to the new value in an all-at-once fashion, but
rather show a period of variability. i Grammaticality judgements provide
valuable insight into grammatical competence, but also pose certain problems,
especially for the unstable interlanguage grammars of second language learners
(Birdsong 1994, Sorace 1996). In this paper I use production data of these same
phenomena from a cross-sectional study to argue that morphology and the
lexicon are more crucial to the emerging L2 grammar than is syntax, as the
Minimalist Program would predict. I show that the morpholexical basis of L2
parameter setting—the constructionist hypothesis—accounts for staged
variability. I first present the theoretical background, then the experimental data,
and finally a discussion.
2. Theoretical background
In this section I review verb raising and its treatment in the Minimalist
Program. Developing a proposal made by Emonds (1978), Pollock (1989)
attributes an important syntactic difference between French and English verb
placement to a parameter related to verb raising. He argues that the variation
between French and English (1–2) is due to the richness of verb morphology of
French as opposed to the poverty of English verb morphology.
(1)
a. Vous (*souvent) embrassez (souvent) Marie.
b. Vous n[e] (*pas) embrassez (pas) Marie.
(2)
a. You (often) kiss (*often) Mary.
b. You do (not) kiss (*not) Mary.
Pollock describes the parameter in terms of transparency / opacity of agreement:
the rich (transparent) agreement of French verbal morphology permits
transmission of theta roles to verbal complements and syntactic raising of the
verb. French and English then have similar base structures as in (3), a simplified
version of Pollock’s proposal, but vary in the verb movements they permit.
(3)
IP
I’
Spec
I
VP
Spec
often/ souvent
V’
V
DP
kiss/ embrassez
In French the V must raise to I, leaving adverbs and pas between the inflected
verb and the verbal complement (1), while in English the V cannot raise to I,
remaining in situ following adverbs and not as in (2) requiring do support.
Two aspects of the Minimalist Program are relevant to an examination of
the verb raising in L2 French, the treatment of parameter setting and the nature
of cross-linguistic variation. The notion of parameter is described in terms of
feature strength of non-intrinsic categorial features of functional categories. The
feature inventory (4) includes [+interpretable] features which must persist at the
LF interface to assure interpretability, and [–interpretable] features that must be
eliminated before LF, those of Case and strong F.
(4) Types of features (Chomsky 1995: 277)
[+interpretable]: categorial features, phi features (e.g. gender)
[–interpretable]: case features, strong F, where F is categorial
The [–interpretable] features must be erased before LF or the derivation crashes,
so strong F requires overt raising of a matching categorial feature that can check
off the strong feature. This variability of strength, strong or weak F, can lead to
different word orders as a function of movement. The Verb Raising Parameter
can be expressed as the presence of a strong verbal feature F v in Tense in
French, forcing raising of the lexical verb, and a weak feature in English Tense,
prohibiting raising (5).
(5) Verb raising parameter
English: Weak Fv in Tense  no overt raising of lexical V
French: Strong Fv in Tense  overt raising of lexical V to check off F v
The raised verb in French leaves behind the adverb and the negation pas
whereas the negation / adverb remain to the left of the English in situ verb as in
Pollock’s proposal (6).
(6)
T
[s/w Fv]
[…]
VP
Spec
often/ souvent
Spec
VP
V’
V
DP
kiss/ embrassez
As for cross-linguistic variation, Chomsky (1995, 169) describes it as a
phenomenon that must be highly limited to account for language acquisition by
the child: “It is not surprising, then, to find a degree of variation in the PF
component, and in aspects of the lexicon […] Variation in the overt syntax or
LF component would be more problematic, since evidence could only be quite
indirect. A narrow conjecture is that there is no such variation.” From a
minimalist perspective, the simplicity of universal syntax should mean that the
most substantial work of language acquisition is learning the morphology and
the lexicon (including, of course, features). ii Children are able to set parameters
all at once by accumulating a critical mass of morpholexical data swiftly
(Déprez 1994), but mature L2ers apparently set to a new value in a piecemeal
fashion, as the variability of interlanguage grammars indicates. In order to
accommodate the piecemeal development, I am proposing a constructionist view
of parameter setting in SLA whereby intermediate L2ers rely on acquisition of
constructions relating to specific lexical items to gain what appears to be partial
control of a new parametric value. To summarize, minimalism characterizes
parametric variation in terms of feature strength and views cross-linguistic
differences as more morpholexical than syntactic.
3. Production experiment
In order to examine the question of variability in L2 parameter setting, I
administered a production task to two groups of intermediate learners of L2
French. In this next section, I present the experimental procedure and results.
With natives and advanced L2ers (0% errors) as benchmarks, my experiment—a
30 item production task administered to two levels of intermediate anglophone
French L2ers—examines three major errors, inflection, negation, and adverb
placement. The results show that while there is variability in intermediate
learners, there is less incompleteness in the grammar of the high-intermediates
than in that of the low-intermediates, and that variability is systematically linked
to morpholexical items and classes.
The subjects tested were students of French at the University of Washington
(UW), twenty-five at the second year level (level 203, third quarter second year)
and twenty at the third-fourth year level (level 323, introduction to French
linguistics, not a language course).iii There were four native speakers of French
as controls and six near-native speakers who performed equivalently to the
native speakers as secondary controls. iv The production task consisted of two
sections (see Appendix), the first using frequency adverbs souvent, rarement, ne
... jamais (‘often, rarely, never’) and the second using quality adverbs bien, mal,
and negation ne…pas (‘well, poorly, not’). While the frequency adverbs
require preverbal placement in English (2), the quality adverbs are sentence final
(7).
(7) a. Mary (?*well) sets (?*well) the table (well).
b. Marie (*bien) met (bien) la table (?*bien).
Both sections tested for appropriate production of the L2 value as instantiated in
the order V-neg/A-XP; the frequency adverbs present the parametric alternation
described above (English A-V-XP order v. French V-A-XP), while the quality
adverbs represent an order that is marginally acceptable in French. Each section
had five verbs, mainly irregular, with three subject pronouns. Test-takers were
asked to create sentences based on the data given, using the adverbs provided
without models in either English or French that might influence the outcome.
The
task—including only present
tense
thematic
verbs
(not
auxiliaries)—characterizes the most salient examples of the verb raising
contrast, a contrast that is virtually unmentioned in textbook grammars.
I obtained the results displayed in Table 1. There were 20 sentences in
which adverbs were used and 10 sentences in which negation was used. v The
major errors considered are the following: 1) inflection of the 30 verbs; vi 2)
negation (jamais, pas-verb, the order predicted by an English setting of the
VRP); 3) adverb-verb order (L1 VRP value); 4) verb-XP-adverb order, an order
which is not at all attested by the native and near-native controls;vii and 5) the
use of negative de.
Table 1 Error data for language acquisition task
Level of French class 203 (n = 25) 323 (n = 20) Total (n = 45)
Inflection
21 = 2.8% 13 = 2.2% 34 = 2.5%
jamais
12 = 4.8% 0 = 0%
12 = 2.7%
pas
0 = 0%
0 = 0%
0 = 0%
Adverb- Verb
18 = 3.6% 2 = 0.5% 20 = 2.2%
Verb-XP-Adverb
80 = 16%
65 = 16.3% 145 = 16.1%
Frequency adverbs 55 = 22.8% 49 = 24.5% 104 = 23.1%
Quality adverbs
25 = 10%
18 = 9%
43 = 9.6%
Negative “de”
62 = 62%
38 = 48.8% 100 = 55.6%
Overall error averages for inflection (2.5%) and negation (2.7%) contrast
markedly with those for adverb placement (18.3%). The examples in (8)–(11)
are drawn from the corpus. Inflection errors were predominantly those of the
two verbs in (10), boire and faire which show vocalic alternation and suppletion
respectively.
(8) Inflection
Nous ne bevons jamais de lait. (= buvons) ‘we neg drink never any milk’
Vous ne faisez pas vos devoirs. (=faites) ‘you neg do not your work’ viii
The inflection “errors” were then mostly those of regularization of irregular
paradigms, errors that could be construed as indicating mastery of regular
morphological rules. As for negation (9), both intermediate groups are consistent
in correctly producing the French ordering for pas (0% errors), but the
low-intermediates show measurable error with jamais (4.8%).ix
(9) Negation
Nous ne jamais prenons une photo de ta famille. (= prenons jamais)
‘we neg never take a photo of your family’
Jean ne jamais écrit une lettre à ta mère. (= écrit jamais)
‘John neg never writes a letter to your mother’
The negation pattern is closely matched in the adverb-verb (10) data where the
high-intermediates have an almost zero rate of
0.5% as against the
low-intermediates’ 4%.
(10) Adverb-Verb
Tu rarement écris une lettre à ta mère. (= écris rarement)
‘you rarely write a letter to your mother’
Je bien fais mes devoirs. (= fais bien) ‘I well do my work’
What is unexpected, however, is the fact that for the three 203 students who
gave the A-V order, 12/18 errors were made with the quality adverbs, where the
L1 order is usually V-XP-A. The data from the preverbal placements of negation
and adverbs, traditionally considered diagnostics of the English setting for verb
raising, suggest that most of the intermediates have abandoned the L1 value
because 91% of the students do not use the preverbal order at all. It is the second
adverb error (11), however, that indicates that parameter setting in L2 is not
simply flipping a switch from L1 to L2 value.
(11) Verb-XP-A
Jean mange des escargots souvent. (= mange souvent) ‘John eats snails often’
Vous jouez au tennis mal. (= jouez mal) ‘you play (at) tennis poorly’
If the L1 neg-V and A-V word order is almost negligible in this L2 data, the
V-XP-A order, at 16.1%, is not, even more so because the high-intermediates
show slightly higher error rates than the low-intermediates. Furthermore, L1
transfer would predict this order for quality but not frequency adverbs, a pattern
that is contradicted, as Table 2 indicates.
Table 2 Adverb (V-XP-A) error data according to verb
Level of French class
203 (n = 25) 323 (n = 20) Total (n = 45)
Frequency adverbs (L1 = A-V-XP)
1. manger/ des / escargots 19 = 38%
11 = 27.5% 30 = 33.3%
2. boire / du / lait
13 = 26%
11 = 27.5% 24 = 26.7%
3. aller / à / le / cinéma
9 = 18%
8 = 20%
17 = 18.9%
4. prendre / une / photo 6 = 12%
13 = 32.5% 19 = 21.1%
5. écrire / une / lettre
8 = 16%
6 = 15%
14 = 15.5%
Quality adverbs (L1 = V-XP-A)
6. mettre / le / couvert
7 = 14%
8 = 20%
15 = 16.7%
7. savoir / la / réponse
2 = 4%
0 = 0%
2 = 2.2%
8. lire / ce / roman
6 = 12%
2 = 5%
8 = 8.9%
9. faire / ses / devoirs
6 = 12%
2 = 5%
8 = 8.9%
10. jouer / à / le / tennis 4 = 8%
6 = 15%
10 = 11.1%
The frequency adverbs (whose L1 order is AV) systematically show higher rates
of the V-XP-A L2 order than quality adverbs (whose L1 order is V-XP-A), an
indication that L2 adverb placement is not simply a case of transfer from the L1.
The fact that quality adverbs such as bien are more frequent that adverbs such as
souvent, may be a factor, although this variable was not investigated. The
broad range of percentages for given lexical items reflects the fact that there
were inconsistencies among the responses of individual students who used
varying word orders for the same adverb or for the same verb. To summarize,
the results show that variability is evident in morpholexical constructions, and
that negation is mastered before adverb placement.
4. Discussion
Studies of very advanced language learners (e.g. Birdsong 1992, White &
Genesee 1996) show that “it is possible for L2 learners to attain native-like
competence with respect to certain constraints assumed to be part of UG.”
(White & Genesee 1996, 249) For all intents and purposes these expert L2ers
have acquired an L2 grammar whose competence includes L2 values of the
relevant parameters. The pathway to that competence does not, however,
resemble the child’s pattern of L1 all-at-once parameter setting as the variability
of intermediate L2 grammars shows. The results I obtained in my investigation
corroborate those of several others showing inconstancy in L2 grammars with
respect to clustering effects (e.g. Eubank 1994, Hawkins et al. 1993, Schwartz &
Gubala-Ryzack 1992, White 1992). Reexamining the UW data presented above,
this section elaborates a constructionist view of parameter setting in L2 to
account for this variability.
Adopting the minimalist position that cross-linguistic variation is
morpholexical, the constructionist hypothesis proposes that L2 learning is
substantially a matter of vocabulary and morphology acquisition with a
progressive fleshing out of [+/– interpretable] features to set a given parameter
to the correct value. L2 parameter setting (e.g. getting strong F v for French) is
not an all-at-once phenomenon, but progressive learning, construction by
construction. The intermediate L2er does not have the correct value across the
board, but is approaching the L2 in a “constructional” way, gaining the
parametric building blocks by setting the correct value in a particular type of
morpholexical construction. The systematic acquisition of the building blocks
gives the appearance of staging. Eventually, this constructionist acquisition
results for expert L2ers in a virtually complete setting of a given parameter to
the L2 value.
The period of unset values can be characterized as one of
underspecification. Eubank argues that parameter setting is preceded by a period
of underspecification, that is, with a slight minimalist reinterpretation, the initial
state of the L2 grammar has underspecified interpretable features linked to
unspecified strength of F features. Underspecification provides an attractive
account of variability in L2 acquisition, since, according to the UW data, L2ers
abandon the L1 value before completely adopting the L2 value and show
extensive variability. Under this scenario, both [+/– interpretable features] are
underspecified at a certain point in the L2er’s grammar. Whether acquisition of
syntax and morphology is linked—as Eubank suggests—is unclear from the UW
data, since the discrepancy between adverb placement and inflection
counter-indicates a clustering of parametric characteristics and does not present
definitive evidence of morphosyntactic linking.
Using the notion of
underspecification, I sketch the stages of a constructionist model in (12).
(12) Constructionist model for setting of VRP in L2 French
a.
L1 value persists (e.g. neg / A-V-XP order)
b.
L1 value is unset; [+/– interpretable] features are underspecified
c.
L2 “constructions” are gained for specific lexical items (e.g. pas)
d.
Meanwhile [+interpretable] morphology is gradually acquired
e.
L2 construction is generalized to morpholexical class (e.g. negation)
f.
L2 value of Fv in T is generally set as strong; morphology is complete
Schwartz & Sprouse (1994, 1996), Eubank (1994) and White & Genesee
(1996) have convincingly argued for the stages of L1 initial setting,
underspecification, and L2 final setting respectively. As for the exact character
of the transitional process, from underspecification to L2 setting, it appears that
L2ers are using other cognitive strategies in conjunction with UG constraints to
approximate the L2 grammar. Given the assumption that the low-intermediates
represent a stage of development that is less complete than that of the
high-intermediates, the constructionist stages are borne out by the UW data.
There is first a period when the L1 parameter value persists in L2 errors such as
neg-V and A-V order (9-10), supporting the first stage. Next, at stage (12b),
there are no errors of apparent L1 transfer such as English word order or do
support. It seems that the intermediate L2ers raise the French verb above the
negation pas and inflect the thematic verb correctly, an indication that the L2
grammar has, at this stage, lost the L1 weak Fv. As for stages (12c,d,e),
acquisition of morpholexical constructions, there is ample evidence that there is
a pattern tied to specific items. Among the low intermediates a distinction is
evident between the two negatives, pas and jamais, the first being totally
mastered while the more peripheral second one still shows noticeable L1
influence in production errors (11). By the high-intermediate stage, subjects
have all overcome L1 transfer of the preverbal adverb and have completely
mastered the placement of negation elements, and have mostly acquired correct
placement of adverbs as well as negation as examples in (13) show.
(13) High-intermediate examples of correct word order
a.
Vous ne savez pas du tout la réponse. ‘you neg know not at all the answer’
b.
Tu vas rarement au cinéma. ‘you go rarely to the movies’
c.
Marie lit mal ce roman. ‘Mary reads poorly this novel’
Although 17% of the intermediate L2ers are mistaken in their apparent base
generation of the adverb in sentence final position (11), their alternative V-XP-A
strategy is nevertheless a UG possibility. Other researchers have also noted that
their subjects are inconsistent in adverb placement (e.g. Trahey & White 1993,
Hawkins et al. 1993, Schwartz & Gubala-Ryzack 1992).x Hawkins et al. and
Schwartz & Gubala-Ryzack attribute the variability to other learning strategies,
a suggestion that fits well with a constructionist analysis through which L2ers
gain competence construction by construction, using a coalition of cognitive
strategies and UG constraints. In any case, it appears that the L2ers are able to
unset the L1 value long before setting completely to the L2 value. There is no
evidence of an intermediate stage of V-XP-neg—with sentence final negation
(so prevalent with adverbs)—presumably because the negation projection is
universal. Adverbs, on the other hand, can be base generated in more than one
location. The minimalist suggestion that cross-linguistic variation is more lexical
than syntactic implies that L2ers’ competence in resetting the strong V feature
should be unevenly reflected in their performance due to incomplete mastery of
the L2 morpholexicon. Indeed, the UW data show that lexically limited
negations permit verb raising to become automatic earlier than lexically diverse
adverbs do.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, I have proposed a constructionist model of L2 parameter
setting that comprises stages of acquisition linked to specific morpholexical
constructions: first, a loss of L1 parameter value; then a period of feature
underspecification + constructionism; finally, the expert’s L2 setting. In the
case of verb raising in French, L2ers initially abandon the L1 value and then—in
a period of underspecification—begin to adopt the L2 value for specific
constructions, first negation (pas before jamais) and then adverbs (quality before
frequency). This proposal shows how parameters appear to be partially set to a
new value—constructions are mastered progressively before parameters are
reset. It also accounts for longitudinal and clustering variability in the
interlanguage grammars, yet allows for the possibility of L2 final state
grammars that are near-native.
Appendix Samples from Language Acquisition Task
Please write out sentences using the words suggested and making all necessary
changes such as agreement.
In this first set of sentences use the information given (“50 [times] / week”) to
determine the frequency of the given activity. Using souvent, rarement,
ne…jamais, describe how often Jean, je, nous perform each activity. Do NOT
repeat “50 / week” etc.
A. manger / des / escargots: Jean: 7 / week; Tu: 1 / week; Nous: 0 / week
B. boire / du / lait: Jean: 3 / week; Tu: 20 / week; Nous: 0 / week
In this next set of sentences, assume that quantity correlates with quality—the
more often the better! Use bien, mal, ne…pas to describe how well Marie, je,
vous perform each activity.
A. mettre / le / couvert: Marie: 0 / week ; Je: 7 / week; Vous: 1 / week
B. savoir / la / réponse: Marie: 50 / week; Je: 2 / week; Vous: 0 / week
Endnotes
i
For example, Hawkins et al. argue that advanced anglophone L2ers set their
VRPs to the French value while intermediates show variability, first controlling
negation and then adverb placement.
ii
As Olarrea puts it: “The MP assumes that the conceptual-intentional
performance system is universal and must be therefore identical in all languages
[…] Languages differ from each other in their overt syntax but not in the covert
component.” (Olarrea 1996: 16)
iii
Negation and adverb placement were not covered in the FR323 course.
iv
There are few native controls because the data is amply attested to in the
literature. Near-native speakers were anglophone graduate students and faculty
in literary studies with extensive background in French.
v
The number of tokens was then for adverbs: 20 x 25 (FR203) = 500 and 20 x
20 (FR323) = 400; and for negation: 10 x 25 = 250 (FR203) and 10 x 20 = 200
(FR323).
vi
Orthography errors (e.g. silent final letters) were not counted as mistakes.
vii
This order is especially awkward with the short adverbs bien and mal,
although it is in principle grammatical; the V-XP-A order is considered to be an
error here.
viii
As for faites, the high error rate with negative de—a grammar point presented
early on and frequently reinforced—indicates that instruction and frequent
remediation do not suffice to correct certain errors.
ix
There is one low-intermediate error with phrase final jamais: Nous ne
mangeons des escargots jamais
x
Trahey & White (1993, 200) note that their francophone English L2er subjects
increased dramatically their use of English SAV word order, but did not
abandon the SVAO French order; they conclude that “the English value has
been added but the French value has not been dropped.”