The UG Debate in SLA: Getting Reciprocal Verbs Right
Adopting the analysis of reciprocal verbs in terms of the Lexicon-Syntax Parameter (Reinhart &
Siloni 2005, 2004; Siloni to appear), I examine the predictions of two extreme views on adult
second language acquisition (SLA) with respect to acquisition of reciprocal verbs in L2 French
by native speakers of Russian.
The L2 Background: According to the Full Transfer Full Access hypothesis (Schwartz &
Sprouse 1996), L2 learners start off by adopting the L1 grammar (‘full transfer’), but whenever
the L1-based interlanguage grammar fails to deal with new L2 input, restructuring takes place.
L2-ers are not predicted to always arrive at an analysis of the L2 input identical to the one of a
native speaker; it however guarantees that such an analysis will be necessarily UG-constrained
(‘full (UG) access’).
In contrast, according to the Fundamental Difference hypothesis (Bley-Vroman 1990), UG is
only available within a limited age range prior to puberty. Consequently, child L1 acquisition and
adult L2 acquisition should differ in significant respects, namely, while child L1 acquisition is
UG-constrained and involves domain specific learning procedures (LAD), adult L2 acquisition is
not UG-constrained and involves domain-general problem-solving strategies.
The Lexicon-Syntax Parameter Background: The Lexicon-Syntax Parameter splits the world’s
languages into those that derive reciprocals in syntax (French, Spanish, Serbo-Croatian, etc.) and
those that form them in the lexicon (Russian, Hebrew, Hungarian, etc.). The empirical evidence
for the split comes from the cluster of properties associated with reciprocals in the two types of
languages. This cluster includes (but is not restricted to, see Reinhart & Siloni, Siloni op. cit.)
productivity and discontinuity. In ‘syntax’ languages like French, reciprocalization is highly
productive (1a), while in ‘lexicon’ languages like Russian, it is restricted to a particular set of
verbs (2a), often identified as ‘interaction’ verbs. The so-called discontinuous construction is
ungrammatical in ‘syntax’ languages (1b), but grammatical in ‘lexicon’ languages (2b).
Predictions: If FTFA holds, then since advanced L2 learners should have been sufficiently
exposed to L2 French input containing productive reciprocals that do not have a corresponding
Russian (L1) counterpart, restructuring of their interlanguage grammar should have taken place.
Such restructuring can be either in terms of parameter resetting (switching from the lexicon
setting of the parameter to the syntax setting), or in a form of transfer where French reciprocal
verbs (marked with reciprocal clitic se) are misanalyzed as a transitive reciprocal construction
involving a verb and a reciprocal pronoun. In both cases, a very subtle property of French, the
unavailability of discontinuous reciprocals, should fall out, as it is both associated with the syntax
setting of the parameter, and incompatible with syntactic reciprocal constructions involving
reciprocal pronouns (3).1
True parameter resetting can be nevertheless distinguished from the type of transfer mentioned.
For example, if se is analyzed as a reciprocal pronoun, it should be allowed in passive
constructions, on a par with true object clitics, while if it is not (which is the case for L1 French)
then the likeliest analysis of se is the one of the reciprocal marker on an intransitive verb (4).
On the other hand, if FDH holds, no true parameter resetting should be possible, that is, if an
L2-er gets the judgements for (1) right, that could only be due to transfer, and so (4b) should be
1
The unavailability of discontinuous reciprocals is a subtle property of French in the sense that one needs feedback
providing negative evidence, in order to acquire it. Since adults are presumably sensitive to correction and do get
classroom instruction that often involves negative evidence, the question to be asked is whether the ungrammaticality
of discontinuous reciprocals could be learnt in that way. Careful investigation forces me to dismiss this possibility as
implausible. The ungrammaticality of discontinuous reciprocals is not taught in the classroom/discussed in
textbooks. It is not generally corrected either (Siloni personal communication). Moreover, as suggested by an
informal follow-up on two subjects provided with negative evidence as a part of the debriefing procedure, even an
explicitly provided feedback regarding the ungrammaticality of discontinuity in French is ignored in long-term
(similar finding in White 1991).
1
accepted as grammatical. In addition, any ‘wild’ behaviour would support FDH, that is, if L2-ers
adopt an analysis that does not fall into any of UG allowed options, or if L2-ers’ treatment of
French reciprocals is at chance. Given what have been said so far, an example of the former
would be an analysis that allows all verbs to undergo reciprocalization (productivity has been
acquired), but also permits discontinuous reciprocals (the ungrammaticality of discontinuous
reciprocals has not been triggered).
Experiment: A pilot experiment was conducted to examine these predictions. 14 advanced
French L2-ers (L1 Russian) and 7 native controls (L1 French) completed a grammaticality
judgment task where the crucial items involved French sentences with productive reciprocal
verbs, as in (1a), discontinuous reciprocals, as in (1b), and passive constructions as in (4). Results
reveal that French L2-ers do not have problems acquiring the productivity property (91.4 %
accuracy), but they experience difficulty acquiring the ungrammaticality of discontinuous
reciprocals (52.4% accuracy, chance performance). Although this overall finding seems to
support FDH, I will show how the analysis of individual results and careful consideration of the
status of discontinuous reciprocals cross-linguistically can in fact lead us to the conclusion that
FTFA rather than FDH is on the right track. Thus, the analysis of individual results reveals that 4
subjects were extremely accurate at rejecting discontinuous reciprocals (95.8%), 2 of them falling
into the parameter resetting scenario (100% accuracy with items as in (4)), and the other 2 falling
into the type of transfer associated with se being misanalyzed as a reciprocal pronoun (0%
accuracy with items as in (4b)). In addition, 3 more L2-ers turned out to be much better at
rejecting discontinuity with reciprocals lacking a Russian counterpart (77.8% accuracy) than with
cross-linguistic reciprocals (11.1%). I argue that when the interlanguage grammar shifts the locus
of reciprocalization from the lexicon to syntax, the cross-linguistic reciprocals can be in fact still
allowed as discontinuous if L2-ers reanalyze them as lexicalized. This is a UG constrained type
of analysis, as an output of any syntactic operation can get lexicalized, which means that the
syntax setting of the parameter/the misanalysis of se as an object pronoun do not necessarily rule
out discontinuity. Indeed, syntax languages do allow isolated reciprocals as discontinuous. For
example, in French, verb se battre ‘beat(rec)’ undergoes a semantc drift to ‘fight(rec)’, and
therefore is necessarily listed in the lexicon; consequently, the verb is licensed as discontinuous
in the latter meaning (5b) (Siloni op. cit.).
Consequently, 7 subjects can be in fact argued to have adopted a UG constrained analysis of
French reciprocals (4 L2-ers adopting an analysis compatible with the parameter resetting
scenario, which is necessarily UG constrained). Other 4 L2-ers perform at chance with
discontinuous reciprocals; however, there is a good reason to believe that this is due to their
being generally less advanced than required: they are less accurate on productivity (80%) than the
others, and their proficiency test score is in average lower (83.8/100) than that of the rest of the
subjects (89.4/100). The last 3 L2-learners seem to adopt what was described as an option ruled
out for a natural language, namely, they are 100% accurate on productivity, but fail to reject
discontinuous reciprocals, performing with only 11.1% accuracy. While there is virtually no way
of reconciling the parameter resetting scenario with FDH (see footnote 1), there exist at least two
ways of dealing with the latter group of L2 learners in the FTFA model. First, reciprocals in some
Bantu languages are both productive and licensed as discontinuous (Dimitriadis 2004). While this
fact has to be still understood and properly accounted for in terms of the Lexicon-Syntax
Parameter, the empiric evidence suggests that the type of restrucring of interlanguge grammar
allowing for both productivity and discontinuity cannot be readily ruled out as ‘wild’. Second,
although the set of verbs undergoing reciprocalization in lexicon languages is restricted, it is not
completely closed in the sense that lexicon languages are free to somewhat expand it; while meet,
hug, kiss are universally included into the set of verbs affected by lexical reciprocalization, verbs
like write or telephone do not undergo reciprocalization in every lexicon language (for example,
they do not in some dialects of English). Consequently, an interlanguage grammar dealing with
the productivity property via expanding the set of lexical reciprocals (naturally licensed as
discontinuous) could be viewed as UG compatible in that respect.
2
(1) French:
a. Ils
they
Ils
they
Ils
they
(2) Russian:
a.
Oni
they
*Oni
they
*Oni
they
s’embrassent.
kiss(rec)
se dessinent.
draw(rec)
se détestent.
hate(rec)
b. *Il s’embrasse avec elle.
he kisses(rec) with her
(3) Russian:
a. *On
he
celuet
kisses
drug druga
each other
b.
On
he
celujutsja.
kiss(rec)
risujutsja.
draw(rec)
nenavidjatsja.
hate(rec)
celuetsja s
nej.
kisses(rec) with her
s nej.
with her
(4) French:
a. Roméo et Juliette
nous sont présentés
par Shakespeare.
Romeo and Juliet
us
are
presented
by Shakespeare
‘Romeo and Juliet are presented to us by Shakespeare’
b. *Brigitte et Marc
se
sont présentés
par Una.
Bridget and Mark SE
are
presented
by Una
Intended meaning: ‘Bridget and Mark are presented to each other by Una.’
(5) French:
a. Jean et Pierre se
sont battus.
Jean and Pierre fought(rec)/beat(rec)
b. Jean s’ est
battu
avec Pierre.
Jean fought(rec)/*beat(rec) with Pierre
References:
Bley-Vroman, R. 1990. The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis
20: 3-49.
Dimitriadis, A. 2004. Discontinuous reciprocals. Ms. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.
Reinhart, T. & T. Siloni. 2005. The Lexicon-Syntax parameter: reflexivization and other arity
operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 389-436.
Reinhart, T. & T. Siloni. 2004. Against the unaccusativity analysis of reflexives. In A. Alexiadou,
E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert. eds., The unaccusativity puzzle. Explorations of the
syntax–lexicon interface, 159-180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siloni, T. The syntax of reciprocal verbs: an overview. To appear in E. König & V. Gast. eds.,
Reciprocals and Reflexives: Cross-linguistic and theoretical explorations. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Schwartz, B. & R. Sprouse. 1996. L2 Cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model.
Second Language Research 12: 40-72.
White, L. 1991. Adverb Placement in Second Language Acquisition: Some Effects of Positive
and Negative Evidence in the Classroom. Second Language Research 7: 133-61.
3