Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
Semantic Features in UG: Perspectives from L2-English Article Choice*
Heejeong Ko, MIT
Feb.8, 2004, SUNY at Stony Brook
1.
UG and Second Language Acquisition

Universal Grammar is motivated by learnability arguments:
o The primary linguistic data underdetermine unconscious knowledge of language.
(Chomsky 1965, 1986; see Flynn & O’Neil 1988, O’Grady 1997, Ritchie and
Bhatia 1999 for an overview.)

There are abstract, complex, and subtle properties of grammar that are underdetermined
by the L2 input.
o If the L2 learner acquires abstract properties that could not have been induced
from the input, it can strongly indicate that UG constrains L2 interlanguage
grammar.
See Flynn 1983, 1987, Flynn & O’Neil 1988, White 1985, 1989, 2003, Epstein,
Flynn & Martohardjono 1996,1998, and Schwartz and Sprouse 2000a,b for an
overview.
2.
Logical Problems in L2 Acquisition

However, L2 learners already have a means of representing language, namely the
grammar of the mother tongue: the issue of L1-transfer!
e.g. Bley-Vroman 1990, Clashen and Muysken 1989, Schachter 1990.

L2 learners may also be influenced by other extra-linguistic factors like negative
evidence (explicit/implicit instruction), statistical inference, analogy, etc..
e.g. Ritchie and Bhatia 1996, Kellerman and Yohioka 1999, Doughty & Long
2003, for an overview.
To clearly demonstrate the role of the principles and parameters in UG, “the phenomenon
being investigated must be underdetermined by the L2 input as well as by the L1
grammar.” (White 2003: 23)

*
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank first and foremost Tania Ionin, my collaborator on the studies of L1Russian learners acquiring English, and Aleksandra Perovic on the studies of L1-Serbo Croatian learners of English.
I am grateful to Danny Fox, Suzanne Flynn, Andrea Gualmini, Irene Heim, Davis Pesetsky, Norvin Richards,
Philippe Schlenker, Carson Schütze, Jill de Villiers, and especially Ken Wexler for helpful discussion. Thanks to the
members of the Wexler Lab and to the participants of BUCLD 28, BUCLD 29, WCCFL 22, JKL 13, GALA 2003,
and GALANA 2004, where parts of this paper were presented.
1
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
3.


4.

UG Access in L2-Acquisition
L2-learners can access to parameter values that come from neither the L1 nor the L2:
o Reflexive binding (Finer and Broselow 1986; Finer 1991; Thomas 1991)
o Verb-adverb placement (Eubank et al. 1997; Ionin and Wexler 2002)
o Case-Checking and Word order (Schwartz and Sprouse 1994)
o Metrical parameters associated with stress assignment (Dresher and Kaye, 1990).
Archibald (1992, 1993), Pater (1993)
o Minimal Sonority Distance parameter: Broselow and Finer (1991).
I investigate the role of UG in L2 acquisition in the domain of the semantics of articles.
UG and Article Semantics in L2-English
Experimental studies on L2 acquisition of English articles by L1-Korean learners (and
L1-Russian and L1-Serbo-Croatian speakers):
o Korean lacks articles => no obvious L1 transfer
o The usage of English articles is a subtle and complex phenomenon, so that there is
no obvious L2 input or formal instruction on articles.
NB. The presence of articles in L1-grammar does not necessarily imply that L2-article acquisition is
straightforward for L2-learners. (e.g. L1-Spanish speakers of L2-English, see Murphy 1997 for an
overview)
5.




Outline of the Talk
Specificity in L2 Acquisition
o Linguistic Theory & L2 Acquisition
Partitivity in L1 and L2 Acquisition
o Parallels between adult L2 and child L1 Acquisition of English Articles
Crosslinguistic/Methodological Variability
o On-going research: Serbo-Croatian learners (choice test)
o On-going research: Korean learners (cloze test)
Conclusion
Part I: Specificity in UG
6.

Background: Article Misuse in L2-English
L2-English learners make errors when using English articles:
1) Article omission
2) Article substitution, specifically…
 Overuse of the with indefinites
 Overuse of a with definites

Huebner 1983; Master 1987; Parrish 1987; Thomas 1989; Young 1996, Murphy 1997,
Robertson 2000, Leung 2001, Ionin 2003, Ionin, Ko & Wexler 2003, to appear, Ko,
Ionin, & Wexler 2004, among others.
2
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
7.

Examples: Article Misuse in L2-English
Production data from L1-Korean speakers:
(1)
(2)
When he gave me the bible, he attached the memo which was written about the
his love about me.
The most valuable object that I have received is the ball and the signature of the
famous baseball player is signed on it.
8.
Issues: Article Misuse in L2-English


Consensus: L2-English learners make errors when using English articles.
But, there has been no consensus for what causes L2-English errors (Thomas 1989 for an
overview)
Framework of previous studies (from Bickerton 1981/Huebner 1983)
Many studies of L1/L2 acquisition divide articles based on two features:
1) hearer knowledge
2) existence in the actual world
(for work in this framework, see, among others, Bickerton 1981, Huebner 1983; Cziko
1986; Master 1987; Parrish 1987; Tarone and Parrish 1988; Thomas 1989; Young 1996;
Murphy 1997; Robertson 2000)
Previous hypotheses regarding article semantics in L2-English:
L2-English learners associate the with hearer knowledge (Huebner 1983, Master 1987)
L2-learners associate the with existence (Thomas 1989)
existing data do not clearly support these hypotheses (see Thomas 1989, Murphy 1997)
Working Hypothesis
L2-learners have access to UG principles and parameters, but may fluctuate between possible
parameter settings.
Errors in L2-English article usage are not random, but systematic. It follows from L2-learners’
access to the semantic distinctions concerning articles in Universal Grammar.
9.

Studies on Article Semantics
Articles cross-linguistically can encode the discourse-related distinctions of definiteness
and specificity, where specificity is viewed as speaker intent to refer (Fodor and Sag
1982)
See Fodor and Sag 1982, Abusch 1994, Reinhart 1997, Winter 1997, Kratzer 1998, among others, for
discussion of specific indefinites.
3
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
10.
Specific Indefinites and Non-specific Indefinites

Specific (referential) indefinite
(3)
A man just proposed to me in the orangery (though I’m much too embarrassed to
tell you who it was). (Fodor & Sag 1982, ex. (7))
Non-specific (quantificational) indefinite
(4)
A man is in the women’s bathroom (but I haven’t dared to go in there to see who
it is). (Fodor & Sag 1982, ex. (8))
Specific indefinite “this” in English
(5)
John has {a, this} weird purple telephone.
(6)
John has {a, #this} telephone, so you can reach me there. (Maclaran 1982: 88, ex.
(85))


Fodor and Sag (1982): indefinites, unlike quantifiers, scope out of islands.
If a friend of mine from Texas had died in the fire, I would have inherited a fortune.
(if>a), (a>if)
(Fodor and Sag 1982, ex. (60))
If each friend of mine from Texas had died in the fire, I would have inherited a fortune.
(if>each), *(each>if)
(Fodor and Sag 1982, ex. (62))
Fodor and Sag’s solution: on one reading, indefinites are referring expressions and therefore give the appearance of
widest scope.
For challenges to Fodor and Sag, see Abusch 1994, Reinhart 1997, Winter 1997, Kratzer 1998.
Alternatives to Fodor and Sag: indefinites are ambiguous between quantificational and choice function readings (see
Reinhart 1997, Kratzer 1998, i.a.). A choice function maps from a set to an element of this set.
Without committing to a particular semantic analysis of indefinites, I follow Fodor and Sag in assuming that specific
indefinites involve speaker knowledge.
NB: see also Kratzer 1998, for whom choice functions are contextually determined, so speaker knowledge also plays
a role.
11.
Definiteness and specificity:
Definiteness and Specificity: informal definitions
If a Determiner Phrase (DP) of the form [D NP] is...
[+definite], then the speaker and hearer presuppose the existence of a unique individual in the set
denoted by the NP
[+specific], then the speaker intends to refer to a unique individual in the set denoted by the NP,
and considers this individual to possess some noteworthy property
Definiteness and Specificity: formal definitions
4
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
Definiteness (Fregean analysis)
[the ]  expresses that proposition which is
- true at index i, if there is exactly one  at i, and it is  at i,
- false at an index i, if there is exactly one  at i, and it is not  at i,
- truth-valueless at an index i, if there isn’t exactly one  at i.
(from Heim 1991:9)
Indefinites (quantificational analysis)
A sentence of the form [a ]  expresses that proposition which is true if there is at least one
individual which is both  and , and false otherwise. (from Heim 1991:26)
Specificity
A sentence of the form [sp ] ζ expresses a proposition only in those utterance contexts c where
the following felicity condition is fulfilled: the speaker of c intends to refer to exactly one
individual xc in c, and there exists a property  which the speaker considers noteworthy in c, and
xc is both  and  in c. When this condition is fulfilled, [sp ] ζ expresses that proposition which
is true at an index i if xc is ζ at i and false otherwise. (Ionin 2003, based on Fodor and Sag 1982)
12.
Specific Definites and Non-specific definites
Donnellan (1966): two readings for definites


Specific (Referential) Definite
(7)
I am looking for the winner of this race – her name is Mary, and she just
borrowed $5 from me.
Non-Specific (Attributive) Definite
(8)
I am looking for the winner of this race – whoever that is. I’m writing a story
about this race for the newspaper.
13.
Crosslinguistic Perspectives

Samoan makes no morphological distinction on the basis of definiteness (Ionin 2003).

Specificity is morphologically encoded by articles in Samoan (see Mosel & Hovdhaugen
1992, Lyons 1999, Ionin 2003):
o le is used in [+specific] contexts.
o se is used in [-specific] contexts.
le is used in [+specific] contexts
5
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
1. a) [-definite, +specific]
‘O
le
ulugāli’i, fānau
l=a
lā
tama
PRES ART couple
give birth ART=Poss 3.du. child
teine ‘o
Sina
girl
PRES Sina
“There was a couple who had a child, a girl called Sina.”
‘o
le
PRES ART
b) [+definite, +specific]
Māsani
‘o
le
tamāloa e
usua’i=ina
lava ia…..
used
PRES ART man
GENR get up early=ES EMPH 3sg
’ae nonofo
‘o
le
fafine
ma
l=a=na
tama i
but stay(pl.) PRES ART woman
and
ART=POSS=3.sg
child LD
le
fale
ART house
“It was the man’s practice to get up early and… while the woman stayed at
home with her child.”
(Mosel and Hovdhaugen:259, ex. 6:37, 6:38)
se is used in [-specific] contexts:
2. a) [-definite, -specific]
Sa
fesili mai
se
tamaitai
PAST ask
DIR ART(nsp.sg.) lady
ma
tama.
1.exc.du. father
‘A lady asked us who our father was.’
po=o
Q-PRES
ai
who
l=o
ART=Poss
b) [+definite, -specific]
Alu i se
tou
aiga e
moe. Pe se
go LD ART(nsp.sg.) 2.pl. family GENR sleep. Q ART(nsp.sg.)
tama a
ai!
boy POSS who
“Go to your family – whoever that may be – and sleep! [I wonder] whose boy
you might be!” [said to a boy who is selling necklaces at night in front of a
hotel]
(Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992:261-262, ex. 6.50, 6.53)
Article Choice Parameter in UG(for two-article languages)
The Definiteness Setting: Articles are distinguished on the basis of definiteness. (e.g. English)
The Specificity Setting: Articles are distinguished on the basis of specificity. (e.g. Samoan)
NB: The name for this parameter is adopted from Matthewson and Schaeffer (2000), who gave the parameter
different settings.
Table 1. Article use cross-linguistically: possible UG options
The Definiteness Setting
b) The Specificity Setting
e.g., English
e.g., Samoan
+definite
-definite
+definite
-definite
+specific
+specific
-specific
-specific
a)
6
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
14.
Hypothesis
Hypothesis


UG constrains the state of L2-learners’ linguistic knowledge: L2-learners have full UG
access to the two settings of the Article Choice Parameter, definiteness and specificity.
L2-learners fluctuate between the two settings of the Article Choice Parameter until the
input leads them to set this parameter to the appropriate value.
15.
Predictions

If L2-learners distinguish English articles on the basis of definiteness (English-value),
they will correctly use the with definites and a with indefinites: No errors in L2-English
articles.

If L2-learners distinguish English articles on the basis of specificity (Samoan-value), they
may encode the as [+specific], and a as [-specific]: errors occur in certain predictable
domains!
16.


Prediction: Systematic Errors
Overuse of the with specific indefinites
Overuse of a with non-specific definites
CONTEXT
[+specific]
[-specific]
[+definite]: target the
correct use of the
overuse of a
[-definite]: target a
overuse of the
correct use of a
17.
Experiment: Method

Subjects. 40 L1-Korean speakers [39 advanced & intermediate speakers’ data are
reported]. Since Korean lacks articles and does not mark definiteness or specificity
morphologically, no obvious transfer effect is expected.

Tasks. a forced choice test. Subjects were asked to choose an article among a, the, and
nothing for the target sentence in a dialogue.
o
o
30 L1-Russian speakers were tested with the same stimuli: see the conclusion section for results
A Michigan test for measuring ESL proficiency
o The study was piloted with 7 adult L1-English speakers.
18.

Experiment: Stimuli
76 English dialogues.
7
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu


19 context types, 4 token for each context; All of the contexts were singular. The target
item was always in object position. The number of indefinite contexts equaled the
number of definite contexts.
Four context types:
o [+definite, +specific]: target the
o [+definite, -specific ]: target the
o [-definite, +specific ]: target a
o [-definite, -specific ]: target a
19.
Type I: [+definite, +specific] context
(9)
Kathy: My daughter Jeannie loves that new comic strip about Super Mouse.
Elise: Well, she is in luck! Tomorrow, I’m having lunch with (a, the, --) creator of
this comic strip – he is an old friend of mine. So I can get his autograph for
Jeannie!
20.
Type II: [+definite, -specific] context
(10) Bill: I’m looking for Erik. Is he home?
Rick: Yes, but he’s on the phone. It’s an important business matter. He is talking
to (a, the, --) owner of his company! I don’t know who that person is – but I
know that this conversation is important to Erik.
21.
Type III: [-definite, +specific] context
(11) Roberta: Hi, William! It’s nice to see you again. I didn’t know that you were in
Boston.
William: I am here for a week. I am visiting (a, the, --) friend from college – his
name is Sam Bolton, and he lives in Cambridge now.
22.
Type IV: [-definite, -specific] context
(12) Clark: I’m looking for Professor Anne Peterson.
Secretary: I’m afraid she is busy. She has office hours right now.
Professor Clark: What is she doing?
Secretary: She is meeting with (a, the, --) student, but I don’t know who it is.
23.
Overall Results
[+definite]
[-definite]
[+specific]
88%the
4%a
22%the
77%a
[-specific]
80%the
14%a
4%the
93%a



little article omission (less than 8%).
overuse the with specific indefinites (22%) more than with non-specific indefinites (4%).
overuse a with non-specific definites (14%) more than with specific definites (4%).
24.

Repeated Measures ANOVAs: 2*2*2 [Specificity, Definiteness, Proficiency]
Effects of definiteness, specificity, and proficiency level: results of repeated-measures
ANOVAs
8
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
L1-Korean speakers
Definiteness
Definiteness * level
Specificity
Specificity * level
Definiteness * Specificity
Definiteness * Specificity * level
* p < .05
** p < .01
Use of the
F(1, 37) = 188.2***
F(1, 37) = 3.32
F(1, 37) = 19.13***
F(1, 37) = 0.58
F(1, 37) = 2.95
F(1, 37) = 0.04
***p < .001
Use of a
F(1, 37) = 257.15***
F(1, 37) = 0.02
F(1, 37) = 17.09***
F(1, 37) = 0.35
F(1, 37) = 0.73
F(1, 37) = 0.04
use of the is significantly higher with specific indefinites than with non-specific indefinites
(p<.001), and use of a is significantly higher with non-specific definites than with specific
definites (p<.001).
NB: When Level is not included as a variable, there is a significant (p<.05) interaction of definiteness and specificity
on use of the.
25.

Results: “the” use across contexts (N=39)
L2-learners overuse the with specific indefinites (22%) significantly more than with nonspecific indefinites (4%) (p<.001). (Ionin 2003, Ionin, Ko, & Wexler, to appear)
Figure 1. use of 'the' across contexts
110%
90%
88%
80%
70%
50%
+specific
30%
4%
10%
-10%
-specific
22%
definite
indefinite
-30%
9
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
26.

Results: “a” use across contexts (N=39)
L2-learners overuse a with non-specific definites (14%) significantly more than with
specific definites (4%) (p<.001). (Ionin 2003, Ionin, Ko, & Wexler, to appear)
Figure 2. use of 'a' across contexts
110%
93%
90%
77%
70%
50%
+specific
-specific
30%
14%
10%
-10%
4%
definite
indefinte
-30%
Individual data analysis
a. The Definiteness Pattern
L2-learners correctly use the and a to mark [+definite] and [-definite] contexts, respectively.
b. The Fluctuation Pattern
L2-learners go back and forth between distinguishing the and a on the basis of definiteness,
and distinguishing them on the basis of specificity.
c. The Strange Pattern (Partial Fluctuation)
large discrepancy in the specificity distinction with definites vs. with indefinites.
NB: L2-learners who fall under this pattern do one of the following: make a strong
specificity distinction with definites, but no specificity distinction with indefinites; or do
exactly the reverse; or make strong specificity distinctions with both definites and indefinites,
but exhibit patterns of article use unaccounted under either the Definiteness or the Specificity
Pattern.
e. Miscellaneous Pattern
use of the on at least one of the non-specific categories exceeds use of the on the
corresponding specific category. Unexpectedly low use of the with specific definites and/or
unexpectedly high use of the with non-specific indefinites.
10
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
Most of the L2-learners have either set the Article Choice Parameter correctly to the Definiteness
pattern, or are undergoing fluctuation between parameter settings.
27.

Discussion: New Findings
The L2-learners’ errors of article use are not random, but occur primarily in [+definite, specific] and [-definite, +specific] contexts, as predicted.
o In [-definite] contexts, overuse of the is tied to the feature [+specific].
o In [+definite] contexts, overuse of a is tied to the feature [-specific].
28.


29.


30.



Implication: UG Theory => L2 acquisition
L2-English article choice is not random. L2-English article choice is constrained by the
semantic features in UG: specificity & definiteness.
L2-English learners have access to universal semantic distinctions, including a distinction
(specificity) not encoded by articles in either their L1 or their L2.
Implication: L2 data => Linguistic theory
The L2-data provide evidence for the reality of specificity as speaker intent to refer (cf.
Fodor and Sag 1982).
The L2-data add to cross-linguistic data by providing evidence that the specificity
distinction exists with both definites and indefinites.
Important Questions
Is specificity the only semantic feature that contributes to L2 learners’ article errors?
If not, what would be other semantic factors responsible for L2 learners’ article usage?
Where should we look to investigate the UG-sanctioned semantic features that may work
in L2 grammar?
11
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
Part II: Partitivity in UG
31.
Investigation of Parallels between L1 and L2 Acquisition
Investigation of both adult L2 and child L1 acquisition can deepen our understanding of the
general human ability to acquire language (See Flynn 1983, 1987, Thomas 1989, Neeleman &
Weerman 1997, Jordens 1998, Unsworth 2003, Flynn & Foley 2004, Flynn, Foley & Vinnitskaya
2004, among many others, for child-adult comparisons).

Adult L2 data may reveal the process of language acquisition uninfluenced by the
concurrent cognitive growth of the child L1 learners
o But unlike L1-acquisition, L2-acquisition may be influenced by L1-transfer.

When L1-transfer can be ruled out as an explanation…close parallels between L1learners and L2-learners suggest that similar linguistic factors may be at work!
o I investigate child/adult parallels in the domain of English article choice.
o L1-transfer is unlikely to play a role: data from L2-acquisition of English articles
by speakers of an article-less L1 (Korean).
32.
Specific Goals



33.
To investigate a possible parallel between L1 and L2 acquisition of article semantics - in
particular, the role of partitivity in article choice.
To investigate the relationship between different semantic factors (specificity, scope and
partitivity) in L2 English article choice
To tie the current findings to previous studies on article acquisition by L1- and L2English learners.
Previous studies on L2-acquisition of English articles

Article misuse in L2-English: overuse of the with indefinites, overuse of a with
definites (see Huebner 1983; Master 1987; Parrish 1987; Thomas 1989; Kaneko 1996;
Leung 2001; Ionin 2003; Ionin, Ko, and Wexler, to appear, among others).

L2-English article errors are not random; L2-English article choice is constrained by
the universal semantic features of definiteness and specificity as speaker intent to
refer. In particular, overuse of the is tied to the [+specific] feature, and overuse of a is
tied to the [-specific] feature (see Ionin 2003, Ionin et al., to appear).
CONTEXT
[+specific]
[-specific]
[+definite]: target the
correct use of the
overuse of a
[-definite]: target a
overuse of the
correct use of a
12
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
34.
Previous studies on L1-acquisition of Articles
THE Classic Puzzle: Children overuse the with partitive indefinite DPs
PARTITIVITY: INFORMAL DEFINITION
If a DP is [+partitive], it denotes an individual that is a member of a set introduced by
previous discourse (cf. Enç 1991, Diesing 1992).
NB: Enç (1991), among others, uses the term specific for DPs that I am calling partitive. I reserve the term
specific for DPs involving specificity as speaker intent to refer, as defined above. It is important to note that the
terms partitivity and specificity, as I am using them, denote quite different semantic concepts: set membership
on the one hand, and speaker intent to refer on the other. (Diesing’s (1992) discussion is about presuppositional
indefinites more broadly, of which partitive indefinites are a subtype).

Findings of definite article overuse with [+partitive] indefinite DPs in L1-acquisition:
Warden 1974, 1976; Maratsos 1974, 1976; Karmiloff-Smith 1979; Schafer and de
Villiers 2000, among others. (cf. Bresson 1974, Brown 1973, Emslie and Stevenson
1981, Zheler and Brewer 1982, Garton 1983, Matthewson, Bryant & Roeper 2001,
Schaeffer and Matthewson, to appear, for the role of other factors).
(13)
Adult: Once there was a lady. She had lots of girls and boys. They were very
noisy and they kept her awake all the time. One night she went to bed. She told
them to be very quiet. She said, ‘If anyone makes any noise, they won’t get any
breakfast tomorrow’. She went to bed. But do you know what happened? One of
them started laughing and giggling. Let’ see. There were four girls and three
boys. Who was laughing and giggling like that?
Child’s response: THE BOY. (from Maratsos 1974, 1976)
35.
Explaining overuse of the in L1-acquisition:

Lack of pragmatic knowledge?
Egocentric response. A child might use the when she has one salient referent in mind,
ignoring the state of listener knowledge. (Maratsos 1976, Schaeffer and Matthewson, to
appear, among others).
Deictic Expression. Like a demonstrative, the definite article points to an object under
the child’s focus of attention (Karmiloff-Smith 1979)

Lack of semantic knowledge?
Maximality Trouble. Children’s lexical entry for the has the presupposition of existence,
but lacks the presupposition of “uniqueness” (maximality) (Wexler 2003)  the for the
child essentially means one of the
13
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
LEXICAL ENTRIES FOR THE IN ADULT VS. CHILD ENGLISH:
Adults’ Standard Lexical Entry for ‘the’ (from Heim 1991)
[the x] P expresses that proposition which is:
- true at an index i, if there is exactly one x at i, and it is P at i
- false at an index i, if there is exactly one x at i, and it is not P at i
- truth-valueless at an index i, if there isn’t exactly one x at i
Children’s Lexical Entry for ‘the’ (Wexler 2003)
[the x] P expresses that proposition which is:
- true at an index i, if there is an x at i, and it is P at i
- false at an index i, if there is an x at i, and there is no x such that x is P at i
- truth-valueless at an index i, if there is no x at i
36.


37.
Research Questions
Consensus: Both L1 and L2 learners overuse the in contexts where a is appropriate
Questions: Are article errors in child L1-English and adult L2-English traceable to the
same semantic factors?
- Does partitivity lead to the overuse in adult L2-English? (this talk)
- Does specificity as speaker intent to refer lead to the overuse in child L1-English?
(a question for the future)
Hypothesis and Predictions
Hypothesis:
If partitivity is a universal semantic feature affecting acquisition of articles, then adult L2English learners will overuse the in the context of partitivity (lack of the maximality
presupposition), like child L1-English learners (cf. Wexler 2003).
Predictions:
Systematic overuse of the with indefinites in [+partitive] contexts and no overuse of the with
indefinites in [-partitive] contexts (except where other factors such as specificity contribute to
overuse of the).
38.
Experiment: Methods
Subjects. 20 intermediate and advanced adult L1-Korean learners of English [proficiency
measured by the Michigan test: 16 advanced, 4 intermediate L2-learners].
NB: The test was piloted on 6 native English speakers, who performed as expected.
14
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
Task. Forced Choice Test. The subjects were presented with English dialogues, and had to
choose an article for the target sentence in each dialogue, on the basis of the context. The choices
of the, a and -- (“no article”) were provided.
NB. An additional 20 L1-Korean L2-English learners (plus 4 native English speakers) took a
different version of the test, in which the choice of articles was not provided, and the learners had
to fill in the blank with the right article. This talk focuses only on the forced choice test data. See
the appendix for data from the fill-in-the-blank test; the main effect of partitivity was present in
both test types, but there were some other differences, which require further investigation.
Stimuli. 80 dialogues in English; 10 contexts target a, 10 contexts target the, 4 tokens per
context type. The items were arranged into two pseudo-random test orders, each of which was
given to 10 subjects. I report the data from 10 indefinite contexts testing:
Partitivity*Scope [3*2 design]
Partitivity*Specificity [2*2 design]
NB: I do not report the data on definite contexts here. These included [±specific] definite contexts
modeled after Ionin et al. (to appear), with some modifications, as well as fillers. The subjects
successfully supplied the in most (non-filler) definite contexts, with higher the use on [+specific]
(90%, 3.6/4) than on [-specific] definites (70%, 2.8/4).
39.
Stimuli: Partitivity & Scope
Research questions
o Does partitivity contribute to overuse of the in L2-English article choice?
o Is partitivity an abstract semantic feature or a morphological reflex requiring a pluralmarked DP in the previous discourse?

Explicit partitive (four boys - a boy): both morphological and semantic indications
of set membership

Implicit partitive (orchestra - a musician): only semantic indication of set
membership
o Does partitivity interact with other semantic properties, such as scope (e.g. Salish)? If
so, how?
NB: Previous studies of L2-acquisition (e.g., Huebner 1983, Thomas 1989) investigated the role of scope in
L2-English article choice. While these studies used the term specific reference, the use of this term
corresponded to wide scope over any intensional/modal operators. See Ionin et al. (to appear) for more
discussion, and for evidence that specificity as speaker intent to refer, rather than wide scope, contributes to
overuse of the in L2-English.
15
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
Stimuli (The target article is underlined)
(14)
Wide Scope, Explicit Partitive:
Elissa:
How is your nephew Aaron doing? He is such a nice little boy!
Robert:
He has some good news – his parents finally allowed him to get a pet – just one! So
last week, he went to our local pet shop. This pet shop had five puppies and seven kittens, and
Aaron loved all of them. But he could get only one!
Elissa:
Oh, so what did he do?
Robert:
Well, it was difficult for him to make up his mind. But finally, he got (a, the, --)
puppy. Aaron went home really happy!
(15)
Wide Scope, Implicit Partitive:
Jane: Your friend Lucy looks really excited. What’s going on?
Mary: Well, last Sunday was a really a big day for her. She went to the airport to see her mother
off, and ran into the Boston Red Sox team. You know what? She was very lucky – she got an
autograph from (a, the, --) player. And afterwards, she met some friends at the airport! What a
day!
(16)
Wide Scope, Non-Partitive:
Elissa:
How is your nephew Joey doing? He is such a nice boy!
Robert: Well, he was a bit depressed the last few days. So, his parents decided to get him a pet.
So last week, he went to our local pet shop.
Elissa:
Oh, so did he buy some animal there?
Robert: No, he did not like the puppies in the pet shop, in fact. But then he was walking home,
and he found (a, the, --) kitten in the street! So now he has a new pet after all!
(17)
Narrow Scope, Explicit Partitive:
Elissa:
How is your niece Amy doing?
Robert: Great! Her parents finally allowed her to get a pet at the local pet shop. Amy knows that
this pet shop has five puppies and six kittens.
Elissa:
Oh, so which one of these animals is she going to buy?
Robert:
She has not quite decided yet. But she definitely wants to buy (a, the, --) puppy.
She is going to the pet shop on Friday.
(18)
Narrow Scope, Implicit Partitive:
Jane: Hi, how are you? I heard that your brother Jason is going to the airport tomorrow
morning. Is he going somewhere?
Mary: Oh, no! Jason will go there to meet the Boston Celtics team. The team will be leaving
Boston on the 7AM flight. Jason wants to get the autograph of (a, the, --) player. Any player
would do – this would make him really happy!
(19)
Narrow Scope, Non-Partitive:
Susan: How are you Nancy? What are you thinking about? You look so happy.
Nancy: Well, I have to solve two math problems and write three essays.
Susan: Does it make you happy? I don’t understand you!
Nancy: Oh! No!! But I have to finish this homework quickly. My mother decided to get me (a,
the, --) pet! She promised she’ll do that if I finish homework!
16
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
40. Results: Overuse of the with partitive DPs
(Ko, Ionin, & Wexler 2004)
Partitivity & Scope
overuse of the with indefinites
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
32.50%
28.80%
26.20%
22.50%
6.30%
2.50%
Wide Scope
Explicit Partitive
Context
Explicit Partitive
Implicit Partitive
Non-partitive
Narrow Scope
Implicit Partitive
Non-partitive
Wide Scope: Mean (S.E.)
Narrow Scope: Mean (S.E.)
1.05/4 (.23)
1.30/4 (.16)
0.25/4(.12)
1.15/4(.21)
0.9/4 (.25)
0.1/4 (.06)
41. Repeated Measures ANOVAs on the use:
•Omnibus F. [RM factor: partitivity & scope, RG factor: test order & proficiency]
Main effect of Partitivity [F(2,32)=13.397, ***p<.0001].
No significant interaction between Partitivity and Scope [F(2,32)=.137, p=.872].
Effects of proficiency approach marginal significance [F (1,16)=3.643, p=.074].
NB. A significant main effect of Scope for the overuse [F(1,16) = 5.950, *p=.027], but no main effect of Scope for a
use [F(1,16)=.022, p=.883]. (On the other hand, the main effect of partitivity is present whether the or a use is
measured). This is potentially due to the fact that the omission rate in the narrow scope contexts (8%) was
significantly higher than the omission rate in the wide scope contexts (2%) [F(1,16)=6.253, *p=.024]. Interactions
were found between Scope*Proficiency [F(1,16)= 4.46, p<.051], and interactions between Scope*Partitivity*Test
order [F(2,32)=5.54, p<.009]. I leave the interpretation of the results concerning article omission in L2-English for
further investigation.
•Planned Comparisons.
Significantly more use of the in partitive contexts than in non-partitive contexts:
-explicit partitive vs. non-partitive [F(1,16) =23.2,***p<.0001]
-implicit partitive vs. non-partitive [F(1,16) =17.6,***p=.001]
No significant difference between explicit and implicit partitive contexts in use of the [F
(1,16) = .588, p=.454].
17
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
42.
Follow-up Questions:
Summary: Partitivity affects overuse of the in L2-English, and is independent of Scope.
Follow-up Questions:
•
•
•
How does the partitivity feature interact with the specificity feature in L2-English article
choice?
Are partitivity and specificity two expressions of the same semantic property?
Or are they independent factors that contribute to overuse of the in L2- English?
43. Stimuli: Partitivity & Specificity
NB: All partitive contexts in this section were implicit partitives.
(20) Partitive, Specific
Molly:
So what did your guest Mr. Svenson do over the weekend?
Jamie:
Well, he went to see our local softball team play. He had a good time.
Afterwards, he met (a, the, --) player – she was very nice and friendly. And she
played really well!
(21) Partitive, Non-specific
Ben:
I just saw Tom, and he looked really excited. Do you know why?
Melissa:
Yes – he was able to see the Boston Red Sox team while they were
practicing. And he is a huge fan! He even got a signature from (a, the, --) player – I
have no idea which one. Tom was really excited!
(22) Non-partitive, Specific
Jennifer: Hello, Helen? This is Jennifer!
Helen: Hi, Jennifer! It’s wonderful to hear from you. I suppose you want to talk to my sister?
Jennifer: Yes, I haven’t spoken to her in years! I’d like to talk to her now if possible.
Helen: I’m very sorry, but she doesn’t have time to talk right now. She is meeting with (a,
the --) very important client from Seattle. He is quite rich, and she really wants to get his
business for our company! She’ll call you back later.
(23) Non-partitive, Non-specific
Wife:
Where is Peter? I haven’t seen him all evening.
Husband:
He is on the phone – he has been on it for hours.
Wife:
Really? That’s not like Peter at all – he almost never uses the phone.
Husband:
But this time, he is talking to (a, the --) girl – I have no idea who it is, but it’s
an important conversation to Peter.
18
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
44.
Results: Overuse of the with partitive and specific DPs
(Ko, Ionin, & Wexler 2004)
Partitivity & Specificity
overuse of the with indefinites
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
39%
30%
16%
4%
Specific
Non-Specific
+partitive
Context
Partitive
Non-partitive
-partitive
Specific: Mean (S.E.)
1.55/4 (.33)
1.2/4 (.30)
Nonspecific: Mean (S.E.)
0.65/4 (.20)
0.15/4 (.08)
45. Repeated Measures ANOVAs on the use
•Omnibus F [RM factor: partitivity & specificity, RG factor: test order & proficiency]
Main Effects of Partitivity and Specificity:
-Significantly more use of the in partitive contexts than in non-partitive contexts
[F(1,16)= 10.50,***p=.005].
-Significantly more use of the in specific contexts than in non-specific contexts
[F(1,16)= 12.72, ***p=.003].
-No significant interaction between Partitivity and Specificity [F(1,16)=.17, p=.684].
-No other main effects (No significant effect of proficiency [F(1,16)=3.61, p=.223]).
NB. There was significant interactions between partitivity*proficiency*test order [F(1, 16)=8.04, p<.012].
There is no significant difference in the use between [+specific, +partitive] and [+specific, -partitive]
contexts [F(1,16)=1.41, p<.251], so we cannot be absolutely certain that specificity and partitivity are
independent factors. However, the lack of an interaction is suggestive.
19
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
Individual Data from the Forced Choice Test ([P] = partitive, [S] = specific)
Pattern
Subject [-P, +S] [+P, +S] [+P, -S] [-P, -S]
1
4
4
2
1
Mixed
2
0
2
1
1
Partitivity
3
1
3
1
0
Mixed
4
1
2
0
1
Specificity
5
0
1
0
0
Mixed
6
3
2
2
0
Mixed
7
2
2
1
0
Mixed
8
0
0
1
0
Partitivity
9
4
4
0
0
Specificity
10
0
0
0
0
Definiteness
11
1
0
0
0
Specificity
12
2
4
0
0
Specificity
13
2
0
0
0
Specificity
14
1
3
0
0
Specificity
15
0
1
0
0
Mixed
16
0
0
0
0
Definiteness
17
0
1
1
0
Partitivity
18
2
2
3
0
Mixed
19
1
0
1
0
Mixed
20
0
0
0
0
Definiteness
o Definiteness Pattern
[no errors]
o Specificity Pattern
[%errors due to [+specific] –
%errors due to [+partitive] ≥
25%]
o Partitivity Pattern
[-25% ≤ %errors due to
[+specific] – %errors due to
[+partitive]]
o Mixed-Pattern
[-25%< %errors due to
[+specific] – %errors due to
[+partitive] <25%]
Individual data analysis suggests that specificity setting, partitivity setting, definiteness
setting, and fluctuation between Individual
specificityPatterns
and definiteness setting are all observed in the
L1-Korean data.
9
8
7
#L2-Learners

Individual Patterns:
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Specificity
Partitivity
Definiteness
Fluctuation
20
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
46.
Discussion: New findings and Implications
 Parallels between L1 and L2 acquisition: Maximality Trouble both in L2 and in L1
acquisition of articles.
Implication: adult L2-learners have full pragmatic knowledge (e.g., no egocentricity), so
the results are more likely to be due to linguistic than to pragmatic factors
 Partitivity contributes to overuse of the with indefinites in L2-English, independently
of scope and specificity.
Implication: In addition to definiteness (common ground) and specificity (speaker intent
to refer), L2-English article choice is influenced by partitivity  there are at least three
independent semantic factors influencing L2-article choice
[cf. Schaeffer and Matthewson, to appear, for the view that only common ground and
speaker beliefs play a role in article choice].
 Partitivity is a semantic property: there is no difference between explicit and implicit
partitive DPs in L2-article errors. (but see Appendix)
Implication: overuse of ‘the’ in partitive contexts is due to a semantic feature, rather than
to a reflex associated with plural morphology.
 L2-learners’ article choice is not random: almost no mistakes with indefinites in
non-specific, non-partitive contexts!
Implication: L2-errors are not random, but reflect L2-speakers’ access to universal
semantic features: definiteness, specificity, and partitivity.
47.
Discussion: Open Questions

Are there exact parallels between the acquisition of articles in L2-acquisition and L1acquisition?
o Does implicit partitivity also trigger overuse of the in L1-acquisition of articles?
o Does specificity as speaker intent to refer (cf. Ionin 2003) contribute to the
overuse of the in child L1-English? (Possibly relevant findings on child L1English: Schaeffer and Matthewson, to appear – but they give a pragmatic
explanation to the results).
•
Partitivity as an article choice parameter setting in UG? Overuse of the with partitive
indefinites are observed in the course of both L1- and L2- acquisition of English articles
(regardless of the learners’ L1).
–partitivity may be a semantic feature in Universal Grammar that encodes the article
system in natural language. => fluctuation between three article choice parameter settings
–more research on crosslinguistic data required.
e.g. D-linking (Pesetsky 1987), Turkish Case (Enç 1991)

What about L1-transfer and parameter resetting? Salish? Turkish?
21
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu

Is the effect of partitivity universal in L2-acquisition, or does it only exist for L1-Korean
learners of English?
o Preliminary data from L1-Serbo-Croatian L2-English learners suggest that the
partitivity effect is not limited to Korean speakers (Perovic, Ko, Ionin and
Wexler, in progress)
o Ionin, Ko, and Wexler (to appear) show that L1 Russian speakers are also
sensitive to the effect of specificity, patterning with L1-Korean learners. The
effect of partitivity has not been tested yet.
o
48.
Some evidence of the overuse in explicit partitive contexts for L1-Japanese L2English learners (Kaneko 1996)
Conclusion
Linguistic Theory => L2 AcquisitionAn abstract and complex phenomenon such as article

choice in L2 acquisition is systematically predicted by linguistic theory.
L2-errors are not random, but are tied to the semantic effect of specificity as speaker
intent to refer (cf. Fodor and Sag 1982) and partitivity as discourse-given knowledge (cf.
Enç 1991, Diesing 1992).
o
Overuse of the is tied to the [+specific] feature, and overuse of a is tied to the [specific] feature. Overuse of the is tied to the [+partitive] feature.
L2 Acquisition => Linguistic Theory


L2-English data argue for the reality of specificity as speaker intent to refer with both
definite and indefinite DPs in UG (cf. Donnellan 1966, Fodor and Sag 1982, Kratzer
1998). L2-English data show that partitivity is a semantic notion, independent of scope
and specificity (cf. Enç 1991, Diesing 1992, Schaeffer and Matthewson, to appear).
L2 data may provide a useful testing ground to study abstract and subtle grammatical
phenomena such as the role of semantic features in UG.
22
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
L1 Acquisition <=> L2 Acquisition


Overuse of the with partitive indefinites are observed in the course of both L1- and L2acquisition of English articles (regardless of the learners’ L1).
–partitivity may be a semantic feature in Universal Grammar that encodes the article
system in natural language.
The findings on L1-L2 parallels in acquisition of articles imply that ‘the’ overuse by
language learners is traced to a semantic factor (lack of Maximality, Wexler 2003) rather
than to children’s egocentricity (Maratsos 1976).
L2 Acquisition <=> UG



Motivation for Universal Grammar from L2 data. L2-learners can access to article
choice parameter value (e.g. specificity) that come from either their L1 or their L2:
–Flynn 1983, 1987, White 1985, 1989, 2003, Flynn & O’Neil 1988, Finer and Broselow
1986; Dresher and Kaye, 1990, Broselow and Finer 1991, Finer 1991; Thomas 1991,
Archibald 1992, 1993, Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, Eubank et al. 1997, Ionin and Wexler
2002, Schwartz and Sprouse 2000a,b, among others.
UG-access to multiple parameter settings. When the input is as subtle and complex as
article choice, L2-learners may reveal UG-access to multiple parameter settings.
Optionality in L2 article choice may be due to the competition among different semantic
notions (possibly article choice parameters) such as definiteness, specificity, and
partitivity to encode the L2-English article system.
23
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
Appendix. Fill-in-the-Blank Test
1. Test Format:
The same contexts as in the forced choice test with additional blanks for distracters
Example: Wide Scope, Explicit Partitive Context (cf. (14)):
Elissa:
How is your nephew Aaron doing? He is such a nice little boy!
Robert:
He has ___--___ some good news – his parents finally allowed him to get a
pet – just one! So last week, he went to our local pet shop. This pet shop had five puppies
and seven kittens, and Aaron loved all of them. But he could get only one!
Elissa:
Oh, so what did he do?
Robert:
Well, it was difficult for him to make up his mind. But finally, he got ___a___
puppy. Aaron went home really happy!
2. Results
Subjects: 2 beginners, 6 intermediate, 12 advanced adult L1-Korean L2-English learners
NB: The test was piloted with 4 native English speakers, who performed as expected.
Results from 18 intermediate + advanced L2-English learners:
Partitivity & Scope
Context
Explicit Partitive
Implicit Partitive
Non-partitive
Wide Scope: Mean (S.E.)
0.39/4 (.13)
1.50/4 (.32)
0.33/4(.14)
Narrow Scope: Mean (S.E.)
0.83/4(.21)
1.16/4 (.31)
0.11/4 (.07)
Omnibus-F [RM factor: partitivity & scope, RG factor: test order & proficiency]
-significant main effect of partitivity: F(2,28) = 14.205, p<.0001
-effect of proficiency (approaching significance): F(1,14)=4.527, p<.052
-main effect of test order F(1,14)=5.173, p<.039
-no other main effects [no main effect of scope: F(1,14)= .114, p<.740]
Planned Comparisons
-explicit partitive vs. non-partitive: F(1,14) = 17.608, p <.001
-implicit partitive vs. non-partitive: F(1,14) = 19.308, p <.001
-explicit partitive vs. implicit partitive: F(1,14) = 7.059, p<.019
 the higher use of the in implicit partitive contexts remains a puzzle for further investigation
Partitivity & Specificity
Context
Partitive
Non-partitive
Specific: Mean (S.E.)
0.44/4 (.16)
0.33/4 (.11)
Nonspecific: Mean (S.E.)
1.05/4 (.33)
0.27/4 (.22)
Omnibus-F [RM factor: partitivity & specificity, RG factor: test order & proficiency]
-significant main effect of partitivity: F(1,14)=8.311, p<.012 [also a planned comparison result]
 significantly more overuse of the in partitive contexts than in non-partitive contexts
-no other main effects [no main effects of specificity: F(1,14)=.396, p<.539]
 the lack of a specificity effect in this test format remains a puzzle for further investigation
24
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
References
Abusch, Dorit. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics, 2, 83–135.
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Bley-Vroman, R. 1989. What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass and J. Schachter (eds.),
Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bresson, F. 1974. Remarks on genetic psycholinguistics: The acquisition of the article system in French. In
Problemes actuels en psycholinguisticque, 67-72. Paris: Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique.
Broselow, E. and D. Finer. 1991. Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language
Research, 7, 35-59.
Brown, R. 1973. A first language: The early stage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Clahsen, H. and U. Hong. 1995. Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: new evidence from
reaction-time experiments. Second Language Research, 5, 1-29.
Clahsen, H. and P. Muysken. 1986. The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners: a study of the
acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93-119.
Cziko, Gary A. 1986. Testing the Language Bioprogram Hypothesis: A review of children’s acquisition of articles.
Language, 62, 878-898.
Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Doughty, C., and M. Long. (2003). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell.
Donnellan, Keith. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 75, 281-304. Reprinted in
D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds.), 1971, Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics,
and Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 100-114.
Emslie, H.C. and Stevenson, R. I. 1981. Pre-school children’s use of the articles in definite and indefinite referring
expressions. Journal of Child Language 8, 313-328.
Enç, M. 1991. The Semantics of Specificity, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-25.
Epstein, Samuel D., Suzanne Flynn and Gita Martohardjono. 1996. Second language acquisition: Theoretical and
experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 677-758.
Epstein, Samuel D., Suzanne Flynn and Gita Martohardjono. 1998. The strong continuity hypothesis in adult L2
acquisition of functional categories. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono and W. O’Neil (eds.), The Generative study
of second language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 61-77.
Dresher, B. Elan and Jonathan Kaye. 1990. A computational learning model phonology. Cognition 34:137-195
Eubank, L., J, Bischof, A, Huffstutler, P, Leek and C. West (1997) “Tom Eats Slowly Cooked Eggs: Thematic-Verb
Raising in L2 Knowledge,” Language Acquisition 6, 171-199.
Finer, D. (1991) “Binding Parameters in Second Language Acquisition,” in L. Eubank, ed., Point Counterpoint:
Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 351-373.
Finer, D. and E. Broselow (1986) “Second Language Acquisition of Reflexive-Binding,” in S. Berman, J-W. Choe
and J. McDonough, eds., Proceedings of the 16th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, University Of
Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistics Student Association, Amherst, MA, 154-168.
Flynn, Suzanne. 1983. A study of the effects of principal branching direction in second language acquisition: The
generalization of a parameter of universal grammar from first to second language acquisition. Ph.D.
dissertation, Cornell University.
Flynn, S. (1987) A Parameter-Setting Model of L2 Acquisition. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Fodor, Janet and Ivan Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 355–
398.
Garton, A. F. 1983. An approach to the study of determiners in early language development. Journal of
psycholinguistic research, 12, 513-525.
Heim, Irene. 1991. Articles and definiteness. Published in German as “Artikel und Definitheit,” in A. v. Stechow &
D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Heim, Irene. 2003. Semantics and pragmatics of article choice: A brief introduction. Paper presented at the CUNY
Sentence Processing Conference, MIT, March 2003.
Heim, Irene and Ken Wexler. 2000. Class notes for “Topics in semantics and acquisition”, Fall 2000, MIT.
Huebner, T. 1983. A Longitudinal Analysis of the Acquisition of English. Karoma, Ann Arbor.
Ionin, Tania and Ken Wexler. 2002. Optional verb raising in L2 acquisition: Evidence from L1-Russian learners of
English. In J. Costa and M.J. Freitas (eds.), Proceedings of the GALA’ 2001 Conference on Language
Acquisition. Lisbon: Associação Portuguese de Linguistica, 134-141.
25
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
Ionin, Tania. 2003. Article Semantics in Second Language Acquisition, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. Distributed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Working Papers in Linguistics.
Ionin, Tania., Heejeong. Ko and Ken Wexler. To appear. Article semantics in L2-acquisition: the role of specificity.
Language Acquisition.
Jordens, P. 1988. The acquisition of word order in Dutch and German as L1 and L2. Second Language Research
4:41-65.
Kaneko, Y. 1996. Knowledge of the English article system in second language learning: To “the” or not to “the”.
Undergraduate thesis, Smith College.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1979. A Functional Approach to Child Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Kellerman, E. and Y. Yoshioka (1999). Inter- and intra-population consistency: a comment on Kanno (1998):
Second Language Research 15: 101-9.
Ko, Heejeong, Tania Ionin, and Ken Wexler. 2004. Adult L2-learners lack the maximality presupposition, too.
Paper presented at GALANA 1 (Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition - North America), University
of Hawai'i at Manoa, December, 2004.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudo-scope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events in
Grammar, 163-196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Leung, Y.-K. 2001. The Initial State of L3A: Full Transfer and Failed Features?,” in X. Bonch-Bruevich, W.J.
Crawford, J. Hellermann, C. Higgins and H. Nguyen, eds., The Past, Present and Future of Second Language
Research: Selected Proceedings of the 2000 Second Language Research Forum, Cascadilla Press, Somerville,
MA, 55-75.
Maclaran, Rose. 1982. The semantics and pragmatics of the English demonstratives. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell
University.
Maratsos, M. P. 1974. Preschool children’s use of definite and indefinite articles, Child Development 45, 446-455.
Maratsos, M. P. 1976. The Use of Definite and Indefinite Reference in Young Children. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Master, P. 1987. A Cross-Linguistic Interlanguage Analysis of the Acquisition of the English Article System,
Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 79–134.
Matthewson, L., T. Bryant and T. Roeper. 2001. A Salish Stage in the Acquisition of English Determiners:
Unfamiliar ‘Definites’, The Proceedings Of SULA: The Semantics Of Under-Represented Languages In The
Americas, University Of Massachusetts Occasional Papers In Linguistics 25.
Matthewson, Lisa and Jeannette Schaeffer. 2000. Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of article systems. in J.
Gilkerson, M. Becker, and N. Hyams (eds.) UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Language Development and
Breakdown 1, University of California, Los Angeles,1-39.
Mitchell, R. & F. Myles (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold
Mosel, Ulrike and Even Hovdhaugen. 1992. Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Murphy, Susan. 1997. Knowledge and production of English articles by advanced second language learners. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Neeleman, A., and F. Weerman. 1997. L1 and L2 word order acquisition. Language Acquisition 6:125-170.
O’Grady. W. 1997. Syntactic development. Chicago: UCP.
Parrish, B. 1987. A New Look at Methodologies in the Study of Article Acquisition for Learners of ESL, Language
Learning 37, 361-383.
Richie, W. and T. Bhatia. (1999). Handbook of child language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.
Robertson, Daniel. 2000. Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learners of English. Second
Language Research, 16, 135-172.
Schachter, Jacquelyn. 1990. On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language
Research, 6, 93-124.
Schaeffer, J. and L. Matthewson. To appear. Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of article system, Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory.
Schafer, R. and J. De Villiers. 2000. Imagining Articles: What a and the Can Tell Us About the Emergence of DP, in
S.C. Howell, S.A. Fish and T. Keith-Lucas, eds., Proceedings of the 24th Boston University Conference on
Language Development, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA.
Schwartz, Bonnie D. and Rex A. Sprouse. 1994. Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition:
A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Teun Hoekstra and Bonnie D. Schwartz (eds.),
26
Heejeong Ko
heejeong@mit.edu
Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar: Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991
GLOW Workshops. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 317-368.
Schwartz, B.D. and R. Sprouse. 2000a. The use and abuse of linguistic theory in L2 acquisition research. In A. Juffs,
T. Talpas, G. Mizera and B.Burtt (eds.), Proceedings of GASLA IV. 176-87. University of Pittsburgh Working
Papers in Linguistics.
Schwartz, B.D. and R. Sprouse. 2000b. When syntactic theories evolves: consequences for L2 acquisition research.
In W. Abraham, W. Kosmeijer and E. Reuland (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory 156186. Oxford. Blackwell.
Tarone, Elaine and Betsy Parrish. 1988. Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language
Learning, 38, 21-45.
Thomas, M. 1989. The Acquisition of English Articles by First- and Second-Language Learners, Applied
Psycholinguistics 10, 335-355.
Thomas, Margaret. 1991. Universal Grammar and the interpretation of reflexives in a second language. Language,
67, 211-239.
Tsimpli, I. and A. Roussou. 1991. Parameter resetting in L2? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149-169.
Unsworth, S. 2003. Direct object scrambling in adult and child L2 Dutch. In Proceedings
of the 4th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (ed.), 265-289. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Warden, D. A. 1974. An experimental investigation into the child’s developing use of definite and indefinite
referential speech. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London.
Warden, D. A. 1976. The influence of context on children’s use of identifying expressions and references. British
Journal of Psychology, 67, 1, 101-112.
Wexler, K. 2003. Maximal Trouble. Paper presented at the CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, Boston,
MA. To appear as “Cues don’t Explain Learning” in CUNY Proceedings (edited by Ted Gibson and Neal
Pearlmutter).
White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 35, 47-62.
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, Chapter
2.6-2.7; Chapter 3-4.
White, Lydia. 1990/91. The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 1,
337-360.
White, Lydia. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 399467.
Young, R. 1996. Form-function relations in articles in English interlanguage. In R. Bayley and D.R. Preston (eds.),
Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zheler, A. M. and W.F. Brewer. 1982. Sequence and principles in article system use: An examination of a, the, and
null acquisition. Child Development 53, 1268-1274.
27