Poverty of the Stimulus in
Second Language Acquisition
Roumyana Slabakova
University of Iowa
Nutshell



The Poverty of the Stimulus argument claims that
natural language grammar is unlearnable to the full,
given the relatively limited data available to children
and adults learning a language, and
therefore that this knowledge is supplemented with
some sort of innate linguistic capacity.
Humans are born with a specific representational
adaptation for language that both supports and
constrains their competence to acquire linguistic
representations in the course of their linguistic
maturation.
Important terms


Positive evidence: the set of grammatical sentences
and interpretations the language learner has access
to, by observing the speech of others and the
extralinguistic situation in which these sentences
are uttered.
Negative evidence: the evidence available to the
language learner about what is not grammatical (in
descriptive, not prescriptive terms). In L2A, negative
evidence can take the form of explicit corrections,
but not recasts, in the language classroom.
Positive and negative evidence


It is argued that only positive but not negative
evidence informs the linguistic development of
children acquiring their mother tongue
In L2A, however, this argument is much less clearcut. Schwartz (1993) argues that negative data and
explicit data result in a type of knowledge that is not
to be equated with linguistic competence. Only
positive data can effect the construction of an
interlanguage grammar comparable to that of native
speakers
The shape of the argument
Premises:
 There are patterns in all natural languages that cannot be
learned by children using positive evidence alone.
 Children are only ever presented with positive evidence for
these particular patterns. For example, they only hear others
speaking using sentences that are "right", not those that are
"wrong".
 Children do learn the correct grammars for their native
languages.
Conclusion: Therefore, human beings must have some form of
innate linguistic capacity that provides additional knowledge to
language learners.
The PoS argument in L1A
The most often cited example of children being aware
of syntactic structure is based on children’s
knowledge if subject-auxiliary inversion in questions:
The unicorn is grazing  Is the unicorn is grazing?
The unicorn which is in the garden is grazing 
Is the unicorn which is in the garden is grazing? NO!
Is the unicorn which is in the garden is grazing? YES!
The PoS argument in L2A
Has mostly been made within the realm of
semantics:
 Adult L2 learners already have a grammar, the
grammar of their mother tongue, to be expected
to violate structure dependence in a second
language
 If it can be shown that a native interpretation does
not exist in the target language (therefore, there
is no positive evidence for it in the L2 input) but
its absence is still acquired by adult speakers,
then a clear case of UG access can be made.
Morphosyntax-semantics
mismatches
Meaning 1
Meaning 2
Sentence 1
√
√
Sentence 2
√
*
Where sentence 1 and sentence 2 are a minimal pair
(differ in only one characteristic)
Complex syntax—simple
semantics


Properties falling under this learning situation have
quite complex syntax. Sentences involve less
frequent constructions such as double genitives,
discontinuous constituents, quantifiers at a distance,
scrambling, etc.
In a lot of cases, alternative ways of articulating the
same message exist, making the tested
constructions dispreferred.
Complex syntax—simple
semantics


However, at the syntax-semantics interface, these
same properties do not present much difficulty, as
there are no mismatches.
If learners have acquired the relevant Functional
Lexicon item and have constructed the right
sentence representation, the presence or absence
of semantic interpretation follows straightforwardly
from universal computational mechanisms.
Dekydtspotter and Sprouse 2001
Tense-dependent interpretations of discontinuous
quantifiers:
Qui de célèbre fumait au bistro dans les année 60?
Who of famous smoked in the bar in the 60ies?
‘Which famous person smoked in bars in the 60ies?’
√present celebrity √past celebrity
Qui fumait de célèbre au bistro dans les année 60?
Who smoked of famous in the bar in the 60ies?
‘Which famous person smoked in bars in the 60ies?’
#present celebrity √past celebrity
Linguistic analysis
The linguistic facts that engender these
interpretations can be explained by combining
language-specific movement for checking of a whfeature, the possibility of left-branch extraction (again,
language-specific) and a universal semanticcomputational mechanism. When a wh-phrase (qui)
moves to Spec, CP to check a wh-feature (piedpiping the rest of the phrase with it, or checking a
strong feature) it can optionally take its adjectival
restrictions (de célèbre) along for the ride.
Linguistic analysis
[CPQui de célèbre [C [TP tqui de célèbre fumait [VP tqui de célèbre
[V' tfumait ]]]]?
The adjectival restriction ‘de célèbre’ can be
interpreted in CP, TP and in VP
[CP Qui [C [IP t qui [I' fumait [VP [t qui de célèbre][V' tfumait ]
The restriction can be interpreted only in VP. Since
the Past tense operator is located in T, the second
sentence has a past celebrity interpretation only (in
the scope of the Tense operator)
What kind of knowledge is
being acquired?




Knowledge of wh-movement (can be transferred
from English into French)
Knowledge that discontinuous quantifiers are
allowed in French (evident from the test sentences)
Knowledge that French allows adjectival restrictions
with who (while in English who famous or who of
famous are ungrammatical) (evident from the test
sentences)
Most importantly, the UNIVERSAL DEDUCTIVE
PROCEDURE is indispensable for interpretation
Test participants




47 anglophone intermediate learners of
French, 3rd and 5th semester French at Indiana
U.
11 advanced speakers of L2 French
One control group of 30 native French speakers
One control group of 47 English natives with no
exposure to French (further divided into two)
Test instrument: The Truth
Value Judgment Task
Attitudes toward smoking have changed drastically since the 1960s. In the
60s many people would go to bars and smoke every night. For example,
Herman the Hermit was a famous rock star in those days and was often
seen at bars smoking with Linda Tripp, who was then totally unknown. How
times have changed! Now it is Linda Tripp who is famous, and neither of
them smokes any more!
Continuous interrogative with past time answer:
Mme Goyette: Qui de célèbre fumait – dans le bistro – pendant les
année 60?
Élève:
Herman the Hermit
Question for respondents on all items:
Is this a correct answer to the question?
Percentage of acceptance of past time and
speech time construals with continuous or
discontinuous interrogatives
Intermediate
Advanced
Native French
Construal:
past
speech past
speech past
speech
Continuous
interrogatives
90.7
41.2(OK) 79.6
46.6(OK) 88.8
12.5(OK)
Discontinuous
interrogatives
90.7
25 (#)
90.9
15.9 (#)
96.3
5 (#)
Summary of results



Past time construals are preferred across the board
by natives and learners alike.
Knowledge of the missing interpretation, the speechtime construal with discontinuous constituents is
crucial in answering the research question of this
study.
Both learner groups show a statistically significant
difference between the available and the unavailable
interpretations. In other words, they reliably treat the
two constructions differently.
What the English natives chose
The English native speakers were divided into two groups
and given the following sentences to judge:
*Who of famous smoked in bars in the 60ies?
*Who smoked of famous in bars in the 60ies?
?*Who famous smoked in bars in the 60ies?
*Who smoked famous in bars in the 60ies?
Dekydtspotter and Sprouse rely on the premise that
speakers can attribute interpretations even to
ungrammatical strings.
English native judgments
Group 1 (judging
questions with the
preposition of) (n=23)
Group 2 (judging
questions without
preposition) (n=24)
Past
Speech
Past
Speech
Continuous
interrogatives
86.95
30.98
89.06
28.12
Discontinuous
interrogatives
86.95
22.28
93.75
5.72
What the English native results
mean



The past time construal is again accepted to a very high
degree in answer to both continuous and discontinuous
interrogatives, in both native English groups. This fact in itself
confirms the authors’ hypothesis that speakers can judge the
interpretation of ungrammatical strings.
Furthermore, no significant distinction is made between the
two types of interrogatives in the past construal, again for
both types of ungrammatical strings.
Most importantly however, acceptance of the speech time
construals by Group 1 shows that a pure glossing strategy
would not lead the French learners to the expected contrast
in their L2 knowledge.
What the English native results
mean




If English was like French in this respect:
the question word who would allow an adjectival restriction,
and also would allow that restriction to be left in situ,
then the universal interpretive procedure would have made
French and English equal.
In their speech time construal acceptance rates, Group 2
native English speakers demonstrate the universal semantic
computation at work, when the parametric differences are
taken away.
Note that they accept the speech time construals with
continuous interrogatives more often than the native French
speakers do, and they display a significant contrast.
Poverty of the Stimulus and
Universal Semantics


The interrogatives judged by Groups 1 and Group 2 of native
speakers are ungrammatical strings. How did these intuitions
arise in the first place?
They could not have been due to pattern noticing in the child
language input, since such sentences would not have
appeared in child-directed speech.
These intuitions about degrees of ungrammaticality can only
arise on the basis of linguistic meaning computation regulated
by UG.
Poverty of the Stimulus and
Universal Semantics



The clever design of Dekydtspotter and Sprouse’s (2001)
study allows us a glimpse at how speakers judge
interrogative interpretations based on the universal
computational mechanism only, compared to using that
same universal mechanism augmented with parametric
knowledge of target language interrogative structure.
Acceptance rates of the dispreferred but legitimate construal
jumps from 28% (Group 2 native English speakers) to 41%
(intermediate learners) to 47% (advanced learners).
Thus acquiring the French optionally discontinuous adjectival
restriction of qui ‘who’ allows even low-proficiency French
learners to display the French contrast reliably.
Simple syntax—complex
semantics


Learning situations in which some meanings
are denoted by seemingly similar morphemes.
E.g. English past simple and past progressive
Spanish preterit and imperfect aspectual
tenses
Mismatch at the L1-L2 syntax-semantics
interface (different meanings are encoded in the
seemingly similar morphemes)
English simple present tense
(Slabakova 2003)
The English simple tense cannot denote ongoing events.
*She eats an apple right now.
She is eating an apple right now.
She eats an apple (every day).
(#ongoing event)
(ongoing event)
(habitual event)
With stative predicates, however, the ongoing reading of
the English present is possible.
Mike is lazy.
Mike is being lazy today.
(characteristic state)
(temporary state)
English bare infinitive
(Slabakova 2003)
The English bare infinitive denotes not only the
process part of an event but includes the completion
of that event
I saw Mary cross the street. (completion entailed)
I saw Mary crossing the street.
(no completion entailed)
Explanation: bare verbs are marked with a feature
[Perfective] in the lexicon, because English
inflectional morphology is impoverished.
Bulgarian present tense
(Slabakova 2003)
No present progressive tense and the present simple
tense is ambiguous between a habitual and an
ongoing event or state.
Maria sega jade
torta.
(simultaneous event)
Maria now eat-PRES cake
‘Mary is eating a cake right now.’
Maria jade torta vseki den.
(habitual activity)
Maria eat-PRES cake every day
‘Mary eats cake every day.’
Bulgarian present tense
(Slabakova 2003)
This is true of stative predicates as well, ambiguous
between a characteristic and a temporary state.
Maria ləže.
Maria lies-present
‘Mary is a liar.’
(characteristic state)
Maria v momenta
ləže.
(temporary state)
Maria at this moment lies-present
‘Mary is lying (at the moment).’
Bulgarian infinitives (Slabakova 2003)
Bulgarian verbs do not need to be marked
[Perfective] in the lexicon. They are amply marked
with person, number, and tense endings.
Consequently, Bulgarian equivalents to bare
infinitives do not entail completion of the event.
Ivan vidja Maria da presiča ulicata.
Ivan saw Maria to cross street-DET
‘John saw Mary crossing/*cross the street.’
(no completion entailed)
Learning Task (Slabakova 2003)

.
English eventive verbs
have the feature
[Perfective]
Bare verbs denote
a complete event.
Present tense has only
a habitual interpretation
Progressive is needed for
ongoing interpretation
States in the progressive
denote temporary states
Experiment (Slabakova 2003)




112 Bulgarian-speaking learners of English and
24 native speakers
3 proficiency levels: low intermediate, high
intermediate, and advanced
A production task for ascertaining knowledge of
inflectional morphology
A truth value judgment task for checking
knowledge of interpretation
Experiment (Slabakova 2003)
A quadruple testing completed interpretation of
English bare forms:
Matt had an enormous appetite. He was one of those
people who could eat a whole cake at one sitting. But
these days he is much more careful what he eats.
For example, yesterday he bought a chocolate and
vanilla ice cream cake, but ate only half of it after
dinner. I know, because I was there with him.
I observed Matt eat a cake.
True
I observed Matt eating a cake. True
False
False
Results (Slabakova 2003)
Mean Accuracy on Bare Verb vs. -ing Form on
Perceptual Reports ( pe rc entage )
95
100
87
90
83
65
70
60
79
75
80
86
82
75
73
76
75
68
64
68
58
Low Int
Hi Int
Advanc ed
Controls
50
40
30
20
10
0
Bare verb (F)
Inc omplete ev ent
-ing (T)
Bare verb (T)
Complete event
-ing (T)
Conclusions (Slabakova 2003)



It is possible to acquire semantic properties in the
second language that do not come from the L1
All semantic effects of the triggering inflectional
property appear to be engaged at the same time.
Any impact of instruction? NO
ANOVA on the data for each group, with condition
as the sole factor. All groups perform equally well
on all conditions.
Poverty of the Stimulus in SLA
These findings show that the universal
semantic computation mechanism is at work
in L2 speakers, once the respective
functional morphology carrying the formal
features has been acquired
 The pedagogical implications are that
language teachers do not need to teach
universal semantics but just the inflectional
morphology where language differences
reside.

Thank you!
If you have questions, email me:
Roumyana-Slabakova@uiowa.edu