Download Knowledge and processing of auxiliaries in a second language: An

Knowledge and processing of auxiliaries in a second language: An eye-tracking study on auxiliary
selection in L2 Italian
1. Research question. Auxiliary selection in compound tenses is a diagnostic for the unergative/unaccusative
distinction in Italian, and also learners of Italian as an L2 are assumed to be sensitive to the features of
unaccusativity (Sorace 1993, 2000; Oshita, 2001). In my study, I question whether auxiliary selection is a
reliable diagnostic also for L2 Italian. A developmental and a methodological issue intertwine. The former refers
to whether learners of Italian are able to recognize only the auxiliaries of verbs they have already heard or seen
or if they can apply an abstract, inferred rule (whether grammatical or statistical) also to novel verbs. The latter
issue refers to whether learners can make use of this target-like rule also when they are engaged in real time
comprehension/production tasks or if in such conditions L2 processing is driven by alternative/different
cognitive principles (L1 processing routines, attraction for lexical rather than for morphological cues etc.)
(Mitchell, 1994, Frenck-Mestre, 2005). In fact, there could be a tension between hierarchical, incremental
computation on one side and linearization on the other, which surfaces a deeper misalignment between
representation and processing of the split intransitivity in L2 Italian. The research question splits accordingly:
(A) If a rule for auxiliary selection is transparent to L2 processing, then the eye-movements of our subjects
might suggest that there are two kinds of auxiliary knowledge which follow one another in a developmentally
moderated fashion, according to the 'discontinuity model' of language acquisition (Mitchell and Myles, 1998;
Tanner, 2010). According to this model, our subjects would be still - so to say - 'under the unaccusativity
threshold': they would be more sensitive to frequency effects of aux+PastP constructions than to the factors (verb
semantics or syntax) which determine the intransitive split in native speakers. (B) If a different cognitive strategy
drives the processing of auxiliaries in the L2 irrespectively of the presence of whatever a rule, more sophisticated
and repeated measures are necessary to tap such an abstract knowledge in a learner's grammar over time.
2. Subjects: are undergraduate students spending one semester in Italy to learn the language
Group
n.
A
4
Months
in Italy
3-18
B
C
Control
9
12
7
26
2
-
L1
Germ,
Pol,
Rum,
Cro
Chinese
Chinese
Italian
Hours of
Instruction
30-80
Recency of
instruction
+3
Aux in
L1
Yes
650-1000
250-650
-
-20
+3
-
No
No
Yes
3. Method and materials. Subjects judge the acceptability of 32 sentences with right and wrong auxiliaries (+28
fillers) while the following measures are recorded on onset, critical (aux + Past Participle) and spillover zones
(Irwin, 2004; Pickering et al., 2004; Staub and Rayner, 2007): total reading times, reading times on critical zone,
first pass duration times, number of regressions to critical zone. Verbs belong to two groups: the type verbs are
unaccusative or unergative, core or peripheral (in a semantic gradient); the notype verbs allow for double
auxiliary or deviate from the expected semantic (±agentivity; ±telicity ) template. Descriptive independent
variables are: participant’s L1, length and recency of instruction, time spent in Italy. Additional experimental
variables are: token frequency of both Past Participle lexemes ('lexical score') and aux+PastP Participle
colligations in native input and in the classroom ('colligation score') and backward transitional probability
score(BTP), which is the statistical probability that a PastP is preceded by either auxiliary.
4. Predictions: (A) L2 processing is principle-based: (i) if a syntactic or semantic rule is instantiated, a violation
in auxiliary selection will result in an increase in either first pass gaze duration or total reading times. I also
expect different patterns for core vs. peripheral unaccusative/unergative, type vs. notype verbs to occur; (ii) if a
statistical rule is driving processing, reading will be disrupted especially when illegal auxiliaries of more
frequent verbs occur, whereas type and notype verbs will show similar pattern. (B) L2 processing is constraintbased: (iii) differences will occur depending on whether the subjects’ L1s display an auxiliation system; (iv) no
factor reaches significance (in a log regression measure) for acceptability judgments; (v) no correlation is found
between fixations over critical zones and rate of target-like judgments; (vi) no significant regressions over
critical zones are recorded.
5. Results. (i) reading times on the whole sentence and on critical zones unexpectedly reduce instead of
increasing in the presence of violations. Controls behave differently only for unaccusative core verbs. First pass
duration times increase with illegal aux only in group A (L1 with auxiliation system), but reduce in all other
subjects. No significant difference between core and peripheral, type and notype verbs is found (p > .05); (ii)
Regardless of the target variable (acceptability judgments), legal aux of verbs with higher token frequency and
BTP scores are read faster by native controls and A subjects. Illegal aux of frequent verbs are read more slowly
(Chinese learners pattern differently); (iii) Subjects of group A show slightly better performance than Chinese
learners in acceptability judgments (63% vs. 55%), but their reading patterns are comparable to those of most
recent Chinese learners (group C); (iv) Mixed model regressions show that the only predictor for learners'
performance in all experimental groups are colligation and BTP scores (p < 0.001), whereas it is verb Semantics
for the native controls (misclassification score = 0.33). Instruction, L1, token frequency of lemma in native input
are not factors; (v) learners do not skip auxiliaries and fixation times correlate with learners' target like
judgments (average r = 0,75); (vi) the average number of regressions on critical zones is significantly higher
(p<.001) for less recent Chinese learners (group B), who performed poorly in the acceptability task.
6. Discussion. Subjects in my study did not skip auxiliaries, neither did they seem to merely guess or get gist of
the sentence in order to spot the error. The more they looked at the critical zone, the higher their chances to
perform in a target-like fashion were. Subjects were also likely to react to unexpected colligations rather than to
analyze unaccusative/unergative syntax or semantics. If the reduction in reading times is a reaction to a violation
in high transitional probability contexts, then either local processing (O'Grady, 2008) or shallow processing
(Clahsen and Felser, 2006) are better accounts for my data than rule-driven parsing.
REFERENCES
CLAHSEN, H. - FELSER, C. (2006), "How native-like is non-native language processing?", Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 564-570
FRENCK-MESTRE, C. (2005). "Ambiguities and Anomalies: What can Eye-Movements and Event-Related Potentials reveal about Second
Language Sentence Processing?". In J.Kroll - A. De Groot (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism, New York, OUP, 268-281.
IRWIN, D. (2004). "Fixation location and Fixation duration as indices of cognitive processing". In F.Ferreira and J. Henderson (eds.), The
interface of language, vision, and action, New York, Psychology Press, 105-134.
MITCHELL, D.C. (1994), "Sentence Parsing", in Gernsbacher Morton Ann (ed.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics,
Academic Press: 375-409
San
Diego
MYLES, F, HOOPER, J, AND MITCHELL, R. (1998). "ROTE OR RULE? EXPLORING THE ROLE OF FORMULAIC LANGUAGE IN CLASSROOM FOREIGN
LANGUAGE LEARNING". LANGUAGE LEARNING, 48(3), 323-363.
O'GRADY, W. (2008), "Language without Grammar", in P.Robinson and N.C.Ellis (eds.), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and
Second Language Acquisition, New York / London, Routledge, 139-167
OSHITA, H., (2001), "The unaccusative trap in second language acquisition", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 279-304.
PICKERING, M. - FRISSON, S. - MCERLEE, B. AND TRAXLER, M. (2004) "Eye movement and semantic composition". In M.Carreiras - C.
Clifton (Eds.) The on-line study of sentence comprehension: ERP, eye-tracking and beyond, Hove, Psychology Press.
SORACE, A. (1993), "Incomplete vs. divergent representations of Unaccusativity in near-native grammars of Italian", Second Language
Research, 9, 22-47
SORACE, A. (2000). "Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs". Language 76(4), 859-890.
STAUB, A. - Rayner, K. (2007). "Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes". In M.G.Gaskell (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Psycholinguistics, New York, OUP, 327-342.
TANNER, D., OSTERHOUT, L., HERSCHENSOHN, J., (2009), "Snapshots of Grammaticalization: Differential Electrophysiological responses
to Grammatical Anomalies with Increasing L2 Exposure", Proceedings of the Boston University Language Development Conference.