Factoring out the parallelism effect in VP-ellipsis: English vs. Dutch contrasts

Abstract

Previous studies, including Duffield and Matsuo (2001; 2002; 2009), have demonstrated second language learners’ overall sensitivity to a parallelism constraint governing English VP-ellipsis constructions: like native speakers (NS), advanced Dutch, Spanish and Japanese learners of English reliably prefer ellipsis clauses with structurally parallel antecedents over those with non-parallel antecedents. However, these studies also suggest that, in contrast to English native speakers, L2 learners’ sensitivity to parallelism is strongly influenced by other non-syntactic formal factors, such that the constraint applies in a comparatively restricted range of construction-specific contexts. This article reports a set of follow-up experiments — from both computer-based as well as more traditional acceptability judgement tasks — that systematically manipulates these other factors. Convergent results from these tasks confirm a qualitative difference in the judgement patterns of the two groups, as well as important differences between theoreticians’ judgements and those of typical native speakers. We consider the implications of these findings for theories of ultimate attainment in second language acquisition (SLA), as well as for current theoretical accounts of ellipsis.

Keywords

processing VP-ellipsis surface and deep anaphora syntactic parallelism finiteness and grammaticality Fundamental Difference Hypothesis construction-based learning in SLA

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bley-Vroman, R. , Felix, S. and Ioup, G. 1988: The accessibility of universal grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research 4, 1-32.

Chao, W. 1987: On ellipsis. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Chomsky, N. 1982: Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, number 6. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clahsen, H. and Felser, C. 2006: Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 3-42.

Clahsen, H. and Muysken, P. 1989: The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research 5, 1-29.

Crain, S. 1993: Language acquisition in the absence of experience . In Bloom, P. , editor, Language acquisition: core readings. New York: Harvester/ Wheatsheaf, 364-409.

Cyrino, S. and Matos, G. 2005: Local licenser and recovering in VP ellipsis construction: variation across languages and language varieties. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 1, 177-95.

Dalrymple, M. Shieber, S. and Pereira, F. 1991: Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 399-452.

Duffield, N. 2003: Measures of competent gradience. In Van Hout, A. , Hulk, A. , Kuiken, F. , and Towell, R. , editors, The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 97-127.

10.

Duffield, N. and Matsuo, A. 2001: A comparative study of ellipsis and anaphora in L2 acquisition . In Do, A.H.-J., Domínguez, L., and Johansen, A., editors, Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 238-49.

11.

-- 2002. Finiteness and parallelism: assessing the generality of knowledge about English ellipsis in SLA. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S., and Do, A.H. -J., editors, Proceedings of the 26th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 197-207.

12.

-- 2009: Native-speakers’ vs. L2 learners’ sensitivity to parallelism in VP-ellipsis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 1-31.

13.

Goldberg, L. 2005: Verb-stranding VP-ellipsis. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, McGill University .

14.

Hankamer, J. and Sag, I. 1976: Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391-428.

15.

Hardt, D. 1993: Verb phrase ellipsis: form, meaning and processing, computer and information science. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

16.

Hoji, H. 1998: Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 127-51.

17.

Mauner, G. , Tanenhaus, M. and Carlson, G. 1995: A note on parallelism effects on processing verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 1-12.

18.

Merchant, J. 2001: The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19.

-- 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661-738.

20.

Newmeyer, F. 1983: Grammatical theory: its limits and possibilities . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

21.

Otani, K. and Whitman, J. 1991: V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345-58.

22.

Rizzi, L. 1986: Null Objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 505-57.

23.

Sag, I. and Hankamer, J. 1984: Towards a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 325-45.

24.

Santos, A.L. 2006: Minimal answers: ellipsis, syntax and discourse in the acquisition of European Portuguese. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Lisbon.

25.

Schütze, C. 1996: The empirical base of linguistics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

26.

Schwartz, B. and Sprouse, R. 1996: L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/ full access model. Second Language Research 12, 40-72.

27.

Schwarzchild, R. 1999: GIVENness, AVOIDF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7, 141-77.

28.

Tanenhaus, M. and Carlson, G. 1990: Comprehension of deep and surface verb-phrase anaphors . Language and Cognitive Processes 5, 257-80.

29.

Ullman, M. 2001: The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4, 105-22.

30.

White, L. 2003: Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.