This experimental study tests the Interface Hypothesis by looking into processes at the syntax–discourse interface, teasing apart acquisition of syntactic, semantic and discourse knowledge. Adopting López’s (2009) pragmatic features [±a(naphor)] and [±c(ontrast)], which in combination account for the constructions of dislocation and fronting, we tested clitic left dislocation and fronted focus in the comprehension of English native speakers learning Spanish. Furthermore, we tested knowledge of an additional semantic property: the relationship between the discourse anaphor and the antecedent in clitic left dislocation (CLLD). This relationship is free: it can be subset, superset, part/whole. Syntactic knowledge of clitics was a condition for inclusion in the main test. Our findings indicate that all learners are sensitive to the semantic constraints. While the near-native speakers display native-like discourse knowledge, the advanced speakers demonstrated some discourse knowledge, and intermediate learners did not display any discourse knowledge. The findings support as well as challenge the Interface Hypothesis.
ArregiK (2003) Clitic left dislocation is contrastive topicalization. In: KaiserEArunachalanS (eds) Proceedings of the 26th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. University of PennsylvaniaWorking Papers in Linguistics, volume 9: 31–44.
2.
BellettiABennatiESoraceA (2007) Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory25: 657–89 .
3.
BialystokECraikFIMGreenDWGollanTH (2009) Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest10: 89–129.
4.
Bley-VromanR (1983) The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning33: 1–17.
5.
BohnackerU (2010) The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics33: 105–43.
6.
Casielles-SuárezE (2004) The syntax–information structure interface: Evidence from Spanish and English. Oxford: Routledge.
7.
ChoiH-W (1997) Information structure, phrase structure and their interface. In: ButtMKingTH (eds) Proceedings of the LFG 97 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1–16.
8.
ChomskyN (2001) Derivation by phase. In: KenstowiczM (ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–51.
9.
de SwartHde HoopH (2000) Topic and focus. In: ChengLSybesmaE (eds) The first GLOT international state-of-the-article book. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 105–30.
10.
DonaldsonB (2011a) Left-dislocation in near-native French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition33: 399–432.
11.
DonaldsonB (2011b) Nativelike right-dislocations in near-native French. Second Language Research27: 361–90.
12.
DonaldsonB (in press) Syntax and discourse in near-native French: Clefts and focus. Language Learning.
13.
EmondsJ (2004) Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In: AdgerDde CatCTsoulasG (eds) Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 75–120.
14.
GreenDW (1986) Control, activation and resource. Brain and Language27: 210–23.
15.
GreenDW (1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition1: 67–81.
16.
GundelJK (1988) The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. New York: Garland.
17.
HaegemanL (2006) Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD, and the Left Periphery. In: ZanuttiniR. (eds) Crosslinguistic research in syntax and semantics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 27–52.
18.
IvanovI (2009) Second language acquisition of Bulgarian object clitics: A test case for the interface hypothesis. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
19.
IversonMKempchinskyPRothmanJ (2008) Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish. EUROSLA Yearbook8: 135–63.
20.
KrollJFBobbSCMisraMMGuoT (2008) Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica128: 416–30.
21.
LardiereD (2011) Who is the interface hypothesis about?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism1: 48–53.
22.
LópezL (2009) A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
LozanoCMendikoetxeaA (2008) Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish and Italian learners of L2 English: A corpus analysis. In: GilquinGPappSDíez-BedmarMB (eds) Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 85–125.
24.
LozanoCMendikoetxeaA (2010) Interface conditions on postverbal subjects: A corpus study of L2 English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition13: 475–97.
25.
MarianVSpiveyMJ (2003) Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within-and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition6: 97–115.
26.
PrinceEF (1981) Topicalization, focus-movement, and Yiddish-movement. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society7: 249–64.
ReinhartT (2006) Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
RizziL (1997) The fine structure of the left periphery. In: HaegemanL (ed.) Elements of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281–337.
30.
RothmanJ (2009) Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics41: 951–73.
31.
RothmanJSlabakovaR (2011) The mind–context divide: On linguistic interfaces and language acquisition. Lingua121: 568–76.
32.
SlabakovaR (2008) Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter.
33.
SlabakovaRIvanovI (2011) A more careful look at the syntax–discourse interface. Lingua121: 637–51.
34.
SlabakovaRRothmanJKempchinskyP (2011) Gradient competence at the syntax–discourse interface. EUROSLA Yearbook11: 218–43.
35.
SoraceA (2011) Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism1: 1–33.
36.
SoraceAFiliaciF (2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research22: 339–68.
37.
TraheyMWhiteL (1993) Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15: 181–204.
38.
TsimpliIMSoraceA (2006) Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax semantics and syntax discourse phenomena. In: BammanDMagnitskaiaTZallerC (eds) Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 30). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 653–64.
39.
ValenzuelaE (2005) L2 ultimate attainment and the syntax–discourse interface: The acquisition of topic constructions in non-native Spanish and English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
40.
ValenzuelaE (2006) L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of the Spanish CLLD constructions. In: SlabakovaRMontrulSPrévostP (eds) Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor of Lydia White. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 283–304.
41.
van CraenenbroeckJ (ed.) (2009) Alternatives to cartography. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
42.
VillalbaX (2000) The syntax of sentence periphery. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.
43.
WardGL (1988) The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
44.
WhiteL (2011a) Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua121: 577–90.
45.
WhiteL (2011b) The interface hypothesis: How far does it extend?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism1: 108–10.
46.
WhiteLValenzuelaEKozlowska-MacGregorMLeungYK (2004) Gender and number agreement in nonnative Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics25: 105–33.
