Publication Summary
There is a growing debate in second language (L2) acquisition as to whether (adult) learners can acquire linguistic phenomena located at the interface between syntax and other modules, for example semantics, pragmatics and lexical-semantics, in contrast to phenomena that are purely syntactic in nature. For some researchers, the interface is precisely the place where fossilization occurs and the source of non-convergence in L2 speakers. This is the view elaborated primarily in Sorace’s work (see Sorace 2003, 2004, 2005), which roughly claims that learners can acquire the syntax but sometimes face great obstacles with regards to interpretation. This often results in so-called residual optionality, that is, the fact that even very advanced learners sometimes use non target forms at the same time as target forms, at least some of the time. The fundamental question is where the optionality comes from: is it related to the grammatical representation (in the sense, e.g., that some categories or features would be absent from interlanguage (IL) grammars (Franceschina 2001; Hawkins and Liszka 2003; Tsimpli 2004; see also Beck 1998; Meisel 1997) or is it related to something else, for example processing in a broad sense, such as lexical access, mapping the forms to the syntax (as claimed, for example, in Haznedar and Schwartz 1997; Lardiere 2000; Prevost and White 2000)? In this paper we focus on the acquisition of the morphosyntax/semantics interface by examining the acquisition of mood in Spanish relative clauses by native speakers of French. This immediately raises a methodological question. We know that most studies of interface interpretation phenomena rely on interpretation judgment tasks. In such tasks, the learners are typically asked to rate the appropriateness of sentences with respect to previously provided scenarios which are meant to force particular readings (see, for example, Borgonovo and Prevost 2003; Dekydstpotter et al. 1999/2000; Dekydstpotter and Sprouse 2001, among others). However, going from context to linguistic expression – as traditional interpretation tasks do – may not really test whether or not an interpretation triggered by a particular morphosyntactic device has been acquired, but rather that a certain interpretation needs to be marked in a particular way. The difference is subtle but, we think, present. If the experiment proceeds in the traditional direction (i.e., presentation of a context X followed by a choice between sentences W and Y), we would mirror the production side of the equation; on the other hand, the opposite direction, in which the sentence is followed by a choice of contexts, mirrors comprehension, which, as is well known, shows less outside interference. In the first case, we may show that the
CAER Authors
Prof. Philippe Prévost
University of Tours - Professor of linguistics