BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Instability and age effects at the lexicon-syntax interface - Tiha
 na Kras (RCEAL)
DTSTART:20061010T150000Z
DTEND:20061010T163000Z
UID:TALK5577@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Teresa Parodi
DESCRIPTION:*Instability and age effects at the lexicon-syntax interface: 
 Evidence from auxiliary selection in native and near-native Italian gramma
 rs*\n\nIn a number of recent empirical studies\, interfaces between syntax
  and other linguistic/cognitive systems\, such as morphology and discourse
 \, have been shown to be unstable in different types of language developme
 nt\, including bilingual L1 acquisition (Müller and Hulk 2001)\, adult L2
  acquisition (Lardiere 2000\, Prévost and White 2000\, Sorace and Filiaci
  2006) and L1 attrition (Tsimpli et al. 2004). At the same time\, the same
  type of instability has not been found in the domain of syntax. This has 
 lead to the hypothesis that\, contrary to narrow syntax\, interfaces may n
 ever be fully acquired in L2 acquisition and may not be retained in L1 att
 rition (Sorace 2005).\n\nMy doctoral research examines whether this also h
 olds for the lexicon-syntax interface and\, by contrasting the L2 acquisit
 ion of this interface with the L2 acquisition of narrow syntax by child an
 d adult near-native learners\, investigates whether there is an interactio
 n between the age of first exposure to the L2 and the ultimate attainment 
 of the two domains. The study employs a contrast between auxiliary selecti
 on with intransitive verbs in compound tenses and auxiliary change under r
 estructuring in Italian. Whereas the first phenomenon depends on lexical-s
 emantic factors\, and thus qualifies as a phenomenon at the lexicon-syntax
  interface\, the second one is determined by purely syntactic factors\, sa
 tisfying the criteria for a narrow syntax phenomenon. More precisely\, the
  consistency with which different subclasses of unaccusatives (_arrivare_ 
 'arrive') and unergatives (_parlare_ 'talk') select one of the two auxilia
 ries depends on their meaning\, while the optional or obligatory change of
  _avere_ 'have' into _essere_ 'be' in restructuring constructions hinges o
 n the presence and the position of a clitic (_Lui ha/è voluto andare a ca
 sa_\, 'He wanted to go home'\, _Lui ha/è voluto andarci\, Lui ci *ha/è v
 oluto andare_\, 'He wanted to go there'). In order to minimise the effects
  of the L1\, the study focuses on Croatian-speaking learners of Italian be
 cause the phenomena under scrutiny are not instantiated in Croatian.\n\nTw
 o groups of near-native L2 speakers\, comparable with respect to the lengt
 h and type of exposure to Italian\, but different with respect to the age 
 of first exposure to it\, and a group of adult L1 speakers performed a sel
 f-paced and a speeded version of the acceptability-judgement task. In the 
 self-paced version\, the determinacy of the subjects' intuitions on auxili
 ary selection was measured by means of the Magnitude Estimation technique\
 , and in the speeded version\, by recording reaction times and accuracy. B
 oth versions of the task yielded compatible results. The two groups of nea
 r-native speakers patterned with native speakers with respect to auxiliary
  selection with intransitive verbs in compound tenses\, but diverged from 
 them in different ways with respect to auxiliary change under restructurin
 g\, showing to be more sensitive to lexical semantic than to purely syntac
 tic constraints on auxiliary selection in Italian. This suggests that\, co
 ntrary to predictions\, the lexicon-syntax interface is less problematic a
 nd less susceptible to age effects in L2 acquisition than narrow syntax. S
 uch findings call for a more fine-grained approach to language development
 \, differentiating between different types of interface (cf. Tsimpli and S
 orace 2006) and different phenomena within narrow syntax in terms of insta
 bility and susceptibility to age effects\, in accounting for the diversity
  of developmental outcomes exhibited by different types of learners in dif
 ferent domains. \n\nReferences\n\nLardiere\, D. (2000) _Mapping features t
 o forms in second language acquisition_. In J. Archibald (ed.) Second Lang
 uage Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Blackwell. 102-129.\n\nMüller\, N
 . and Hulk\, A. (2001) _Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language ac
 quisition: Italian and French as recipient languages_. Bilingualism: Langu
 age and Cognition 4. 1–21.\n\nPrévost\, P. and White\, L. (2000) _Missi
 ng surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition?_ Evide
 nce from tense and agreement. Second Language Research 16. 103-133.\n\nSor
 ace\, A. (2005) _Selective optionality in language development_. In L. Cor
 nips and K.P. Corrigan (eds.) Syntax and Variation. Reconciling the Biolog
 ical and the Social. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 55-80.\n\nSorace\, A. and 
 Filiaci\, F. (2006) _Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italia
 n_. Second Language Research 22. 339-368.\n\nTsimpli\, I.\, Sorace\, A.\, 
 Heycock\, C. and Filiaci\, F. (2004) _First language attrition and syntact
 ic subjects: a study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English_
 . International Journal of Bilingualism 8. 257-277.\n\nTsimpli\, I. and So
 race\, A. (2006) _Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-sem
 antics and syntax-discourse phenomena_. In D. Bamman\, T. Magnitskaia and 
 C. Zaller (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conferen
 ce on Language Development. Somerville\, MA: Cascadilla Press. 653-664. \n
  \n
LOCATION:GR-06/07\, English Faculty Building
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR