Optionality and overgeneralisation patterns in second language acquisition: Where has the expletive ensconced «it»self?
23 1. Introduction Over the past several decades there has been a bulk of generative literature on second language acquisition (henceforth L2A) (cf. Clahsen & Muysken 1986, 1989; Lardiere 2008, 2011; Meisel 1983, 1991; Montrul 1999, 2011; Slabakova 2010; Sorace 1993, 2000, 2005, 2011; White 1985, 1989, 2000, 2003, 2011a, b, to name but a few). The object of investigation ranges from discussions of second language (L2) parameter resetting, e.g. verb raising and pro-drop parameters, through first language (L1) transfer to the role interfaces play in the acquisition of L2 grammar. To the best of my knowledge, the acquisition of a particular class of impersonal subjectless constructions in both L2 German and L2 Russian1 has been left unattended so far (but see Sopata 2005 for an important exception as regards L2 German). In order to compare the vulnerability of different interfaces (syntax- morphology and syntax-discourse in particular, and to a certain extent syntax- semantics), several types of constructions are analysed. Their attainment by second language speakers (L2ers) across four levels of acquisition is assessed. Building on two ad hoc conducted studies, I explore the rate of the L2 acquisition of arguments and voice alternations by measuring passivation and anticausativi- sation sensitivity, as well as the argument licensing preferences of L2ers. Some of the questions comprising the present discussion ask why language acquirers overuse expletive elements in their L2 German (1.1) or overgeneralise the anti- causativisation -sj(a) morpheme in L2 Russian (1.2): (1.1) (German) Gestern wurde (*es) auf dem Schiff getanzt....
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.