Article published in:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 2:1 (2012) ► pp. 54–89

[ p. 54 ]Restrictions on definiteness in second language acquisition

Affirmative and negative existentials in the L2 English of Turkish and Russian speakers

| McGill University
| McGill University
| Boston University
| University of Hamburg
| McGill University
In this paper we investigate whether learners of L2 English show knowledge of the Definiteness Effect (Milsark, 1977), which restricts definite expressions from appearing in the existential there-insertion construction. There are crosslinguistic differences in how restrictions on definiteness play out. In English, definite expressions may not occur in either affirmative or negative existentials (e.g. There is a/*the mouse in my soup; There isn’t a/*the mouse in my soup). In Turkish and Russian, affirmative existentials observe a restriction similar to English, whereas negative existentials do not. We report on a series of experiments conducted with learners of English whose L1s are Turkish and Russian, of intermediate and advanced proficiency. Native speakers also took the test in English, Turkish, and Russian. The task involved acceptability judgments. Subjects were presented with short contexts, each followed by a sentence to be judged as natural/unnatural. Test items included affirmative and negative existentials, as well as items testing apparent exceptions to definiteness restrictions. Results show that both intermediate and advanced L2ers respond like English native speakers, crucially rejecting definites in negative existentials. A comparison with the groups taking the test in Russian and Turkish confirms that judgments in the L2 are quite different from the L1, suggesting that transfer cannot provide the explanation for learner success.
Keywords: Definiteness Effect, existentials, Turkish, Russian
Published online: 10 February 2012
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.1.03whi
References

References

Abbott, B.
(1993) A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 39–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Babby, L.H.
(1980) Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Barwise, J., & Cooper, R.
(1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, D., Francz, I., & Levinson, D.
(2005) Bad subject: (Non-)canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. In E. Georgala & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT XV (pp. 19–43). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Belikova, A., Hagstrom, P., Kupisch, T., Özçelik, Ö., & White, L.
(2010) Definiteness in positive and negative existentials in the L2 English of Russian speakers. In J. Costa, A. Castro, M. Lobo, & F. Pratas (Eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2009 (pp. 28–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Borschev, V., & Partee, B.H.
(1998) Formal and lexical semantics and the genitive in negated existential sentences in Russian. In ž. Bošković, S. Franks, & W. Snyder (Eds.), [ p. 87 ]Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 6: The Connecticut Meeting 1997 (pp. 75–96). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Diesing, M.
(1992) Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Drury, J., White, E., White, L., & Steinhauer, K.
(2009) Brain potentials and the processing of (in)definiteness in late learners of English. Poster presented at the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco, March 2009.Google Scholar
Enç, M.
(1991) The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–25.Google Scholar
Freeze, R.
(1992) Existentials and other locatives. Language, 68, 553–595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Mayo, M., & Hawkins, R.
(Eds) (2009) Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L.
(2009) Prosodic transfer and determiners in Turkish-English interlanguage. In N. Snape, Y.k. I. Leung, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Representational deficits in L2 acquisition (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I.
(1982) The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Huebner, T.
(1985) System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35, 141–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K.
(2004) Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition, 12, 3–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jung, H.
(2011) The syntax of the be-possessive: Parametric variation and surface diversities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E.
(1987) A semantic definition of ‘indefinite NP’. In E.J. Reuland & A.G.B ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness (pp. 43–70), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelepir, M.
(2001) Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
King, E., Steinhauer, K., & White, L.
(2006) The definiteness effect in L2 acquisition: What can event-related brain potentials tell us? Paper presented at Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition 8, Banff, April 2006.
Kondrashova, N.
(1996) The syntax of existential quantification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Kornfilt, J.
(1997) Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D.
(2004) Knowledge of definiteness despite variable article omission in second language acquisition. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla, & C.E. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 328–339). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Larson, R.
(1985) On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3. 264–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M.
(2008) Definiteness effects and the role of the coda in existential constructions. In A. Klinge & H. Hoeg-Muller (Eds.), Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management (pp. 131–162). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, M.
(1988) Existential sentences: Their structure and meaning. Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
Lyons, C.
(1999) Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNally, L.
(1998) Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 353–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Existential sentences. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. II. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Press.Google Scholar
Milsark, G.L.
(1977)  [ p. 88 ]Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3, 1–29.Google Scholar
Özçelik, Ö., & Nagai, M.
(2011) Multiple subject positions: A case of perfect match between syntax and prosody. In M. Byram & B. Tomaszewicz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference for Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 28) (pp. 303–312). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Padučeva, E.
(2000) Definiteness effect: The case of Russian. In K. von Heusinger (Ed.), Reference and anaphoric relations (pp. 133–146). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B.H., & Borschev, V.
(2002) Genitive of negation and scope of negation in Russian existential sentences. In J. Toman (Ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Ann Arbor Meeting 2001 (FASL 10) (pp. 181–200). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
(2007) Existential sentences, BE, and the genitive of negation in Russian. In I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and Syntax (pp. 147–190). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Rando, E., & Napoli, D.J.
(1978) Definites in there-sentences. Language, 54, 300–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, D.
(2000) Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learners of English. Second Language Research, 16, 135–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Safir, K.
(1987) What explains the definiteness effect? In E.J. Reuland & A.G.B. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness (pp. 71–97). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, M.
(1989) The acquisition of English articles by first- and second-language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 335–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trenkic, D.
(2007) Variability in L2 article production: Beyond the representational deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second Language Research, 23, 289–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I-M., & Mastropavlou, M.
(2007) Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 142–183). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ward, G., & Birner, B.
(1995) Definiteness and the English existential. Language, 71, 722–742. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, L.
(2003) Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 129–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008a) Some puzzling features of L2 features. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of features in second language acquisition (pp. 301–326). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2008b) Definiteness effects in the L2 English of Mandarin and Turkish speakers. In H. Chan, H. Jacob, & E. Kapia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 550–561). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
White, L., Belikova, A., Hagstrom, P., Kupisch, T., & Özçelik, Ö.
(2009) Restrictions on definiteness in L2 English. In J. Chandlee, M. Franchini, S. Lord, & G.M. Rheiner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 622–633). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2011) (2011) There aren’t many difficulties with definiteness: Negative existentials in the L2 English of Turkish and Russian speakers. In M. Pirvulescu, M.C. Cuervo, A.T. Pérez-Leroux, J. Steele, & N. Strik (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010) (pp. 266–276). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Zucchi, A.
(1995) The ingredients of definiteness and the definiteness effects. [ p. 89 ]Natural Language Semantics, 3, 33–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Kupisch, Tanja, Alyona Belikova, Öner Özçelik, Ilse Stangen & Lydia White
2017. Restrictions on definiteness in the grammars of German-Turkish heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Perpiñán, Silvia
2014. Locatives and existentials in L2 Spanish: The acquisition of the semantic contrasts among ser, estar and haber. Second Language Research 30:4 ► pp. 485 ff. Crossref logo
Perpiñán, Silvia
2015.  In The Acquisition of Spanish in Understudied Language Pairings [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 105 ff. Crossref logo
Zeng, Li & Dongfan Hua
2019.  In Interfaces in Grammar [Language Faculty and Beyond, 15], ► pp. 341 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 august 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.