Cover not available
Part of
Generative SLA in the Age of Minimalism: Features, interfaces, and beyond
Edited by Tania Leal, Elena Shimanskaya and Casilde A. Isabelli
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 67] 2022
► pp. 11–40

Intervention effects in L1 and L2 English raising

Evidence from acceptability judgments and response times

| The Graduate Center
| City University of New York
We investigate L1 Italian-L2 English speakers using three types of subject raising constructions: Raising over lexical DPs, pronominal DPs, and topicalizations. We test locality constraints in L2 English, including how intervention effects affect the L2 processing of A-dependencies and whether exceptionality to certain locality constraints are learnable. Three main findings emerged: (i) L2 speakers are sensitive to intervention, yet exceptions to locality can be learned; (ii) intervening DPs elicited higher processing loads only for native controls; (iii) raising with topicalizations facilitated processing only for native speakers, even though topicalization is grammatical in the L2er’s L1. Results indicate that native and non-native grammars eventually converge, exceptionality to universal constraints is learnable, and differences between native and non-native speakers lies primarily in processing.
Keywords: relativized minimality, intervention effects, L1 Italian, L2 English, L2 grammatical representation, L2 processing, subject raising, A-dependencies
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Raising and minimality
    • 2.1Italian/English asymmetry on raising across DPs
    • 2.2Italian/English symmetry on raising with topic DPs
    • 2.3Smuggling approach to English raising (Collins, 2005)
  • 3.Intervention effects in the L2 acquisition research on raising
  • 4.The present study
    • 4.1Methods
      • 4.1.1Participants
      • 4.1.2Proficiency assessment
      • 4.1.3Materials
      • 4.1.4Procedure
      • 4.1.5Data analyses
    • 4.2Results
      • 4.2.1Acceptability judgments
      • 4.2.2Response times (RTs)
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Intervention effects in the representation of L1 and L2 English raising
    • 5.2Intervention effects in L1 and L2 processing of English raising
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.67.01fra
References (50)
References
Baltin, M. (2001). A-movements. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 226–254). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (1999). Conflicting C-command requirements. Studia Linguistica. 53, 227–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Aspects of the syntax of agreement. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2013). Intervention in grammar and processing. In I. Caponigro & C. Cecchetto (Eds.), From grammar to meaning (pp. 294–311). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A., Friedmann, N., Brunato, D., & Rizzi, L. (2012). Does gender make a difference? Comparing the effect of gender on children’s comprehension of relative clauses in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua, 122, 1053–1069. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2, 16. . DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1, 9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choe, J. (2016). Intervention effects in the comprehension of English raising constructions by Korean learners. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 41, 741–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Effect of NP type on L2 Raising acquisition. In M. M. Brown & B. Dailey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 165–174). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Choe, J., O’Grady, W. (2017). Asymmetry in children’s comprehension of raising. Journal of Child Language, 44, 752–765. . DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.Google Scholar
(1995). The minimalist program. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A-bar dependencies. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. (2005). A smuggling approach to raising in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 289–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119, 67–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Randall H., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory Interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 1411–1423.Google Scholar
Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, C. (2011). The acquisition of raising (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Hirsch, C., & Wexler, K. (2007). The late acquisition of raising: What children seem to think about seem. In W. D. Davies & S. Dubinsky (Eds.), New horizons in the analysis of control and raising (pp. 35–70). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax – discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(4), 463–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., & Zyzik, E. (2014). Judgment and interpretation tasks in second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitahara, H. (1997). Elementary operations and optimal derivations. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2008). Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 106–140). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
López, L. (2009). A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. (1998). Locality in A-movement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Rizzi, L. (1986). On chain formation. In H. Borer (Ed.), The grammar of pronominal clitics (pp. 65–95). Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1990). Relativized minimality. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Relativized minimality effects. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 89–110). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures (pp. 223–251). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Locality. Lingua, 130, 169–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 417–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
RStudio Team. (2016). RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio. Retrieved on 18 February 2022 from [URL]
Slabakova, R. (2015). The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on second language knowledge of the syntax – discourse interface. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 671–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smeets, L. (2019). Conditions on L1 transfer in L2 discourse-syntax mappings: The case of clitic left dislocation in Italian and Romanian (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University.
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starke, M. (2001). Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Geneva.
Torrego, E. (1996). Experiencers and raising verbs. In R. Freidin (Ed.), Current issues in comparative grammar (pp. 101–120). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Effects of NP-type on reading English clefts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 751–767. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xia, V. Y., White, L., & Guzzo, N. B. (2020). Intervention in relative clauses: Effects of relativized minimality on L2 representation and processing. Second Language Research.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshimura, N., & Nakayama, M. (2019). Intervention meets transfer in raising constructions. In P. Guijarro-Fuentes & C. Suárez-Gómez (Eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2017: Language Acquisition and development (pp. 255–270). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Miura, Atsushi
2024. Chapter 9. Sensitivity to silently structured interveners. In Current Perspectives on Generative SLA - Processing, Influence, and Interfaces [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 70], ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 october 2024. 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.