Article published in:
Language Acquisition Beyond Parameters: Studies in honour of Juana M. Liceras
Edited by Anahí Alba de la Fuente, Elena Valenzuela and Cristina Martínez Sanz
[Studies in Bilingualism 51] 2016
► pp. 187–209

On the production of differential object marking and wh-question formation in native and non-native Spanish

| Purdue University
| University of Central Arkansas
| Purdue University

The present study explores the elicited production of differential object marking and subject-verb inversion in matrix and embedded wh- questions in Spanish among 16 English-speaking L2 learners and 17 Spanish-speaking immigrants serving as control baseline. Results from an elicited production task show high levels of variability among the L2 learners, crucially with differential object marking in animate and specific contexts and with obligatory inversion in embedded wh- questions. Furthermore, our data show overall more difficulty with inversion in embedded questions than with differential object marking, suggesting that structural complexity, frequency and transfer from English may cause a structure not on an interface level to present more difficulties for advanced L2 learners in this case. The results are discussed along the lines of previous research on vulnerable domains, and the role of crosslinguistic influence, structural complexity and surface overlap in language development.

Keywords: L2 acquisition, cross-linguistic influence, differential object marking, Wh- questions, syntax-semantics interface
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The syntax of DOM and interrogative inversion in Spanish and English
    • 2.1Differential object marking
    • 2.2Subject-inversion in wh-questions
  • 3.The bilingual acquisition of DOM and subject-verb inversion in Spanish
    • 3.1Differential object marking
    • 3.2Subject-verb inversion in Spanish interrogatives
    • 3.3Research questions and hypotheses
  • 4. The study
    • 4.1The participants
    • 4.2Methods
      • 4.2.1Direct object marking
      • 4.2.2Subject-verb inversion
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Differential object marking
    • 5.2Subject-verb inversion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.51.08cuz
References
Adger, D.
(2001) Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aissen, J.
(2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alfaraz, G.
(2011) Accusative object marking: A change in progress in Cuban Spanish? Spanish in Context, 8(2), 213–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Argyri, E., & Sorace, A.
(2007) Crosslinguistic influence and language dominance in older bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 79–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J., Blume, M. & Sánchez, L.
(2013) Morphosyntactic attrition in the L1 of Spanish-English bilingual children. Hispania, 96(3), 542–561. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baauw, S.
(1998) Subject-verb inversion in Spanish wh-questions: Movement as symmetry breaker. In R. Van. Bezooijen & R. Kager (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beck, M. L.
(1998) L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(3), 311–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G.
(1991) Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Kibbee & D. Wanner (Eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics (pp. 143–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M., & Montrul, S.
(2008) The role of explicit instruction in the L2 acquisition of the a-personal . In J. Bruhn de Garavito & E. Valenzuela (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 25–35). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J.
(2001) Verb raising in Spanish: A comparison of early and late bilinguals. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish, & A. Do (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 84–94). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Collentine, J.
(2010) The Acquisition and teaching of the Spanish subjunctive: An update on current findings. Hispania, 93, 39–51.Google Scholar
Contreras, H.
(1987) Small clauses in Spanish and English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5(2), 225–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coppieters, R.
(1987) Competence differences between native and near native speakers. Language, 64, 544–573. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuza, A.
(2013) Cross-linguistic influence at the syntax proper: Interrogative subject-verb inversion in heritage Spanish. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(1), 71–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuza, A., Pérez-Leroux, A., & Sánchez, L.
(2013) The role of semantic transfer in clitic-drop among simultaneous and sequential Chinese-Spanish bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 93–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuza, A., & Strik, N.
(2012) Patterns of morphosyntactic convergence and child L1 attrition: Evidence from subject-verb inversion in Spanish-English bilingual children. Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL42). Southern Utah University, April 20–22.Google Scholar
Cuza, A.
(2010) The L1 attrition of the Spanish present tense. Hispania, 93(2), 256–272.Google Scholar
DeVilliers, J.
(1991) Why questions? In T.L, Maxfield. & B. Plunkett (Eds.), Papers on the Acquisition of Wh: Proceedings of the Umass Roundtable. May 1990.Google Scholar
Farkas, D.
(2002) Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics, 19, 213–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frank, J.
(2013a) Derivational complexity effects in bilingual adults: Instances of interrogative inversion in Spanish. In J. Aaron, J. C. Amaro, G. Lord, & A. de Prada Pérez (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 143–155). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project,Google Scholar
(2013b) “Good enough” representation in L2 Spanish and English wh-questions. In 43rd Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL). City University of New York (CUNY). New York, NY.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L.
(1994) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goodall, G.
(1993) Spec of IP and Spec of CP in Spanish wh-questions. In W. J. Ashby, M. Mithun, G. Perissinotto, & E. Raposo (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on the Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the XXI Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (pp. 199–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F.
(1989) Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P.
(2012) The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 701–720. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Larrañaga, M. P.
(2011) Evidence of V to I raising in L2 Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(4), 486–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Marinis, T.
(2007) Acquiring the syntax/semantic interface in L2 Spanish: the personal preposition a. EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 67–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gürel, A.
(2004) Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: A psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 53–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C.
(1997) The partial availability of universal grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis.’ Second Language Research, 13, 187–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hernández Pina, F.
(1984) Teorías psicosociolingüísticas y su aplicación a la adquisición del español como lengua materna. Madrid: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Hildebrand, J.
(1987) The acquisition of preposition stranding. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 32, 65–85.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. & Schmid M.
(2011) Perceived foreign accent in first language attrition and second language acquisition: The impact of age of acquisition and bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 1–34.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L.
(1989) Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Köpke, B.
(2004) Neurolinguistic aspect of attrition. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(1), 3–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laca, B.
(2006) El objeto directo, La marcación preposicional. In C. Company (Ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española (pp. 423–475). México: Fondo de Cultura Económica/Universidad Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Lee, S.Y.
(2008) Argument-adjunct asymmetry in the acquisition of inversion in wh-questions by Korean-learners of English. Language Learning, 58(3), 625–663. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M.
(2004) Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M.
(1996) La adquisición de lenguas segundas y la gramática universal. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.Google Scholar
(1989) On some properties of the pro-drop parameter: Looking for missing subjects in non-native Spanish. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Language Acquisition: A Linguistic Approach (pp. 109–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
López-Ornat, S.
(1994) La adquisición de la lengua española. Madrid: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Lyons, C.
(1999) Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mandell, P.
(1998) The V-movement parameter: Syntactic properties and adult L2 learners of Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 169–197.Google Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2010) Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research, 26(3), 293–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M.
(2009) Back to basics: Incomplete knowledge of differential object marking in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 363–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N.
(2013) Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers, Language Acquisition, 20(2), 109–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R.
(2003) Competence similarities between native and near native speakers: An investigation of the preterite/imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T.
(1989) Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E.
(2001) T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 355–418). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.
(1989) Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Radford, A.
(1997) Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(1996) Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads (pp. 63–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I.
(1999) Verb movement and markedness. In M. DeGraff (Ed.), Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony, and Development, 287–327. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M.
(2008) The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish. Probus, 20(1), 111–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R.
(1996) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A.
(2005) Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social (pp. 55–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Differential effects of attrition in the L1 syntax of near-native L2 speakers. In C. Howell, S. Fish, & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 719–725). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Stromswold, K.
(1990) Learnability and the Acquisition of Auxiliaries (Unpublished PhD dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Suñer, M.
(1994) V-movement and the licensing of argumental wh-phrases in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 335–372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M., & Lizardi, C.
(1995) Dialectal variation in an argumental/non-argumental asymmetry in Spanish. In J. Amastae, G. Goodall, M. Montalbetti, & M. Phinney (eds), Contemporary Research in Romance Linguistics: Papers from the 22nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (pp. 187–203). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tippets, I.
(2011) Differential object marking: Quantitative evidence for underlying hierarchical constraints across Spanish dialects. In Luis A, Ortiz.-López (Ed.), Selected Proceedings for the 13th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium (HLS) (pp. 107–117). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Torrego, E.
(1998) The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1984) On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistics Inquiry, 15, 103–129.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F.
(2004) First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 257–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Arechabaleta Regulez, Begoña & Silvina Montrul
2021. Psycholinguistic Evidence for Incipient Language Change in Mexican Spanish: The Extension of Differential Object Marking. Languages 6:3 ► pp. 131 ff. Crossref logo
Putnam, Michael & Åshild Søfteland
2022. When covert modality sneaks into your grammar: wh-infinitives in American Norwegian. Second Language Research ► pp. 026765832211037 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 november 2022. 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.