Advertisement

Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian

  • Adriana Belletti
  • Elisa Bennati
  • Antonella Sorace
Original Paper

Abstract

This article reports the results of experiments targeting the production and interpretation of postverbal subjects, and null and overt pronominal subjects, by near-native speakers of Italian whose native language is English. The results directly bear on both theoretical issues and developmental acquisition questions. It is argued that properties related to the null-subject parameter are sensitive to discourse factors that determine the use of both postverbal subjects and pronominal subjects. More specifically, it is claimed that the availability of null pronominal subjects and the availability of postverbal subjects do not necessarily correlate. The near-native grammars analyzed here illustrate a special instance of this lack of correlation. Furthermore, near-natives show non-native-like behavior in the use of postverbal subjects, and in the overuse of overt pronominal subjects in tensed clauses. The proposal is put forward that, although resetting of the null-subject parameter has taken place in the speakers’ L2 Italian grammar, the relevant L1 computations are preserved and accessed in L2 use, without violating any formal conditions; this is the source of non-target behavior. The analysis proposed exploits cartographic insights on discourse-related computations, and suggests that the principles of economy may be instantiated differently in native and near-native grammars.

Keywords

Null subject parameter New information focus subjects Cartography Discourse interface L2 acquisition Near-nativeness 

References

  1. Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (2001). The subject in situ generalization, and the role of Case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 193–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antinucci, F., & Cinque, G. (1977). Sull’ordine delle parole in italiano: l’emarginazione. Studi di Grammatica Italiana, 6, 121–146.Google Scholar
  3. Bel, A. (2003). The syntax of subject in the acquisition of Spanish and Catalan. Probus, 15, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belletti, A. (1988). The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 1–34.Google Scholar
  5. Belletti, A. (Ed.) (2004a). Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Belletti, A. (2004b). Aspects of the low IP area. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2 (pp. 16–51). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Belletti, A. (2005a). Extending doubling and the VP-periphery. Probus, 17, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belletti, A. (2005b). Answering with a cleft. In L. Brugè et al. (Eds.), Contributions to the thirtieth “Incontro di Grammatica Generativa” (pp. 63–82). Università Ca’Foscari Venice: Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
  9. Belletti, A. (2007). Answering strategies. A view from acquisition. To appear. In S. Baauw et al. (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2005. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Belletti, A., & Leonini, C. (2004). Subject inversion in L2 Italian. In S. Foster-Cohen et al. (Eds.), Eurosla Yearkbook 4 (pp. 95–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  11. Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1981). The syntax of ne: some theoretical implications. The Linguistic Review, 1, 117–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bennati, E. (2002). Soggetti nulli e soggetti postverbali nell’italiano L2 di parlanti adulti di madrelingua inglese. “Laurea” Thesis , University of Siena.Google Scholar
  13. Bennati, E. (2003). Soggetti postverbali in italiano L2 di parlanti near-natives con inglese L1. Un esperimento. “Laurea Specialistica” Thesis, University of Siena.Google Scholar
  14. Bini, M. (1993). La adquisicíon del italiano: mas allá de las propiedades sintácticas del parámetro pro-drop. In J. Liceras (Ed.), La linguistica y el analisis de los sistemas no nativos (pp. 126–139). Ottawa: Doverhouse Editions.Google Scholar
  15. Bobaljik, J. D., & Jonas, D. (1996). Subject position and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 195–236.Google Scholar
  16. Borer, H. (1989). Anaphoric Agr. In O. Jaeggli & K. Safir (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 69–109). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  18. Calabrese, A. (1986). Pronomina. In N. Fukui, T. R. Rapoport & B. Sagey (Eds.), Papers in Theoretical Linguistics (pp. 1–46). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  19. Calabrese, A. (1992). Some Remarks on focus and logical structures in Italian. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics I, 19–27.Google Scholar
  20. Cardinaletti, A. (2001). A second thought on Emarginazione: Destressing vs. Right Dislocation. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (pp. 117–135). Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Cardinaletti, A. (2004a). L’italiano contemporaneo: Cambiamento in atto e competenza dei parlanti. In A. Cardinaletti & F. Frasnedi (Eds.), Intorno all’italiano contemporaneo (pp. 49–75). Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  22. Cardinaletti, A. (2004b). Toward a cartography of subject positions. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2 (pp. 115–165). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cardinaletti, A., & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency. A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe (pp. 145–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  25. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 3 (pp. 104–131). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Cinque, G. (Ed.) (2002). Functional structure in DP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Costa, J. (2004). Subject positions and interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Figuereido, C. (1996). A Posição Sujeito no Português Brasileiro: Frases Finitas e Infinitivas. Campinas, Editora da UNICAMP.Google Scholar
  30. Figuereido, C. (2000). Main and embedded null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. In M. Kato & E. Negrão (Eds.), Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter (pp. 127–145). Madrid: Vervuert.Google Scholar
  31. Filiaci, F. (2003). The acquisition of null and overt subjects by English-near-native speakers of Italian. MSc dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  32. Granfeldt, J., & Schlyter, S. (2004). Cliticisation in the acquisition of French as L1 and L2. In P. Prèvost & J. Paradis (Eds.), The acquisition of French in different contexts (pp. 333–370). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. Grimshaw, J., & Samek-Lodovici, V. (1998). Optimal subjects and subject universals. In P. Barbosa et al. (Eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax (pp. 193–219). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gürel, A. (2006). L2 acquisition of pragmatic and syntactic constraints in the use of overt and null subject pronouns. In R. Slabakova, S. Montrul & P. Prévost (Eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Hacohen, A., & Schaeffer, J. (in press). Subject realization in early Hebrew/English bilingual acquisition: The role of crosslinguistic influence. In Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.Google Scholar
  36. Hamann, C., & Belletti, A. (2006). Developmental patterns in the acquisition of Romance complement clitics: comparing different acquisition modes with an emphasis on French. Ms., University of Oldenburg and University of Siena.Google Scholar
  37. Hertel, T. J. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research, 19, 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Holmberg, A. (2005). Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 533–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jayaseelan, K. A. (2001). IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica, 55, 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kato, M. (2000). The partial pro-drop nature and the restricted vs order in Brazilian Portuguese. In M. Kato & E. Negrão (Eds.), Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter (pp. 223–258). Vervuert.Google Scholar
  41. Kato, M., & Vailati Negrão, E. (Eds.) (2000). Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter. Vervuert.Google Scholar
  42. Kazanina, N., Lau, E., Liberman, M., Phillips, C., & Yoshida, M. (2005). Constraints on Coreference in the Online Processing of Backwards anaphora. Poster presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tucson, AZ, April.Google Scholar
  43. Lakshmanan, U. (1991). Morphological uniformity and null subjects in child second language acquisition. In L. Eubank (Ed.), Point counterpoint: universal grammar in the second language (pp. 389–411). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  44. Leonini, C., & Belletti, A. (2004). Adult L2 acquisition of Italian clitic pronouns and subject inversion structures. In J. van Kampen & S. Baauw (Eds.), Proceedings of Gala 2003 (pp. 293–304). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
  45. Liceras, J. (1988). Syntax and stylistics: more on the pro-drop parameter. In J. Pankhurst, M. Sharwood Smith & P. van Buren (Eds.), Learnability and second languages: A book of readings (pp. 71–93). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  46. Liceras, J. M. (1989). On some properties of the pro-drop parameter: Looking for missing subjects in non-native Spanish. In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 109–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Liceras, J. M., & Díaz, L. (1998). Topic drop versus pro-drop: Null subjects and pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research, 15, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liceras, J. M., Díaz, L., & Maxwell, D. (1999). Null subjects in non-native grammars: The Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese and Korean speakers. In E. C. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of second language grammars. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  49. Lorusso, P. (2006). The L-Syntax of Verbs in the Acquisition of L1 Italian. In A. Belletti et al. (Eds.) Language acquisition and development. Proceedings of Gala 2005 (pp. 349–356). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
  50. Lozano, C. (2006a). The development of the syntax-information structure interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in romance languages (pp. 371–399). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  51. Lozano, C. (2006b). Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22, 145 –187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mehler, J., & Dupoux, E. (1992). Naître humain. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  53. Montalbetti, M. (1984). After Binding. On the Interpretation of Pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  54. Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish Heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Montrul, S., & Louro, C. R. (2006). Beyond the syntax of the null subject parameter: A look at the discourse-pragmatic distribution of null and overt subjects by L2 learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in romance languages (pp. 401–418). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  56. Moro, A. (1997). The raising of predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Müller, N., & Hulk, A. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipients languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nicolis, M. (2005). On pro drop. Doctoral dissertation, University of Siena.Google Scholar
  59. Ordoñez, F. (1998). Postverbal asymmentries in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16(2), 313–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ordoñez, F. (2007). Two specs for postverbal subjects: Evidence from Spanish and Catalan. In S. Baauw, F. Drijkoningen & M. Pinto (Eds), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2005. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Paradis, J., & Navarro, S. (2003). Subject realization and cross-linguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of input. Journal of Child Language, 30, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Phinney, M. (1987). The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter Setting (pp. 221–238) Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  63. Renzi, L. (1988). Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione, Vol. 1 (pp. 535–594). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  64. Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  65. Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Rizzi, L. (Ed.) (2004). The Structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Rizzi, L. (2005). On the grammatical basis of language development: A case study. In G. Cinque & R. Kayne (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Roberts, I. (1993). Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  69. Roberts, I. (2006). Two ways to lose null subjects: Comparing French and Brazilian Portuguese. Ms., University of Cambridge, presented at ELFE V/Romania Nova II.Google Scholar
  70. Roebuck, R. F., Martínez-Arbelaiz, M. A., & Pérez-Silva, J. I. (1999). Null subjects, filled CPs and L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 15, 251–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Seliger, H., & Vago, R. (1991). The study of first language attrition: An overview. In H. Seliger & R. Vago (Eds.), First Language Attrition (pp. 3–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., & Paoli, S. (2004). Transfer at the syntax pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in Italian-English bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 130–151). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 143–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sorace, A. (2005). Syntactic optionality at interfaces. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 46–111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  76. Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tsimpli, I. M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter-resetting in L2. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149–170.Google Scholar
  78. Tsimpli, I. M., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating Interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 653–664). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  79. 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. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  82. White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. White, L., & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12, 223–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriana Belletti
    • 1
  • Elisa Bennati
    • 1
  • Antonella Sorace
    • 2
  1. 1.Facoltà di Lettere, CISCL - Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi Cognitivi sul LinguaggioUniversità degli Studi di SienaSienaItaly
  2. 2.Linguistics and English LanguageUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations