Research Design and Methodology in Studies on L2 Tense and Aspect 9781934078167, 9781934078143

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Introduction Research design and methodology in L2 studies of tense and aspect
Part I. Theoretical representations of tense and aspect in L2 studies
Chapter 1. A Cognitive Grammar perspective on tense and aspect
Chapter 2. The Spanish preterite and imperfect from a cognitive point of view
Chapter 3. Frequency-based grammar and the acquisition of tense and aspect in L2 learning
Chapter 4. Generative approaches to the L2 acquisition of temporal-aspectual-mood systems
Part II. Research design and methodology in L2 studies of tense and aspect
Chapter 5. Research design: A two-way predicational system is better than a four-way approach
Chapter 6. Research design: Operationalizing and testing hypotheses
Chapter 7. Research design: From text to task
Chapter 8. Defining and coding data: Lexical aspect in L2 studies
Chapter 9. Defining and coding data: Narrative discourse grounding in L2 studies
Chapter 10. Data analysis: Quantitative approaches
Chapter 11. Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language
Chapter 12. Integrating the analyses of tense and aspect across research and methodological frameworks
Author biographies
Subject index

Citation preview

Research Design and Methodology in Studies on L2 Tense and Aspect

Studies in Second and Foreign Language Education 2

Editors

Anna Uhl Chamot Wai Meng Chan

De Gruyter Mouton

Research Design and Methodology in Studies on L2 Tense and Aspect edited by

M. Rafael Salaberry Llorenc¸ Comajoan

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-1-934078-14-3 e-ISBN 978-1-934078-16-7 ISSN 2192-0982 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. ” 2013 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston/Berlin Cover image: Creatas/Thinkstock Typesetting: RoyalStandard, Hong Kong Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 앝 Printed on acid-free paper 앪 Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge all the authors who contributed to the volume for their own contributions and for acting as reviewers of other chapters. We also acknowledge the substantive and useful feedback of the reviewers commissioned by DeGruyter to review the entire volume, as well as the critical reviews of readers of individual chapters: Michel Achard, Robert De Keyser, Elena de Miguel, Alex Housen, John Norris, Ana Teresa Pe´rez-Leroux, and Jacqueline Toribio. The support by the editors at De Gruyter was greatly appreciated for their usefulness and good work. We especially need to mention the work of the late Cathleen Petree, who accompanied us in the first stages of the editorial process of our book. After countless email exchanges with her, we especially remember some of the lines of the quote that she used in her email signature: ‘‘All about us is noise. All about us is noise and bramble, thorn and din, each one of our ancestors on our tongues. . .’’ (from the poem ‘‘Praise Song for the Day’’ by Elizabeth Alexander). Finally, we would like to acknowledge the support of our families and academic institutions (the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Vic, and the University Center for Sociolinguistics and Communication at the University of Barcelona) for their continued support. Rafael and Llorenc¸

Table of contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v

Introduction Research design and methodology in L2 studies of tense and aspect . . Llorenc¸ Comajoan and M. Rafael Salaberry

1

Part I. Theoretical representations of tense and aspect in L2 studies Chapter 1 A Cognitive Grammar perspective on tense and aspect . . . . . . . . . . Susanne Niemeier

11

Chapter 2 The Spanish preterite and imperfect from a cognitive point of view . . Aintzane Doiz

57

Chapter 3 Frequency-based grammar and the acquisition of tense and aspect in L2 learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nick Ellis Chapter 4 Generative approaches to the L2 acquisition of temporal-aspectualmood systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman Part II.

89

119

Research design and methodology in L2 studies of tense and aspect

Chapter 5 Research design: A two-way predicational system is better than a four-way approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paz Gonza´lez

159

Chapter 6 Research design: Operationalizing and testing hypotheses . . . . . . . . M. Rafael Salaberry

187

Chapter 7 Research design: From text to task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

219

viii

Table of contents

Chapter 8 Defining and coding data: Lexical aspect in L2 studies . . . . . . . . . . Yasuhiro Shirai Chapter 9 Defining and coding data: Narrative discourse grounding in L2 studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Llorenc¸ Comajoan Chapter 10 Data analysis: Quantitative approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert Bayley Chapter 11 Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli Chapter 12 Integrating the analyses of tense and aspect across research and methodological frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez Author biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subject index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

271

309

357

391

423 451 455

Introduction Research design and methodology in L2 studies of tense and aspect Llorenc¸ Comajoan and M. Rafael Salaberry Time and its linguistic expression is such a pervasive topic that it is no wonder that it has occupied a central role in the study of linguistics in general and second language acquisition (SLA) more specifically.1 The current volume focuses on di¤erent matters pertaining to research design and methodology in studies on second language (L2) tense and aspect defined from a broad perspective; that is, spanning from cognitive to generative linguistics, from qualitative to qualitative methodologies. The main goal of the volume is to bring to light the main issues regarding research design by examining the role of theoretical representations of aspect and methodological procedures. The volume is divided into two main sections. The first section provides a discussion of di¤erent theoretical approaches to study tense and aspect in SLA. The second section focuses specifically on various factors regarding methodological conditions and constraints that directly a¤ect the collection of empirical evidence to substantiate theoretical hypotheses. The first section, focusing on theoretical issues, is comprised of four chapters, with a predominant focus on cognitive approaches. The first two chapters discuss cognitive grammar, whereas the third chapter addresses the role of frequency in the acquisition of L2 tense and aspect features. The fourth chapter provides a counterpoint by examining the generative (minimalist) perspective to L2 tense and aspect. More specifically, in Chapter 1, Susanne Niemeier provides a clear introduction to cognitive linguistics and cognitive grammar in general through an analysis of the English tense and aspect system. Taking Langacker’s approach and Mental Space Theory as a point of departure, the author argues that prototypical as well as nonprototypical uses of tense and aspect can be accounted for by making reference to general categorical rules (as opposed to exceptions). 1. See Binnick (1991) for the history of how tense and aspect have been studied from di¤erent perspectives; Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994) on how different languages code time; and Bardovi-Harlig (2000); Slabakova (2001); Salaberry and Shirai (2002); Ayoun and Salaberry (2005); Rocca (2007); and Salaberry (2008) for SLA studies.

2

Llorenc¸ Comajoan and M. Rafael Salaberry

The chapter is particularly useful because for every section of the discussion it provides specific applications of cognitive grammar to the L2 classroom to teach tense and aspect features. In the second chapter, Aintzane Doiz discusses the various aspectual meanings of the Spanish Preterite and Imperfect, also from the pespective of Cognitive Grammar. Thus, the chapters by Niemeier and Doiz complement each other in the sense that they apply the same theoretical apparatus to describe two tense-aspectual systems, namely English and Spanish. In particular, both authors remark the need to provide L2 learners with cognitive explanations that help them relate how they view situations (cognitively) and the ways to express them in the L2. Furthermore, both Niemeier and Doiz emphasize the power of cognitive grammar in the way it handles ‘‘exceptions’’ to specific uses of tense-aspect forms in English and Spanish. Finally, both authors agree on the fact that further research still needs to fully investigate to what extent cognitive grammar can help or hinder learners with the process of acquiring a second language. In this view, the chapters by Niemeier and Doiz will be of value to researchers who are also L2 teachers and may be interested in trying a cognitive approach to the teaching of tense and aspect. In Chapter 3, Nick Ellis, provides a review of frequency-based grammar (e.g., Construction Grammar) and examines the role of frequency in language cognition and SLA. Ellis provides a review of how frequency and learning are related by examining input frequency, form salience and perception, and prototypicality and contingency of form-meaning mapping. The second section of the article examines how such determinants of learning were applied to the study of L2 tense and aspect in a study by Wul¤ et al. (2009). In the last section of the chapter, the author argues for a dynamic model of usage that integrates all the factors that a¤ect language constructions; that is, he advocates for research that is not limited to univariate analyses of data but that is rather multivariate and interactive. The fourth chapter is devoted to a review of generative approaches to the L2 acquisition of temporal-aspectual-mood systems. Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman provide an in-depth introduction to the generative theoretical approach in its current form and review current generative L2 literature by examining how di¤erent studies and methodologies in L1-L2 pairings have provided empirical evidence to support the di¤erent hypotheses advanced within this theoretical framework. Their critical review highlights the rich body of empirical evidence accumulated by the field of generative linguistics in SLA. In their conclusion, Ayoun and Rothman argue that, when taken as a whole, there is evidence for the position that L2 adult learners are not impaired in their acquisition of functional cate-

Introduction

3

gories and their features (contrary to some of the hypotheses they have reviewed in their chapter). Ayoun and Rothman contextualize their conclusion within the background of current and future work that deals with the interface between syntax and other grammar components. The second section of the volume comprises seven chapters, which can be further subdivided into three subsections: (a) theoretical issues that directly a¤ect the research design of studies on tense-aspect (Chapters 5 and 6), (b) methodological factors that a¤ect the analysis of tense-aspect data (Chapters 7, 8, and 9), and (c) the use of qualititative and quantitative types of analysis of data (Chapters 10 and 11). The first two chapters of this section (by Gonza´lez and Salaberry, respectively) bridge the first and second section of the volume by focusing on the di¤erences in the characterization of the theoretical construct of aspect for the development of appropriate research hypotheses. In her chapter, Paz Gonza´lez presents a discussion of aspect in Spanish and argues that a two-way distinction of predicational aspect (as opposed to the traditional, Vendlerian four-way distinction) may be more accurate to describe the learner’s interlanguage. More specifically, Gonza´lez argues that native speakers rely on the compositional aspect of verbal predicates (including arguments and adjuncts) to the extent that they accept uses of Spanish preterite and imperfect that isolated might be considered ungrammatical. Learners accept them because they rely on creating a non-verbalized context. Using evidence from a previous study, the author argues for the Predication-E¤ect Hypothesis, whereby learners rely on two aspectual features (durativity and terminativity) to make a dual distinction (preterite and imperfect). From this perspective, the mapping of two features onto two morphological forms may facilitate the learners understanding of the Spanish tempo-aspectual system. The chapter by M. Rafael Salaberry continues the discussion of the compositionality of verbal predicates and its e¤ect on the research design of studies and their hypotheses. More specifically, Salaberry focuses on an aspectual distinction that has been little studied, namely the acquisition of preterite and imperfect contrasts in Spanish to mark iterativity and habituality. The chapter provides a detailed discussion of how such meanings are dependent on the interaction between the use of perfective and imperfective Spanish markers and the use of specific adverbs. Salaberry argues that di¤erent authors’ interpretations of the role of adverbial adjuncts have prompted di¤erent operationalizations of research hypotheses associated with iterativity and habituality. The author further argues that such distinct operationalizations are directly related to various methodological conditions of the research design (e.g., in the design of language prompts)

4

Llorenc¸ Comajoan and M. Rafael Salaberry

as well as di¤erences in analyses of the empirical data obtained within specific research designs. Ultimately, the research design and the results of studies cannot be easily disentangled from theoretical assumptions used to guide the research design of a study. The chapter ends with an argument in favor of including more rather than fewer layers of meaning associated with aspectual concepts in the design of studies (adjuncts, context, and so on). The second subsection on methodology is composed of three chapters dealing with aspects related to the collection of data (Bardovi-Harlig) and the analysis of the collected data (Shirai, Comajoan). In Chapter 7, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig discusses some of the advantages and drawbacks of open-ended tasks to collect data on L2 tense-aspect phenomena, and she relates that analysis to the use of controlled tasks. The chapter presents an exhaustive review of di¤erent types of open-ended tasks that have been used in SLA tense-aspect research: conversations, narrative extended monologic discourse (narratives and conversational narratives, elicited narratives, personal narratives, impersonal narratives, and personalized narratives), and nonnarrative monologic discourse (description, argument, and irrealis). For each type of task, the author discusses specific data examples, elicitation techniques, and practical considerations. The following two chapters, by Yas Shirai and Llorenc¸ Comajoan, respectively, follow a structure similar to the one adopted by BardoviHarlig in that both authors examine how lexical aspect categories and grounding categories have been defined and how particular constraints and conditions of such definitions bring about problematic issues in the coding of tense-aspect data. Chapter 8, in particular, tackles two particular questions: (a) How many lexical-aspectual categories do we need to code? and (b) Are aspectual categories similar across languages? The bulk of the chapter is dedicated to a detailed discussion of the most commonly used classification procedure of lexical aspectual categories, namely, Shirai (1991) and Shirai and Andersen (1995). Shirai discusses in detail the various tests for lexical use, as well as problematic cases for the classification of predicates (e.g., predicates that can be accomplishments or achievements; and the classification of predicates with the verbs say and come/go). Shirai argues for a data coding methodology that is detailed and rigorous enough so that it becomes as replicable as possible. Chapter 9 begins with a presentation of the Discourse Hypothesis and a discussion of definitions of narratives according to di¤erent authors. Next, several definitions of grounding are evaluated through an examination of how di¤erent studies have operationalized the two main grounding con-

Introduction

5

cepts: foreground and background. For ease of presentation, Comajoan divides the definitions into early definitions (based on the application of definitions from functional linguistics) and critical definitions, which examine the concepts critically and attempt to find clearer criteria for their definition. Comajoan’s discussion focuses primarily on the establishment of the Discourse Hypothesis, how foreground and background were defined within this hypothesis, and how the two concepts have evolved in current studies. The final section of the chapter addresses some of the problematic cases for the coding of foreground and background, namely its relationship with morphology and syntax (e.g., subordination), coding in di¤erent types of texts, and interpretation of the learner’s intended meaning. The final subsection on methodological matters is comprised by two chapters (10 and 11) that focus on the advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative perspectives for the analysis of tense-aspect data. In Chapter 10, Robert Bayley begins with some practical information regarding matters of coding quantitative data, such as learner’s intended meaning and how to interpret and code it, and the coding of all the possible influences in the L2 acquisition of tense-aspect. The bulk of the chapter is devoted to a discussion of three methods that can deal with multiple variables (linguistic and nonlinguistic) in the L2 acquisition of tense and aspect; namely, multivariate analyses (focusing on logistic regression), testing alternative hypotheses, and implicational scaling. The chapter will be of use to current and future researchers who are interested in collecting di¤erent types of data on L2 tense-aspect and investigating how di¤erent variables interact and contribute to the explanation of results for di¤erent tasks. Finally, in Chapter 11, Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli argue for the need to incorporate qualitative characterizations of tense-aspect data into research programs by examining some of the advantages and drawbacks of qualitative analysis. From their perspective, the traditional type of quantitative analysis, with its emphasis on classification (operational tests), misrepresents the important fact that learners often may not have the same representations as those posited by the researcher. Thus, Giacalone-Ramat and Rastelli propose a rationale and procedure of qualitative research on L2 aspect based on three components: tracking the same referent in di¤erent moments of time and examining within-subject variability, making a comparison of L1-L2 verb pairs that can have di¤erent actional characteristics (e.g., see, watch; look for, find ), and comparing contexts in which aspectual pairs are produced in learner data (i.e., scope widening). The authors apply the three principles to past and current studies of Italian L2 by Chinese students and show

6

Llorenc¸ Comajoan and M. Rafael Salaberry

that learners at low levels use actionally underspecified verbs (contra the Lexical Aspectual Hypothesis 2 ) and use other cues to mark actionality. They argue that their results are not caused by frequency in the input, but rather they seem to be general and not restricted to learners with di¤erent L1s. In their conclusion, Giacalone-Ramat and Rastelli advocate for the use of qualitative research to investigate closely the learners’ semantic representations and posit hypotheses that then can be examined in a quantitative way. The volume closes with a chapter by M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez, in which the main themes of the volume are discussed and related to matters of integrating research theories and methodologies as well as language teaching. More specifically, the authors discuss four issues. First, they review the theoretical constructs discussed in the volume and examine them from the perspective of the dependent variable to be accounted for and the independent variables that contribute to the acquisition of L2 tense and aspect. Second, they discuss the main trends regarding methodology that have been addressed in the volume; namely, the need for the use of multivariate and rigorous data analyses that can allow for replication of studies. Third, the authors discuss the advantages and drawbacks of adopting a multiple methods perspective. And finally, a section on the e¤ect of explicit instruction on the acquisition of L2 tense and aspect is included, in which three guidelines for e¤ective instruction are provided. The article concludes with a call for further research that creates links between theoretical approaches and methodologies with the aim to establish stronger collaboration among researchers of L2 tense and aspect.

References Ayoun, Dalila & M. Rafael Salaberry 2005 Tense and aspect in Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 2000 Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell.

2. The terms Lexical Aspect Hypothesis (LAH) and Aspect Hypothesis (AH) are used indistinctively by di¤erent authors in the chapters of the volume.

Introduction

7

Binnick, Robert 1991 Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca 1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rocca, Sonia 2007 Child second language acquisition: A bi-directional study of English and Italian tense-aspect morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2008 Marking past tense in second language acquisition. London: Continuum. Salaberry, M. Rafael & Yasuhiro Shirai 2002 The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shirai, Yasuhiro 1991 Primacy of aspect in language acquisition: Simplified input and prototype. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, Ph.D. dissertation. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Roger Andersen 1995 The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language 71. 743–762. Slabakova, Roumyana 2001 Telicity in second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wul¤, Stefanie, Nick Ellis, Ute Ro¨mer, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig & Chelsea LeBlanc 2009 The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora, cognition, and learner constructions. Modern Language Journal 93. 354–369.

Part I.

Theoretical representations of tense and aspect in L2 studies

Chapter 1 A Cognitive Grammar perspective on tense and aspect Susanne Niemeier 1. Introduction Cognitive Grammar (CG), belonging to the framework of Cognitive Linguistics (CL), is founded mainly on earlier work by Langacker (1987a, 1991) and is a relatively recent linguistic approach. Focusing on the English tense/ aspect (TA) system, this chapter will outline the theoretical basis for CG’s view on tense and aspect and also provide reasons for CG’s didactic potential. Although CG is not a completely uniform approach, the theoretical description of the English TA system takes a prominent place within all of the various CL approaches to grammar (e.g., Fauconnier 1994, 1997; Fauconnier and Turner 2002; Langacker 1991a, b, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2008a, b, c, 2009, 2011; Radden and Dirven 2007; Taylor 2002). All of these frameworks have in common that they treat language as an integral facet of cognition and regard grammatical phenomena such as TA as meaningful (i.e., providing language users with clues for understanding). The ‘‘meanings’’ of grammatical phenomena are of course more abstract than those of lexical items – for example, the meaning of the English plural -s can be glossed as ‘‘more than one’’ – but they are nevertheless helpful for the correct interpretation of the utterance in question. Based on the assumption that situations are generally not reflected directly in linguistic forms but by means of elaborate cognitive construals, the ways in which people structure their experiences through language can be investigated. Therefore, a crucial role in CG is assigned to the notion and analysis of construals. More recently, a range of publications has been dedicated to CG applications to the areas of second language acquisition and grammar instruction (e.g., Achard and Niemeier 2004; De Knop and De Rycker 2008; DoizBienzobas 1995, 2002; Pu¨tz, Niemeier, and Dirven 2001a, b; Robinson and Ellis 2008, Salaberry 2008; Tyler 2008; Tyler, Mueller, and Vu 2010) in which researchers argue that due to its usage-based nature and its focus on (conceptual) meaning, cognitive grammar may o¤er foreign language learners a descriptively adequate and intuitively comprehensible account of grammar.

12

Susanne Niemeier

Focusing mainly on Langacker’s foundational approach to tense and aspect (but also integrating further approaches along the line, such as Fauconnier 1994, 1997; Niemeier and Reif 2008; Radden and Dirven 2007 as well as Tyler and Evans 2001), this chapter intends to address the following questions: How can the phenomenon of the interaction of situation type (or lexical/inherent aspect) and grammatical/viewpoint aspect be explained in CG terms, and how can it be explained to the foreign language learner? How can apparent restrictions on the combination of certain TA components and the role of the ground in the conceptualization of situations expressed by tensed verbs be explained in CG terms and also to the foreign language learner? Furthermore, how can we take account of the diverse non-temporal uses of tense and present this network of extended uses of the ed-morpheme in a foreign language classroom? It will be demonstrated how a prototype account of TA categories (e.g., Shirai and Andersen 1995, Shirai 2002) might render extended or more peripheral uses plausible to the language learner (which in ‘‘traditional’’ TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) approaches tend to be treated as ‘‘exceptions’’). Concerning non-prototypical uses of aspect, the focus is on the use of the progressive with iterative processes (as in She kicked her little brother versus She was kicking her little brother), the use of the progressive with involuntary sensory perception (as in I see a bird fly by versus I am seeing Tom tonight) and the use of the non-progressive with performatives (as in I promise to be on time). With respect to tense, the following non-temporal uses of the present and past tenses are discussed: the expression of reality and irreality (epistemic stance), the designation of salience (foregrounding/backgrounding), and the attenuation of speech acts (politeness phenomena), which all seem to rely on the image schema of proximity versus distance, be it in a temporal or in a nontemporal way. Finally, I briefly comment on the necessity of empirical research in the foreign language classroom, outlining potential research topics and methodological procedures.

2. Basic CL assumptions As mentioned above, CL (and as such also CG) sees all facets of language, including grammar, as meaningful, and posits – in contrast to other approaches such as Transformation Grammar – that meaning is the most important issue in language. Meaning is not only present in lexis, where it is easily discernible, but also in grammar, albeit in a more abstract

Cognitive perspective

13

way. Grammar is reducible to symbolic relationships, that is, to formmeaning pairings. Consequently, CL does not see lexis and grammar as two di¤erent structural principles of language, but as belonging together and as being located on a continuum, in which lexis is situated at one pole and grammar at the other pole, with various in-between positions. In Langacker’s terms, ‘‘lexicon, morphology and syntax form a continuum of symbolic units serving to structure conceptual content for expressive purposes’’ (1987a: 35). As a CG analysis of tense and aspect relies on the abstract meaning potential of the two phenomena in question, it may be better equipped than other approaches to deal with tense and aspect in a foreign language classroom setting, where meaningful explanations are the basic ingredient for the learners’ understanding. Furthermore, CL is based on the assumption that meaning is on the one hand embodied (Gibbs 2006 or Ziemke, Zlatev, and Frank 2007) – as it derives from our general cognition, world-view and experiences (for example, the expression a warm welcome metaphorically derives from our experience that to feel human warmth is positive, which goes back to our earliest experiences in life when as an infant we were held by a parent) – and, on the other hand, meaning is seen as socially embedded (cf. Tomasello’s 2005 usage-based approach to language acquisition). CG and CL thus attempt to explain facts about language in terms of other properties and mechanisms of the human mind, body, and social environment. They furthermore hold that language is a reflection of human cognition and conceptualization. Based on the premise that human perceptions of the world are always filtered through our particular physical and neurological architecture, CL argues in a rather constructivist way that humans do not have direct access to an objective, external reality (see, for example, Lako¤ 1987: 266 or Evans and Green 2006: 47). Rather, what people do have direct access to are their own subjective conceptualizations. For example, language users can decide which perspective they want to take on a certain event – what to foreground, what to background, what to omit, and what to focus on. Thus, a simple event such as two people shaking hands can linguistically be presented in very di¤erent ways: linguistic representations of such an event may di¤er concerning, for instance, who instigated the handshake, what the handshake meant (greeting, congratulation, sealing of a deal, etc.), what the people felt, etc. The linguistic representation of an event is rooted in the conceptualization that the event evokes in a language user or that the language user decides to adopt. Conceptualizations arise from the complex interac-

14

Susanne Niemeier

tions of a person’s rich cognitive abilities and our species-specific interactions with the external spatial physical-social world. Crucially, while claiming that human access to the external world is indirect and filtered, CL also argues that our interactions with the physicalsocial world are fundamental to how our cognition is shaped. Basic force dynamics, such as our understanding of gravity or motion along a path, provide foundational schemata that give structure to our understanding of many other domains of experience. For example, if we are told that a plane has landed at Frankfurt airport, due to our basic knowledge of the source-path-goal schema we know that it must have started somewhere (source), and that it must have flown through the air (path). As we metaphorically conceive of time as abstract motion on the time line (at least in Western societies), we also know that if we are told that an event lasted until a certain point of time (goal), it must have started before (source) and must have had some duration (path). As we will see when discussing the non-progressive versus the progressive aspect, di¤erent conceptualizations of the same event are involved, where the non-progressive foregrounds the goal and the progressive foregrounds the path. Humans, who are fundamentally social in character, use language as a tool to interact with others. Language allows us to externalize our internal conceptualizations in order to make them accessible to other humans. Depending on how exactly we want to present our concepts, we can use di¤erent construals. For instance, if we want to focus on the fact that a certain event is ongoing at speech time (What are you doing? – I’m reading the newspaper), we may want to use the progressive aspect. If, however, we want to present the same event in a holistic way, such as in an enumeration of events, we may want to use the non-progressive aspect (Every morning I have a cup of co¤ee and read the newspaper). The primary function of language is communication and we learn language by using it in communicative and social contexts. This is especially true for the first language, but also for further and foreign languages. Since language is understood to reflect conceptualization, language is all about meaning, as also emphasized by CL’s focus on the symbolic aspects of language. CL sees linguistic meaning not as referential and objective, but as subjective, dynamic, flexible, encyclopaedic and usage-based. Not only words and expressions but also the grammar, or morphosyntax, of a language reflects conceptualization and is therefore meaningful. A simple example for this is the iconic e¤ect of the English plural morpheme -s: more form is more meaning; that is, adding an extra morpheme to a

Cognitive perspective

15

noun adds the extra meaning of plurality.1 CG’s focus on the motivated, meaningful connections between forms that are often ignored by other theories of language is one more reason why a CG approach may be useful to second language pedagogy, because what is motivated and meaningful can be explained. This means furthermore that so-called ‘‘exceptions’’ are no exceptions after all, but that there are explainable reasons why they behave in a different way than the prototypical forms. Examples for this claim can be found in Section 3.2, dealing with non-prototypical uses of aspect that are treated as ‘‘exceptions’’ in many textbooks of English as a foreign language. CL applications thus invite a change of perspective in that they do not posit a clear borderline between rules and exceptions but instead refer to language phenomena as situated within a radial network of meaning with more prototypical instances at the core and more marginal instances on the fringes, all of them related and explainable (Radden 1992; Tyler and Evans 2004). Learners should not be expected anymore to learn by heart seemingly idiosyncratic ‘‘exceptions’’, which they may not understand and which are therefore hard for them to memorize, but to reconstruct them via the connections to the prototypes. For example, as will be shown later on, the use of the non-progressive with verbs of involuntary sensory perception as in I see a bird fly by is not to be treated as an exception but can be attributed to the fact that the event of seeing is too short to zoom into and therefore has no duration which could be focused on. Such an approach is also believed to be helpful for teachers as they can use the motivated connections as explanatory tools. The main aim then is to make learners aware of the motivation behind linguistic phenomena and to help them understand how language works, as understanding is seen as a precondition for learning. This seems to be possible via the inherent explanatory power of CL approaches. Furthermore, grammar and lexis are not seen as separate from each other (at least in German EFL textbooks there is always a distinction between ‘‘grammar/structure’’ and ‘‘vocabulary/content’’), but as two poles of a continuum, thus structured by the same organizational principles. In the following sections, the above assumptions will be outlined using the English TA system as an example.

1. This is similar in pidgin and creole languages which often rely on reduplication in order to indicate plurality, as the languages may not yet have developed a specialized plural morpheme.

16

Susanne Niemeier

3. Aspect Although every single English verb is by definition always marked for aspect as well as for tense (and also for modality) at the same time, aspect and tense will be looked at separately in the following paragraphs. At some important points, however, the interaction between the two subsystems will be highlighted. Assuming that grammatical units, just like lexical ones, are meaningful in the sense that they possess a phonological and a conceptual pole (Langacker 1991b), the aspect system and the tense system also carry meaning. In contrast to lexical units, however, grammatical units are used to express rather abstract meanings, such as, for example, ‘‘being relevant for a time before the communicative present’’ in the case of the past tense marker. The di¤erent meanings of the aspect system and the tense system may interact and influence each other. When we look at tense, we take an external perspective on situations that specifies the time of a situation as well as its reality status, whereas when we look at aspect we adopt an internal perspective; thus, we are concerned with the internal temporal structure of a situation (Comrie 1976: 3), which is actually part of the situation itself. Situations can be viewed from di¤erent perspectives, and the language user can normally choose between di¤erent ways of presenting a situation. Langacker calls a ‘‘perspective’’ a viewing arrangement, which he sees as ‘‘the overall relationship between the ‘viewers’ and the situation being ‘viewed’’’ (Langacker 2008a: 73) and defines it as follows: Inherent in every usage event is a presupposed viewing arrangement, pertaining to the relationship between the conceptualizers and the situation being viewed. The default arrangement finds the speaker and hearer together in a fixed location, from which they report on actual occurrences in the world around them. There are however numerous kinds of departures from this canonical circumstance. The departures help make it evident that the default arrangement, so easily taken for granted, is nonetheless an essential part of the conceptual substrate supporting the interpretation of expressions. Whether canonical or special, the viewing arrangement has a shaping influence on the conception entertained and consequently on the linguistic structure used to code it (Langacker 2001: 16¤.).

In other words, our own perspective on the situation to be represented linguistically is integrated into the upcoming representation itself, because the neutral situation – i.e., speaker and hearer conceptualizing the same

Cognitive perspective

17

situation from exactly the same perspective – will be extremely rare. The speaker encodes his/her subjectivity grammatically and the hearer decodes it – not necessarily in exactly the same way, which, at least from a constructivist point of view, is seen as an impossibility – but the speaker has at least provided the hearer with valid hints concerning his/her subjective perspective, for example whether an action is seen as being in progress or as completed. For instance, when a speaker says I am living in Paris, this may indicate to the hearer that Paris is only the speaker’s temporary location, as the use of the progressive with inherently unbounded verbs such as to live indicates that the situation may change. 3.1. Interaction of situation type and grammatical aspect In contrast to heavily tense-prominent languages (Bhat 1999), as for instance German, Swedish, or Danish, in English every single verb has to be marked for aspect.2 Although Bhat argues that English is a tenseprominent language as well, it is so to a lesser extent (see also Dekel 2010), and we may have to assume a continuum here. Looking at the other end of this continuum, English di¤ers from aspect-prominent languages, such as for example Slavic languages, as it only has a clearly marked progressive aspect, but no special marker for the contrasting element in the pair.3 Although there is no widespread agreement about the existence of a non-progressive aspect in English, I assume in this chapter (following Radden and Dirven 2007: 177–196) that there is a cross-wise aspectual contrast in English, a¤ecting both processes and states, which are, according to Langacker, subtypes of situations. According to Radden and Dirven (2007: 47), the term situation is to be understood ‘‘in the sense of events that happen or states that things are

2. It may be mainly due to this di¤erence that aspect errors are the most frequent errors committed by German learners of English (Niemeier and Reif 2008). German verbs do not need to be marked for aspect, as aspect is either indicated in various optional lexical ways or omitted altogether. Therefore, many German learners of English tacitly assume that aspect is not an obligatory category in English. Most EFL textbooks used in Germany do not explain this to them either. 3. In Slavic languages, aspect is an important formal category marking imperfective and perfective construals of situations (see Schmiedtova´ and Flecken 2008).

18

Susanne Niemeier

in’’, although the distinction between events (which I prefer to call processes, following Langacker) and states is not always a clear-cut one. Processes can further be subdivided into durative and punctual processes, and states can be subdivided into permanent and transitory states. Starting with prototypical scenarios, situations can be classified into two categories according to their inherent temporal structure: they either refer to inherently unbounded situations (which Langacker calls ‘‘imperfective’’, 2008: 147) or to inherently bounded situations (which Langacker calls ‘‘perfective’’). However, ‘‘categorisation is flexible and subject to subtle conceptual influence from a variety of sources’’ (Langacker 2008: 148). Langacker’s opposition between perfectives and imperfectives is di¤erent from, but partly compatible with Vendler’s categories (Vendler 1967), as Langacker states that the ‘‘imperfective class is equivalent to what Vendler 1967 calls ‘states’, his other three categories (‘achievements’, ‘activities’ and ‘accomplishments’) are subclasses of perfectives’’ (1987b: 79). While Langacker is aware that activities designate processes that ‘‘are easily construed as being internally homogeneous’’ (2009: 189) and thus bear some resemblance to imperfectives, he claims that ‘‘they are nonetheless conceived as occurring in bounded episodes, and bounding is the critical property for the perfective/imperfective contrast’’. Inherently unbounded situations are internally homogeneous and not susceptible to change (Niemeier and Reif 2008; Williams 2002); thus, they are not expected to come to an end. This is not the same as saying that they will never end, and they must of course have had a beginning at some point in time, it is just ‘‘. . . that the verb itself excludes them [i.e., the beginning and the end] from what it puts onstage for focused viewing’’ (Langacker 2008: 147). Such situations can either be permanent states, such as , which – according to our commonsensical world knowledge – is normally not going to change throughout the lifetime of a person, or they can be potentially transient states, such as , for which a change cannot be ruled out, but is neither probable nor predictable and is thus not part of our viewing frame. By contrast, inherently bounded situations are internally heterogeneous and susceptible to change, because they allow internal development and are expected to come to an end at some point. Inherently bounded situations can either have explicit boundaries, such as , which is by definition over once the snowman is finished, or they can have implicit boundaries, such as , a process that, although it does not have a fixed endpoint, is very unlikely

Cognitive perspective

19

to last forever.4 As already mentioned, our world knowledge provides us with an intuitive understanding of the default readings of situations, due to which the prototypical interpretations of situations like those outlined above develop naturally, at least for native speakers. We may, however, not want to focus on the prototypical perspective but indicate that we see a given situation di¤erently or want the hearer to see it di¤erently. This is where grammatical aspect comes into play. Grammatical aspect (i.e., the use of either the non-progressive or the progressive form) interacts with lexical aspect in that it o¤ers the speaker a means to construe an idealized situation in di¤erent ways.5 Depending on the type of situation (whether it is inherently bounded or unbounded), and depending on whether it is construed as a single situation or as a repeated situation, grammatical aspect can have di¤erent conceptual e¤ects. If we compare the following two sentences, we see that they both refer to the same idealized situation, that is, , an inherently bounded situation with explicit boundaries. However, this situation is realized di¤erently in (1a) and (1b) as far as grammatical aspect is concerned: (1) a. b.

Nick built a snowman. Nick was building a snowman.

As we can see, (1a) is the default (i.e., the unmarked mode for the verb to build ), as the situation as such is inherently bounded, thus involving change through time. The situation’s beginning (initial boundary) as well as its endpoint (final boundary) are part of the mental representation. At some point in time, Nick starts to roll the snowballs that are then stacked up one upon another and decorated with a hat, a scarf, a broom and so on in order to become the finished snowman in the end. While the non-progressive aspect in (1a) expresses that the situation is viewed in its entirety and that both its beginning and its endpoint fall within the scope of predication, the use of the progressive aspect in (1b) 4. At this point the bounded situation would turn into the inherently unbounded situation , a potentially transient state because it is not expected to last forever, but only until the weather gets warmer. 5. ‘‘Idealized situation’’ is to be understood in the sense of Smith (2009: 9), who claims that ‘‘when speakers talk about actual situations, they invoke abstract representations, or idealized situations types. The idealized situation types are abstractions that represent the properties characteristic of di¤erent situations’’.

20

Susanne Niemeier

has the e¤ect of unbounding the situation.6 Another notable di¤erence between (1a) and (1b) consists in the fact that while the situation in (1a) is perceived as being complete in itself and is thus not susceptible to change anymore, the situation in (1b) is construed as being in progress and is thus (at least potentially) susceptible to change (Williams 2002: 88). We find the same unbounding e¤ect if we look at inherently bounded situations with implicit boundaries, such as in (2a,b): (2) a. b.

We wandered about the park at night. We were wandering about the park at night.

The only di¤erence between the snowman example in (1) and the park example in (2) is that the boundaries of the situation are explicit, while the boundaries of remain implicit. A walk in the park starts at some point in time and needs to end at some point in time. It is ‘‘conceptualized as some kind of bounded episode, irrespective of whether a natural endpoint is discernible’’ (Langacker 2001: 13). There is no ‘‘change in state’’ or any internal structuring involved (Klein 1994, 1995), so we are not dealing with a prototypical example of an inherently unbounded situation here. Whereas in (2a) we speak about a completed instance of the situation , in (2b) we zoom into the situation, defocus its boundaries, and focus instead on its middle part (i.e., its ongoingness). As pointed out above, the use of the progressive aspect unbounds inherently bounded situations. If we turn to inherently unbounded situations, it becomes obvious that the progressive needs to have a di¤erent e¤ect on them – as in these cases there is no need to unbound an already unbounded situation anymore. Let us first consider a prototypical state verb such as to live: (3) a. b.

My best friend lives in London. My best friend is living in London.

Example (3) shows that inherently unbounded situations such as (3a) are construed as lasting states that are not susceptible to change when used in

6. This process is called a ‘‘defocusing of boundaries’’ by Schmiedtova´ and Flecken (2008): both the initial and the final boundaries of the situation are not gone, but excluded from the speaker’s focus.

Cognitive perspective

21

the default mode (i.e., with the non-progressive aspect).7 When used with the progressive as in (3b), however, implicit boundaries are added to the situation and it is no longer seen as a lasting, but instead as a temporary state (i.e., construed as having implicit boundaries and as being susceptible to change). Instead of defocusing the boundaries – as it does with inherently bounded situations as in (1b) and (2b) – the progressive aspect with inherently unbounded situations imposes boundaries. Such a conversion from an indefinitely lasting state to a temporary state is often visible in the description of characters or of people’s behaviour: (4) a. b.

You are arrogant. You are being arrogant.

When we utter a sentence like (4a), we are referring to a characteristic quality of a person or to a person’s general style of behaviour, whereas when we use (4b), we are referring to the current, temporary behaviour of a person, independent of their normal behaviour and character. They may not be arrogant at all, but in this one special moment they are acting as if they were. In other words, we are dealing here with a cross-wise aspectual contrast (cf. also Radden and Dirven 2007: Chapter 8). That is, the progressive changes the default boundary situation, a view that di¤ers slightly from Langacker’s perspective. Langacker claims that ‘‘the overall e¤ect of a progressive is (. . .) to convert a perfective process into an imperfective one’’ (2008: 155), which coincides with the defocusing of boundaries for inherently bounded situations. However, he does not mention the cross-wise e¤ect, namely that the progressive can impose boundaries on an inherently unbounded situation but analyzes this latter phenomenon di¤erently: he

7. In textbook grammars and other learner grammars, learners are generally confronted with a list of ‘‘state verbs’’ and are usually told that these verbs cannot take the progressive aspect (for more details see Niemeier 2008). Such a list is supposed to be learnt by heart, which is not exactly a useful learning strategy, as the learners may face di‰culties because they do not know any reason why the ‘‘exceptions’’ di¤er from the rule and may thus be unable to construct or reconstruct their meaning. Although the role of frequency of a linguistic phenomenon has largely been underestimated so far (see Chapter 3), frequency does not seem likely to be a decisive factor for a rehabilitation of the ‘‘learning by heart’’ strategy, because ‘‘exceptions’’ in grammar tend to be infrequent and thus do not normally appear as salient features in the linguistic input a learner receives – instead, they are by definition non-prototypical.

22

Susanne Niemeier

claims that when an imperfective verb is construed as referring to a bounded episode/temporary state, the progressive – only admissible with perfectives – can be used because the normally imperfective verb in that case relates to a (non-prototypical) perfective instance. Opposing these two views may seem akin to a chicken-or-the-egg question (i.e., what came first: the concept that influenced the form or the form that influenced the concept?). I would like to interpret this potential dilemma rather as either speaker- or hearer-oriented: for the speaker, the concept comes first and needs to be expressed accordingly. That is, seeing a situation as unbounded/imperfective may trigger the use of the progressive, whereas for the hearer, the form used helps him/her to interpret the concept/meaning that the speaker wants to get across.8 For teachers this would imply that the concepts their learners want to express are the most important assets, as these concepts influence the grammatical form to be chosen. For example, when dealing with aspect in a class of English as a foreign language, the idea of ‘‘zooming into a situation’’ – visualizable by a lens or a keyhole stencil (Niemeier and Reif 2008) – might be employed in order to have the learners think about what they really want to express. In other words, learners should first be made aware of what they want to express so that they can then focus on how to express this and employ the form that fits the intended meaning. To sum up, the non-progressive and the progressive aspect have an e¤ect on the construal of a situation, indicating how the internal constitution of a situation is viewed. With inherently bounded situations, the nonprogressive aspect construes the situation as complete in itself, including its boundaries (i.e., its starting point and its endpoint), as in (1a) and (2a). The progressive aspect, by contrast, has the e¤ect of defocusing the boundaries of the situation by ‘‘zooming in’’ on the situation (Langacker 2000: 228) and thus construing it as ongoing, as in (1b) and (2b). With inherently unbounded situations, the non-progressive construes the situation as continuing indefinitely, as in (3a) and (4a). The progressive, by contrast, imposes implicit temporal boundaries on the situation, as in (3b) and (4b), seeing it as potentially susceptible to external change and 8. For EFL purposes, working with the concept of the cross-wise aspectual contrast has proven to be a lot more fruitful as learners can relate to it far better than they can to Langacker’s interpretation. The concept of ‘‘boundaries’’ along with the idea that the progressive changes the default setting of the boundaries of a verb’s meaning is apparently easier to understand than the concept of (im)perfectivity (personal experience).

Cognitive perspective

23

thus focusing on its temporariness and its possible transition to adjacent states. Making learners aware of the meaning behind the aspectual system of English – a major source of errors at least for German learners of English, but presumably not only for these learners – may help avoid some of their errors, as they would not have to learn rules by heart and then simply reproduce them (or forget them). Instead, they can start from scratch: by understanding what aspect is about and how a grasp of the aspectual system enables them to fine-tune their utterances, they can express their own perspectives. This will potentially also change the learners’ notion of grammar as an opaque end in itself. The ‘‘boundaries’’ (or lack of these) are quite easily visualizable (Niemeier 2008; Niemeier and Reif 2008), thus enabling double coding. As the learners are not inhibited by rules with exceptions, they can handle the language more freely and more creatively. They could, for example, create fantasy stories about what they saw when they were clandestinely looking through a keyhole, witnessing ‘‘action in progress’’ and trying to interpret it (for further examples, see Niemeier 2008 and Niemeier and Reif 2008). 3.2. Non-prototypical uses of aspect Accounts of aspect in textbook and other learner grammars usually present aspect in terms of rules and exceptions to these rules.9 For example, Ungerer et al. (1992) just state – without any further explanation – that iterative verbs are used in the progressive form to express a series of repeated actions, but that when a definite number of repetitions is stated, the simple past has to be used.10 This is not helpful for learners as they will have problems to understand why this is the case. In contrast to this, CG argues that what are traditionally called ‘‘exceptions’’ are not exceptions at all, but rather non-prototypical uses of aspect which are meaningful and therefore explainable. In this section, three apparent ‘‘deviations’’ 9. That is, if they present aspect at all, because it is generally integrated into the chapters on tense, most frequently without even making use of the term aspect. Although it is debatable whether learners need the technical terms, they should at least be aware of the concepts behind the terms and know the di¤erence between them. 10. Ungerer et al. (1992) is a book-size learner grammar. Although it is – as of this writing – one of the ‘‘better’’ grammar books for German schools and although it acknowledges some cognitive principles, it still works with rules and (unexplained) exceptions.

24

Susanne Niemeier

will be discussed, namely the use of the progressive with iterative processes, the use of the progressive with verbs of involuntary sensory perception, and the use of the non-progressive with performatives. 3.2.1. Iterative processes 11 Starting with iterative processes (such as kick, hop, knock, etc.), at first sight they seem to be prototypical members of the class of inherently bounded situations, as the processes that they describe are clearly delimited in time. Still, such verbs do not normally allow the progressive aspect. If we compare the following two sentences, it is obvious that they describe di¤erent scenarios: (5) a. b.

Daria kicked her little brother. Daria was kicking her little brother.

In (5a), the protagonist kicked her brother only once, whereas in (5b), she gave him several kicks. We cannot use the progressive to refer to a single kick because the process is too short to zoom into: in other words, it does not allow an internal perspective. With the inherently bounded situation , we have a starting point as well as an endpoint, but as these two nearly coincide temporally, the process itself does not have any duration. Using the progressive with an inherently bounded situation means defocusing the situation’s starting point as well as its endpoint, which in the case of such punctual, short processes like leaves actually nothing to view. Still, the progressive can of course be found with such verbs, as in (5b), only the interpretation then changes to that of an iterative, repetitive process. When we use the progressive with such minimalduration verbs, we conceptually extend the situation’s duration in order to be able to zoom into the middle phase between the starting point and the end point, which then results in an interpretation of repetitive short actions. We therefore interpret sentences such as (5b) as referring to a succession of short processes such as kicking or hopping, which are, 11. I will use the term ‘‘iterative’’ here for simplicity’s sake. If an event of no or very short duration is meant, we should technically speak about a semelfactive, whereas when this event is repeated, we speak of an iterative. This section of the chapter will cover both concepts. Semelfactives have uniplex structure, whereas iterative have multiplex structure (see Evans and Green 2006: 519 on the concept of plexity). For a di¤erentiation between iteratives and habituals from a Langackerian perspective, see Salaberry (2008).

Cognitive perspective

25

according to Langacker (2008a: 156), ‘‘construed as constituting a single overall event of bounded duration’’. We can then highlight and zoom into the internal duration of this overall situation, defocusing the beginning and the endpoint of the sister’s tantrum. If such a series of short, punctual processes were filmed and replayed in slow motion, also a single kick could be referred to as She is kicking her brother because the duration of that process would then be long enough to zoom into (Niemeier 2008: 317). What we are dealing with here is therefore not an exception or a deviation, but a semantic mismatch, (i.e., meaning inconsistencies) between verbs denoting short processes and the concept of unboundedness. If there is no middle phase between the boundaries to zoom into, unbounding is not possible. It becomes possible again if we reconstruct the overall situation as consisting of several repeated sub-processes. If our learners are already familiar with the notion of a situation’s ‘‘boundaries’’, it is quite easy for them to discover why short, bounded, non-prototypical processes have to be treated di¤erently from prototypical bounded situations. However, this claim is still waiting for empirical validation. As suggested in Niemeier (2008), teachers could introduce the notion of boundaries via the count-noun/mass-noun distinction, which presents no problem for German learners of English. Once the learners know to pay attention to ‘‘boundaries’’, the ‘‘content’’ within the boundaries and the important role of their own perspective, they can be made aware of the fact that there is no ‘‘content’’ in iterative processes and no possibility to ‘‘zoom into’’ the situation. This then rules out a defocusing of the boundaries and therefore the use of the progressive aspect, which would focus on the (non-existent) ‘‘content’’, is ruled out as well. A repetition of a short process would then extend the situation, creating duration and thus ‘‘content’’ between the boundaries, and at the same time allow for a ‘‘zooming in’’ perspective. 3.2.2. Verbs of involuntary sensory perception The second apparent deviation to be discussed is closely related to the first one. Verbs of involuntary sensory perception (e.g., see, hear, feel, smell, taste) generally describe very brief processes and the majority of EFL textbooks and grammars lists them as exceptions because they do not take the progressive aspect.12 Again, CG argues that these verbs are no exceptions 12. One example may serve as illustration: in the brand-new and widely distributed textbook series Green Line for higher secondary schools in Germany (‘‘Gymnasien’’), we find the following text in the grammar section of volume 5: ‘‘Die

26

Susanne Niemeier

but that they do not necessarily invite an internal perspectivization due to their brevity, just as described above for verbs like kick, hop, nod, and the like. If we verbalize a perception such as or , then these processes will be over before we will have had the time to contemplate or describe them, (i.e., the processes lack duration and their onsets and o¤sets nearly coincide). In this respect, verbs of punctual involuntary sensory perception behave in a similar way as the verbs for short processes described in 3.2. In contrast to these, however, verbs of involuntary sensory perception do not allow an iterative interpretation as this would represent a semantic incompatibility – if something is involuntary, it cannot be repeated at will because by definition one’s will is not involved. If such processes are repeated, then we are dealing with voluntary sensory perception (watch/observe/look at the fireworks; listen to gunshots during a battle, etc.) and the verbs for voluntary sensory perceptions behave like any other inherently bounded verbs.13 However, verbs of involuntary sensory perception can nevertheless be used with the progressive aspect in two respects. On the one hand, the processes being involuntarily perceived may have some kind of extension as for example in (i.e., may not be punctual such as or ), in which case they are progressive form ist normalerweise nicht mo¨glich bei Verben, die eine Sinneswahrnehmung beschreiben – wie to notice, to see, to hear, to sound, to smell, to look (¼aussehen) etc.’’. (Horner et al. 2010: 118). Translation: ‘‘the progressive form is normally not possible with verbs describing sensory perception, such as to notice, to see, to hear, to sound, to smell, to look (referring to outward appearance), etc.’’. Not only does the book fail to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary sensory perception, but it furthermore adds the verbs to notice and to look to the category of sensory perception and – most lamentable of all – it does not provide any reasons for the verbs’ ‘‘deviating’’ behaviour nor does it explain what is meant by ‘‘normally’’. 13. Such a lexical switch is not only to be found in English. Ibarretxe (1999) studies the polysemy of perception verbs in English, Basque, and Spanish, basing her research on the classification of perception verbs following Viberg (1984) and Gisborne (1996), who claim that on the basis of the semantic role of their subjects, perception verbs can be divided into three groups: experience, activity, and percept. Not all languages fill all groups with di¤erent verbs, but when a verb is used for more than one category, it is used with a polysemous meaning. In German, we can find a similar distribution of verbs of involuntary versus voluntary perception as in English, which is partly achieved via prefixation (sehen versus ansehen/betrachten; ho¨ren versus zuho¨ren; fu¨hlen versus befu¨hlen, anfassen; riechen versus beschnuppern).

Cognitive perspective

27

treated like any other bounded situation that has a duration we can zoom into for unbounding it. Although one might argue that such situations do not possess a long duration, according to Langacker, stability and duration are relative and ‘‘what matters is whether a situation is construed as stable for the purpose at hand and whether this stability endures through the stretch of time considered relevant’’ (2008a: 149). If a sensation is presented as constant for the brief temporal interval in question, it can be unbounded and used as an imperfective, as in I was feeling some pain in my left knee this morning – this is largely dependent on whether the object noun accompanying the verb in question invites a punctual interpretation (e.g., flash, gunshot) or not (e.g., light, music, pain). On the other hand, we find uses such as the one depicted in (6) below: (6) She is seeing Peter tonight. In this example, metonymically stands for , referring to the complete scenario connected to meeting a person, furthermore hinting at a touch of romance. is a prototypical inherently bounded verb, encompassing various subprocesses (e.g., going to a bar, seeing Peter there, walking towards him, greeting him, having a drink with him, etc.) and, therefore having a certain duration which can be zoomed into. If verbs of involuntary perception are not being used in their basic, prototypical sense but in more marginal, mostly metonymically motivated senses which no longer focus on the actual sensory perception in question but rather on the complete scenario, they gain duration and can therefore semantically accept an inner perspectivization, which in turn allows the progressive aspect. The sensory perception then just serves as a metonymic link. 3.2.3. Performatives The third apparent deviation relates to the use of non-progressives with performatives. Performatives explicitly name speech acts ( promise, admit, swear, pronounce, sentence, apologize, etc.) and the speaker is always the subject. They are always bounded and are always uttered in the present tense as uttering them coincides with the notion of ‘‘doing them’’, therefore we not only need to look at the (un)boundedness of such situations but also at the notion of the present tense. When we use the present tense, our speech time should temporally coincide with the situation time, but with a vast majority of situations, this is not possible. A situation such as usually takes a lot longer than uttering the English

28

Susanne Niemeier

sentence *My son reads a book, and therefore the preconditions for the use of the simple present are violated.14 Although is an inherently bounded situation, it cannot be framed as bounded when used in the present tense as it does not comprise both of the necessary boundaries – the starting point is included but the endpoint has not yet been reached. Radden and Dirven (2007: 208) state that ‘‘the conceptual boundaries of most events do not neatly coincide with the temporal boundaries of uttering the speech act describing the event’’, therefore the simple present cannot normally be used to describe bounded situations happening in the present time. If we use a performative speech act such as I promise to write the paper next week, we avoid the above-mentioned dilemma, as this sentence does not describe a situation but is the promise itself (i.e., by uttering the sentence the speaker performs the act of promising). This means that there is temporal identity between the utterance of the speech act on the one hand and performing the act of promising on the other hand. Therefore, situation time and speech time completely coincide. The verb to promise is bounded and as the whole utterance contains the promise, the starting point of the event as well as the endpoint fall within our viewing arrangement. In Langacker’s terms (2001: 26), performatives ‘‘not only tolerate but actually require the present tense. The reason is that a performative represents a special viewing arrangement in which the process put onstage and profiled is the speech event itself ’’. Performatives furthermore lack an epistemic problem that normally arises with the use of the present tense, namely that of speaker knowledge. If we want to speak about a situation in the present, we first of all have to identify it in order to be able to describe it. However, as such mental processing may take some time, and as the utterance itself has to correlate temporally with the situation when we use the simple present, the action is frequently well underway before we can even start to talk about it. As a consequence, we are dealing with a temporal incongruity relative to the starting point of the situation.15 For example, when we see somebody repairing their car, the act of repairing the car takes a lot longer than to say *Peter repairs his car (the durational problem) and furthermore we 14. In other languages, however, such as in Spanish, French or German, this utterance would be perfectly acceptable in the simple present. 15. In Langacker’s terms, the epistemic problem has to do with the fact that ‘‘by the time we observe an event to find out what is happening, it is already too late to initiate a description that precisely coincides with it’’ (2009: 191).

Cognitive perspective

29

first have to identify what Peter is actually doing, as he might also be cleaning the car or inspecting it (the epistemic problem). None of these two problems exists with performatives because, on the one hand, the speech act is the situation, and on the other hand, the speaker performs the action intentionally (which means that there is no need for him/her to first identify the action, as it is known to him/her anyway). Thus, the explanatory potential of the CG view on aspect with respect to performatives is able to cater for this non-prototypical aspectual use. If the basic aspects (‘‘boundaries’’) are known to the learners, they can extend these in order to explain more marginal aspectual uses.

4. Tense Tense is our grammaticalized conceptualization of time. The description of this grammatical phenomenon needs to begin with a reminder that tense, aspect, and modality are essentially non-separable issues and are only separated here for practical reasons. Our human experience only allows us to experience the present time directly, as the past has already happened and can only be accessed by recall, although it can have reality status. The future has not yet happened and therefore can neither be experienced directly nor does it have reality status. Cognitive linguists are divided into two camps concerning the idea of how many tenses English has: Langacker strongly argues for only two tenses, the present and the past, which according to him both have reality status and are morphologically marked on the verb, whereas the future for him belongs to the modal system because it has no reality status and is non-inflectional.16 Taylor (2002: 394) also states that English has only two tenses. Radden and Dirven (2007: 224), on the other hand, maintain that English has three tenses: the present, the past, and the future, although they admit the following: . . . our projection of events into the future always involves a certain amount of uncertainty [. . .] Future situations are therefore very much subject to people’s imagination. As a result, English has a number of future tense forms expressing shades of (un)certainty about a future situation.

16. In his 1991a publication (332), Langacker still speaks about the ‘‘future tense’’, whereas from his 1991b publication onwards he seems to have changed his views.

30

Susanne Niemeier

Expressions such as ‘‘people’s imagination’’ and ‘‘(un)certainty’’, however, can also be seen as arguments for shifting future-related verb constructions to the realm of what Langacker (2008a: 306) calls ‘‘conceived reality’’, namely modality.17 It is also interesting to note that according to Radden and Dirven (2007: 227), those future forms with ‘‘the highest degree of certainty’’ are what they call ‘‘the planned future’’ (I’m getting married next month) and ‘‘the scheduled future’’ (My train leaves at six), both of which use present tense morphology. Furthermore, on a conceptual level it can be argued that only the present and the past tenses are used to signal relevance time for situations that are construed as having reality status (i.e., situations located in factual reality). This is why the present chapter will follow Langacker’s assumption that there are only two tenses in English and that future time is expressed by modality.18 With respect to foreign language teaching, the question whether to teach that there are two tenses in English or instead to teach that there are three tenses is hard to answer. The three-tenses option is compatible with all traditional textbooks and theories, and the learners will probably be familiar with this approach from lessons in their native language, where from primary school onwards normally three tenses are identified. On the other hand, the two-tenses approach makes more conceptual sense for the reasons mentioned above (i.e., the connection to ‘‘reality’’). This should be easy to internalize for the learners and it also helps to explain certain uses of the present tense, as for example the fact that using the present tense to refer to the future lends more reality status to the future event in question. Furthermore, in this way the future auxiliary will does not have to be di¤erentiated from the modal auxiliary will, as they can both be seen as referring to potentiality space. Therefore, although tradition sees this di¤erently, I would advocate for the use of the two-tenses approach in the foreign language classroom.

17. For a Cognitive Linguistic way of teaching English modal verbs to speakers of other languages, see Tyler (2008) and Tyler, Mueller, and Ho (2010). 18. As the present chapter sees future as a modality, it will not refer to the various types of future. Radden and Dirven (2007: 225) di¤erentiate the following kinds of future: predicted future (We’ll have some sunshine), matter-of-course future (I’ll be seeing you), intentional future (I’m going to get married ), contingent future (It’s going to rain), planned future (I’m getting married next month), scheduled future (My train leaves at six) and background future (If I see him, I’ll send him home).

Cognitive perspective

31

4.1. Speech time, relevance time, and situation time Langacker as well as Taylor (2002) subsume tense under the keyword ‘‘grounding’’, as ‘‘the term ground is used in CG to indicate the speech event, its participants (speaker and hearer), their interaction, and the immediate circumstances (notably, the time and place of speaking)’’ (Langacker 2008a: 259). Tense situates the profiled relationship of an utterance with respect to the speaker’s current conception of reality. In a CG analysis of tense, three di¤erent components interact (see Figure 1).19 The first component is the present moment of speech, or speech time. We live in ‘‘current reality’’, therefore the base of the tense system is the present moment of speech, or ‘‘speech time’’. In Radden and Dirven’s terms, ‘‘speech time o¤ers an anchor to locate the occurrence of situations in time’’ (2007: 202). It is the moment in time at which a communicative instance is produced. If we speak about today, the present moment of speech is part of the time region indicated by this lexical item. Similarly, if we speak about yesterday or tomorrow, these lexical items are still interpreted in relation to speech time (i.e., to the present moment of speech), although they do not include the present moment of speech time but refer to time intervals before or beyond speech time. The second component is the time span for which the speaker sees the proposition of the utterance as relevant (i.e., relevance time). The relevant time span for a proposition such as We were snowed in yesterday is past time, more precisely yesterday, as indicated by the grammatical past tense marker were and the temporal adverb yesterday. The third component in the relation between tense and time is the time at which a situation (i.e., a process or a state) is instantiated. It is therefore called situation time.20 Situation time can correspond exactly to relevance time, as in (7): 19. This distinction is very similar to Klein’s distinction between ‘‘time of utterance’’, ‘‘time of situation’’, and ‘‘topic time’’ (Klein 1994). However, the two models do not coincide completely. According to Klein, tense serves to relate ‘‘topic times’’ – and not situations – to utterance time. Klein claims that the situations themselves are not linked directly to utterance time, but only to topic time. This linking is then done by aspect (Klein 1994, 1995). ‘‘Relevance time’’, on the other hand, refers to the speaker’s viewpoint, i.e., to the time span for which the speaker sees the proposition of the utterance as relevant. 20. Radden and Dirven (2007: 202) use ‘‘event time’’ but I have decided to follow Niemeier and Reif (2008), who use ‘‘situation time’’, because in this context a situation can refer either to a process or to a state, and I believe it is con-

32

Susanne Niemeier

(7) We were snowed in yesterday. On the other hand, relevance time can also comprise only a temporal section of situation time, as in example (8) below; or it can be di¤erent from situation time, as in the newspaper headline Snowstorm cuts o¤ villages. Although the situation took place a day before the headline appeared (i.e., in the past), and was remedied since, the newspaper headline wants to present it as being relevant to its readers’ present time in order to motivate potential readers to buy the newspaper and read the article. In the article itself, the past tense is then used, making relevance time equivalent to situation time. Tense does not locate the processes or states on the time axis, but it rather allows the speaker to select a time span that is relevant for what the speaker wants to say. This becomes clear when taking a closer look at the already mentioned example (8): (8) Emily and Charlotte came home to see her, but she was dead . . . (British National Corpus: FNY 448) Relevance time as well as situation time of the first part of the sentence are clearly in the past, but for the second part of the sentence, relevance time is in the past, whereas situation time encompasses not only the past but also the present, as the deceased remains dead also at the present moment (i.e., the situation still applies at speech time). In other words, the past tense in was dead does not primarily fulfil the function of locating the state of in past time, but instead it expresses that the relevant time span for what the speaker is saying lies somewhere in past time (¼relevance time), whereas the state of the person’s being dead comprises both past and present time (¼situation time). In this example then, relevance time only includes a part of situation time, namely the relevant time stretch which lies in the past. 4.2. Simple tenses Radden and Dirven call the simple tenses (i.e., the present tense and the past tense), deictic times as they relate to speech time, ‘‘the only moment that is available to us in our perception of time’’ (2007: 204). They go on ceptually somewhat di‰cult to subsume states under ‘‘events’’, a term which tends to have a more processual character. A similar problem occurs with Langacker’s terminology, where ‘‘process’’ is used as a cover term for both processes and states.

Cognitive perspective

33

Figure 1. Speech time, relevance time, and situation time

to explain that – as speech time is always in the present but situation time may be in the past – the use of the present tense always locates a situation at or around or including speech time, whereas the past tense locates a situation at a time earlier than speech time. The simple tenses furthermore give information about the reality status of a situation. Whereas the present tense gives information about the immediate reality of a situation, the past tense gives information about what Radden and Dirven call ‘‘known reality’’ and what Langacker calls ‘‘conceived reality’’ (2008a: 301), arguing that our knowledge about reality is partial and also not necessary infallibly accurate, and therefore can only be a part of factual reality. What we consider as known by us we frequently ‘‘simply embrace (. . .) as established knowledge. For a particular conceptualizer, C, this constitutes conceived reality. It is what C accepts as being real’’. Langacker (1991: 245) sees the canonical temporal distinction between present tense and past tense as a proximal/distal contrast in the epistemic sphere. In the following two sections, the two tenses with reality status will be briefly characterized.

34

Susanne Niemeier

4.2.1. Present tense Notwithstanding its name, the simple present is, according to Langacker (2001), one of the most complex tenses of English. Langacker (1991: 242) relates the present tense to ‘‘immediate reality’’ and argues that speech time and reference time exactly co-occur in canonical uses of the present tense.21 What makes the present tense so complex is that such a co-occurrence is not frequently to be found. Instead, there is a range of non-present uses of the present tense, where ‘‘what is being coded linguistically is not the actual occurrence of events, but their virtual occurrence as part of a noncanonical viewing arrangement (Langacker 2001: 30). In this section, I discuss the various uses of the simple present for the ‘‘true’’ present, for imperfective/bounded situations, for the narration of demonstrations, for the scheduled future, for stage directions, for the historical present, for ‘‘eternal truths’’, and for timeless situations as well as for habituals. The ‘‘true’’ present tense is not frequently used. As already described above, bounded events happening in the present at the time of speaking are generally too long to exactly coincide with the utterance itself (apart from very few instances such as The balloon pops). We are not only dealing with a durational problem here, but also with an epistemic one. Not only does the utterance need to cover the whole event, but a speaker also generally needs to first observe a situation in order to identify it and to be able to talk about it, which takes even more time away from the small time frame provided by the utterance. This is why bounded situations in the present generally take the progressive aspect in English, in this way getting rid of the boundaries that would otherwise not fit into the small time frame. The zooming-in e¤ect then profiles only that portion of the homogeneous state of a¤airs that is valid at speech time, such as in He

21. This is called ‘‘epistemic immediacy’’ by de Wit and Brisard (2009: 4), who argue that the simple present entails a notion of epistemic necessity and the present progressive a notion of epistemic contingency in the speaker’s conception of reality. In his 2009 publication, Langacker agrees that he paid too little attention to the modal ‘‘import’’ of the present tense and also speaks about ‘‘epistemic immediacy’’ (Chapter 7) and recently (2011), he has devoted a complete paper to the commonalities and di¤erences of the temporal-coincidence approach (treating the English present as tense) and the epistemic-immediacy approach (treating the English present as modality), arguing that temporal coincidence provides the basis for epistemic immediacy, the former one being the category prototype and the latter one being the more general and schematic account.

Cognitive perspective

35

is reading a book. On the other hand, many uses of the simple present tense do not refer to speech time, but to either the future, or the past, or to so-called timeless situations or ‘‘eternal truths’’. As Langacker (2001) argues, these latter ones are extended uses of the ‘‘true’’ present. For him, ‘‘the present tense indicates that a full instantiation of the profiled process occurs and precisely coincides with the time of speaking’’ (2001: 22).22 Langacker’s definition of the present tense also accounts for imperfective/unbounded situations such as He resembles his grandfather. Such a resemblance is valid without boundaries and is therefore imperfective. It is true at any time, thus also for the moment of speaking, and in using the simple present, that portion of the resemblance is highlighted that is in focus at speech time: ‘‘since an imperfective process is internally homogeneous and not characterized in terms of bounding, any subpart singled out for profiling will itself constitute a valid instance of the process type in question’’ (Langacker 2001: 23). A further use of the simple present is to be observed in the narration of demonstrations, such as in cooking programmes on television: ‘‘I put a tablespoon of butter in the pan. It melts quickly. Now I put the fillet in. I cook it at low temperature for five minutes . . .’’ (Langacker 2001: 28). Although uttering these sentences requires a lot less time than the preparations and the five minutes of cooking, Langacker claims that the simple present is not used here for the description of actual situations but instead, it is to be seen as reading o¤ entries from a list or scenario (i.e., it refers to the virtual occurrence of the situation which then again coincides with the time of speaking). A similar explanation can be given for the so-called scheduled future use of the present tense (My train leaves at six). Here again, we are referring to the representation of this situation on a virtual schedule in our minds and not to the actual situation. Such scheduled future uses generally incorporate a precise time expression (at six) and do not work for situations that cannot be scheduled (*I fall ill next week). Although a virtual schedule belongs to the future, it is stable and reliable also at the present moment of speaking and can thus be regarded as a ‘‘representation of an anticipated actual event’’ and as a virtual occurrence of that situation which coincides temporally with the moment of speaking (following

22. Langacker only refers to English, other languages – such as German, which has no grammaticalized progressive form – express not only the ‘‘true present’’ and timeless situations but also actions at speech time with the simple present.

36

Susanne Niemeier

Langacker 2001: 31). The same virtual ‘‘reading’’ applies to stage directions as well as to the use of the historical present, where past situations are retold using the simple present. In this latter case, a past situation is virtually replayed, and the use of the present tense underlines its salience, its still being vividly recalled by the experiencer. In this context, Langacker speaks of ‘‘. . . event representations. Even when these correspond in some fashion to actual events, the represented events are the ones directly coded linguistically and profiled by the present tense verb’’ (Langacker 2001: 33). A further related non-prototypical use of the simple present concerns so-called ‘‘eternal truths’’ and timeless situations, such as The kangaroo is a marsupial. This utterance does not refer to any specific kangaroo but to a virtual instance of a kangaroo. This virtual situation belongs to ‘‘an open-ended set of actual instantiations, distributed throughout the time span during which the generalization holds’’ (Langacker 2001: 33). The use of the present tense indicates that the speaker is referring to a sub-part of this eternal truth at the moment of speaking. The same is true for habituals (I drive to work every morning), where the utterance does not refer to any actual instance of driving – I may even be uttering this sentence on a weekend when I am not driving to work – but to a virtual instance of driving. Again, we are not dealing with exceptions in the case of the simple present but with explainable meaning extensions. In an EFL classroom, the basic meaning of the simple present as referring to situations occurring in the here-and-now should be introduced at a very early point and will then form a basis for the explanation of the extended uses as listed in this section. The actual or virtual coincidence between speech time and reference time is easy to visualize, for example by using a time axis and drawing reference time-circles as well as situation time-circles in di¤erent colours – the reference time-circles will always be identical to speech time, whereas the situation time-circles may be larger (they will, for example, cover the complete time axis in the case of ‘‘eternal truths’’) but will always contain speech time as well as reference time. The learners can then verbalize the illustrations and thus – via the commonalities between the various prototypical and extended instances of use – develop and advance their concepts of the meaning of the present tense.23 23. One example for research on teaching tense in the English classroom via Cognitive Grammar is Meunier’s project ‘‘Cognitive Grammar and EFL’’ at the University of Louvain, which started in the summer of 2010 and for which no results have been published so far (see http://www.uclouvain.be/en323144.html, last date of access: October 17, 2012).

Cognitive perspective

37

4.2.2. Past tense Whereas the present tense, as shown in the previous section, locates a situation exactly at the time of speaking, ‘‘the past tense morpheme imposes an immediate scope prior to the speech event’’ (Langacker 2001: 22) and in contrast to the present tense is not limited concerning the length of the profiled process. It ‘‘conveys distance from the speech event’’ (Taylor 2002: 394) and refers to facts. A sequence of past tense verbs is often used in narratives, and the individual events are interpreted as successive. That is, the first situation evoked by a past tense locates the narration in the past and the following situations are interpreted to follow this first situation in sequential order. As all of these situations are seen as completed, they are interpreted as successive. If they co-occurred, the progressive aspect needs to be used for the background situation. Langacker (1991: 242) relates the past tense to ‘‘non-immediate reality’’, however, as will be pointed out below, this is only the prototypical, temporal use of the past tense. The past tense is conventionally also used to signal less commitment to the reality of a situation, that is, it is used to signal epistemic distance as in if I were you (Evans and Green 2006: 396; Gurevich 2010: 90). Furthermore, it is frequently used to indicate a lack of intimacy as in My child’s father was Italian, a lack of salience as in This book is a masterpiece. It was published in London, (see Tyler and Evans 2001: 71), or a heightened degree of politeness as in I wanted to ask you something (Radden and Dirven 2007: 211). In all of these cases the -ed morpheme does not refer to ‘‘non-immediate reality’’ but to non-temporal events. The di¤erent uses of the past tense morphology are outlined in detail in Section 4.4.3. 4.3. Complex tenses All other tense forms apart from the present tense and the past tense are complex tenses (Radden and Dirven 2007: 204), which serve to locate anterior or posterior situations relative to a reference time.24 Anterior times are expressed as perfect tenses stating that something happened at an earlier time than reference time; posterior times – belonging to futurity – are expressed by prospective forms, generally consisting of grammaticalized lexical items such as going to or be about to, stating that something may 24. They are called ‘‘complex’’ tenses because in contrast to the deictic tenses they involve two temporal relations: a deictic temporal reference point and either a backwards or a forwards look from this reference point.

38

Susanne Niemeier

happen at a later time than at reference time. Anterior times are the present perfect and the past perfect.25 They have in common that a situation is seen as located before relevance time. In complex tenses, the speaker’s viewpoint is of importance because two times spheres are concerned: the first one is located in one of the deictic times – the past or the present – and the second one consists of a look backwards (anterior times) or a look forwards (posterior times, i.e., uses of the future). In this way, the speaker locates anterior (or posterior) events relative to the deictic reference time. In the case of the present perfect, a situation has occurred before the present time but it may still continue until ‘‘now’’ (I have never seen him before, which remains valid until I see the person) or may still have an impact on the present (see example (9)). According to Radden and Dirven (2007: 205), ‘‘the time configuration described by the present perfect is unique among the anterior times in that it involves only one time sphere and a relation from event time to speech time (. . .) The unique status of the present perfect is due to its present reference time: its immediacy makes the present the more prominent time’’. This fits in nicely with the fact that the present tense has the meaning of proximity (5). However, although Radden and Dirven claim that we are only dealing with one time sphere in the case of the present perfect, the temporal relation to a situation in the past is still obvious and, especially for didactic reasons, I would recommend to highlight the fact that in the case of the present perfect the time sphere of the past is involved as well, as otherwise learners might have problems di¤erentiating between the deictic tenses and the complex tenses. (9) I’ve broken my leg, so it is di‰cult for me to go shopping right now. In example (9), speech time is ‘‘right now’’ (i.e., in the present), whereas the breaking of the leg happened in the past. Using the present perfect indicates that the past event of breaking the leg is seen from the perspective of speech time as presently being an obstacle concerning everyday life routines. The present relevance of the anterior situation is highlighted, which is why it can be seen as part of the overall situation and can therefore be said to have not only a temporal but also an aspectual meaning

25. If the future was treated as a tense, we would also have to mention the future perfect here (I will have passed my driving license by the time I turn 18). If the future is not considered to be a tense, then we are dealing with a combination of modality and the auxiliary have þ -ed.

Cognitive perspective

39

(Radden and Dirven 2007: 206) insofar as the left boundary of the inherently bounded situation is extended into the past so as to also include the anterior situation. This is not possible for past perfects: (10) I had broken my leg, so it was di‰cult for me to go shopping during the weeks following the accident. This sentence can only be understood in a purely temporal sense – speech time is in the present, relevance time is in the past, and situation time is before relevance time. The use of the past perfect relates the situation time to the relevance time. Although perfect tenses are analyzed by Radden and Dirven (2007) in their chapter on ‘‘tense’’, this view is not unanimously shared. Langacker, for example, treats the perfect not as a grounding element but as a ‘‘grounded structure’’, because in contrast to tense and modals, the perfect (have þ -ed ) is optional and not obligatory in a verb and can only appear in non-finite clauses from which tense and modals are excluded (2008a: 300). I tend to agree with Radden and Dirven; that is, I tend to see the perfect as a tense because just as the other tenses it has reality status and it is (partly) marked directly on the verb. However, it is not a prototypical instance of tense but has an aspectual meaning as well, because on the one hand, the speaker’s viewpoint is involved and, on the other hand, the perfect is built in a similar way to the progressive aspect (i.e., it is directly marked on the verb but also requires an auxiliary verb: have in the case of the perfect, be in the case of the progressive aspect). The perfect can furthermore also have a modal meaning because in its anterior uses it refers to the future, relative to the reference point taken (reference point in the past: I was going to ask her out yesterday when suddenly . . . ; reference point in the present: I’m going to ask her out; reference point in the future: I will have asked her out before the end of the week). For learners, it is important to realize how many time spheres are involved. In the case of deictic times – represented by the simple tenses – only one time sphere is referred to, whereas in the case of complex times – represented by the complex tenses – two times spheres are concerned: the first one being located in one of the deictic times and the second one consisting of a look backwards (anterior times) or a look forwards (posterior times, i.e., uses of the future). This can be illustrated by using a time axis, indicating the deictic reference points as well as including arrows pointing into the direction of the speaker’s shifted viewpoint (i.e., pointing to the left in the case of anterior times). Complex tenses may also be visualized by referring to Mental Space Theory (Section 4.4) as this helps to show the

40

Susanne Niemeier

interaction between the di¤erent time spheres quite clearly. Learners can be trained to focus on the three elements of speech time, relevance time, and situation time and with their help, decode temporal structures without being confused. 4.4. Tense and Mental Space Theory In the following sections, Langacker’s as well as Radden and Dirven’s understanding of tense will be combined with insights from Fauconnier’s (1994, 1997) and Fauconnier and Turner’s (2002) Mental Space Theory in order to generate a synthesized CG view on tense. The basic idea of Fauconnier’s model is that when discourse participants interact, they mentally construct small conceptual packets, called ‘‘mental spaces’’ (Fauconnier 1998: 252). These mental spaces contain elements (i.e., conceptual information on the things or people talked about), as well as information on the reality status of the situation and its relevance time. This model may be relevant for foreign language teachers as it allows visualization, for example, for tracking the temporal shifts in a conversation, and thus helps to clarify the thought processes involved. The mental space that serves as the basis or starting point of an interaction is called base space. Importantly, mental space theory makes a clear distinction between base space and all other mental spaces. Base space is the situation at speech time, the ‘‘here and now’’, in which the speaker is the deictic centre. It serves as an anchor for expressing both the reality status and the temporal relevance of any situation that is being communicated and it contains conceptual information on the things or people talked about, the space and time of the interaction (speech time), as well as information about the interaction context. All of this is normally taken for granted and will therefore not necessarily be verbalized explicitly. The status of things or people in the discourse is expressed by the determiner system and is known as reference; the status of situations and their relevance time is expressed by the tense, aspect, and modality systems. A new mental space can be set up or an already established space can be referred back to at any moment in the discourse. Most mental spaces are opened implicitly, but this can also be done in a more explicit way. Such explicit space builders are, for example, time adverbials, such as the adverb yesterday in example (7) above (We were snowed in yesterday), or temporal expressions such as in 1992, or the first clause in the sequence of two or more clauses in a narrative context such as in example (8) above (Emily and Charlotte came home to see her, but she was dead . . .). All these

Cognitive perspective

41

space builders denote the temporal setting serving as a situation’s background and the hearer implicitly understands that base space has been left and a new space has been opened up. Other explicit space builders, referring to the reality status of a situation, are expressions such as Possibly or Nick believes that . . . . Grammatical markers for tense and aspect, to which modality can be added, are not explicit space builders themselves, but provide the interaction partner with clues concerning the space that is relevant at that point (Fauconnier 1994: 33). Fauconnier gives the nice example of In 1929, the lady with white hair was blonde (1994: 29), where 1929 builds up a new mental time space in the conversation, namely in the past. If this sentence is followed by a past tense, we stay in the mental time space of 1929, whereas if the sentence is followed by a present tense (Today she still wishes to be blonde), we shift back to base space (‘‘now’’). Should this sentence be followed by a conditional ( you would have enjoyed meeting her then), we shift to a counterfactual space that provides us with information about the reality status of a situation, which in that case would be located in non-reality. Grammatical tenses and aspects and their combinations ‘‘serve to indicate relative relations between spaces and, crucially, to keep track of the discourse position of the participants – which space is in focus, which one serves as base and what shifts are taking place’’ (Fauconnier 1994: xi, emphasis in original). The reality status of a situation can be indicated either by means of tense forms – which are described in more detail in the next section – or by modal verbs. To sum up, situations set relevant for base space are referred to by the use of the present tense and are always located in reality. Mental spaces can be opened from base space for situations whose relevance time is anterior to speech time and which are therefore expressed by the past tense, or else whose relevance time is posterior to speech time and which are therefore expressed by the will form. Learners can be trained to identify base space via a diagram and would then try to track a speaker’s train of thought to other spaces. A simplified example deals with the book cover text of Harry Potter, 6 (Figure 2). The text starts in base space, in the ‘‘here-and-now’’, then the perspective shifts to the past. Such an illustration can then be extended in order to include other spaces, for example hypothetical or counterfactual spaces. Besides the temporal use of tense morphemes, we find a number of nontemporal and thus non-prototypical uses of tense morphemes, related to the expression of reality versus irreality, to the notion of intimacy, to the designation of salience, and to politeness (i.e., the attenuation of speech

42

Susanne Niemeier

Figure 2. Mental spaces in the (slightly adapted) blurb of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

acts), which will all be described in the following sections. The temporal use of tense morphemes does not primarily mean locating situations in time, but rather indicates which time span is relevant for what we are saying (i.e., the temporal use of tense and other morphemes is already much more subtle than what has usually been understood by ‘‘temporal meaning’’). Furthermore, the same morphological forms can also be used to encode non-temporal meanings. In the same way that, starting from base space, we can open further reality-related spaces with past, present, or future relevance time, we can also open up other mental spaces, as, for instance, potentiality space. One kind of potentiality space is modality space, others are hypothetical space or counterfactual space. Still further possible spaces are, amongst others, interactive spaces such as narrative space or politeness space. 4.4.1. Hypothetical/counterfactual space In an assertive speech act, the reality status of a situation is taken for granted and therefore not explicitly marked. However, if we are dealing with a speech act based in irreality, a hypothetical space is opened up which needs to be marked explicitly. In such a case, we are dealing with either non-counterfactual hypotheticality or counterfactual hypotheticality, both of which are marked by the use of past tense morphology. A hypothetical space can be created by means of the space builder if in combination with a set of tense forms that indicate epistemic as well as temporal relevance.

Cognitive perspective

(11) a. b. c. d.

43

If he is German, as you claim, let’s talk to him right now. If he shows up, let’s ask him straight away. If he showed up, we would ask him then. If he had shown up, we could have asked him then.

The possibility that a hypothetical situation will become real is still given, for example in the immediate future (11a) or in the more remote future (11b). In terms of their reality status, the first two situations in example (11) are located either in the fuzzy peripheral area of base space (11a) or close to the reality of base space, but already outside it (11b). If we are dealing with an even higher degree of hypotheticality, such as in (11c), where it is highly unlikely – but not yet impossible – that the person in question will show up, the epistemic distance is greater. And if the epistemic distance to the reality of base space becomes still greater, we are dealing with counterfactuality (11d), defined by Fauconnier and Turner as ‘‘forced incompatibility between spaces’’ (2002: 230). A counterfactual hypothetical statement indicates that it is impossible for the situation to happen. The statements in (11c) and (11d) do not di¤er concerning the events described or with respect to their times of occurrence, they only di¤er with regards to their epistemic distance to base space. At the same time, as the reality status of the situation changes, di¤erent relevance times are involved, as illustrated by the use of the adverbs right now, straight away, and then: English past tense morphology clearly signals distance in two di¤erent but related ways: it can either refer to temporal distance to base space (as in One of the last times he saw the headmaster. . .) or it can refer to epistemic distance to base space (as in example 11c) or it can refer to both temporal and epistemic distance to base space (as in example 11d). These uses are closely related, the second one may also be seen as a metaphorical extension of the first one (epistemic distance is temporal distance). Both the temporal and the epistemic uses can best be understood in their relation to the double function of base space (i.e., its reality status function and its relevance time function). Sentence (11d) illustrates how the interaction between temporal and epistemic relevance is expressed grammatically: since the situation is located in temporal as well as epistemic distance from the base, a ‘‘double backshift’’ takes place grammatically, as can be seen by the use of the past perfect in had shown up. In example (11), the tense morphemes in both clauses coincide but this need not be the case. In example (12), again accessing counterfactual

44

Susanne Niemeier

hypothetical space, the person talked about does not know, and in (12b) the male protagonist has not told the truth. Although situation time in (12a) is present time, the past tense is used to express epistemic distance vis-a`-vis the base. This example shows that past tense morphology cannot only be used to indicate relevance time that is located anterior to (and thus at a temporal distance from) the base, but also to express epistemic distance from the base. The same applies to (12b), where situation time is in the past and where the situation itself is construed as a counterfactual one, therefore the past perfect is used, indicating temporal as well as epistemic distance from the base. (12) a. b.

If only he knew! (British National Corpus: AEB 3109) If he had told her the truth, she would not have believed him. (British National Corpus: HR8 858)

Every speaker has many grammatical options at hand to communicate his/her thoughts, whereas from the hearer’s perspective, tense and aspect marking ‘‘allows us to reconstruct the reality and time spaces set up from base space’’ (Fauconnier 1997: 78) and the relations between them. 4.4.2. Narrative space Another type of space that can be opened up from base space is narrative space. Narrations deal with past events but frequently – especially in very lively oral narrations – the present time can be used (see Section 4.2.1), such as in the narrative discourse in example (13): (13) a.

Erm, I’m just sitting in front of the car last night and erm . . . (British National Corpus: KC2 3048)

Here, the narrative space allows a conflict between situation time, which is past time, and relevance time, which is presented as if it were present time. However, no hearer will have a problem to understand that the situation is in the past although the present tense is being used, because he will follow the speaker from base space (i.e., from the ‘‘here and now’’) into narrative space that is per se located in the past. The fact that the present is being used signals that the speaker is mentally reliving the events of last night and is foregrounding them, which is why they still have an impact at speech time.26 This impact is not only felt by the speaker, but also by the

26. See Tyler and Evans (2001: 72): ‘‘past tense signals background and supporting status and present tense signals foreground status’’.

Cognitive perspective

45

hearer as they are both drawn into the situation as if they had been present as onlookers. Instead of creating distance – a function of the past tense – the use of the present tense creates closeness. If such closeness is aimed at, the use of the past tense is not possible. The use of the present tense in narrations (of movies, plays, or books, etc.) has been discussed by other scholars, and alternative reasons for its use have been proposed. For example, in Fleischman’s (1990: 15) view, the use of the present is due to its ‘‘atemporality’’, as such narrations can be ‘‘revisited’’ on multiple occasions. Although Fleischman (1990) as well as Klein (1994) point out that personal narratives – in contrast to movie or plot narratives – are rather told in the past tense, the present tense is also used especially for the ‘‘lively oral narrations’’ mentioned above, as the speaker virtually relives the events s/he is talking about.27 The speaker as well as the hearer know that base space has been left and narrative space has been entered. Therefore, the use of the present tense does not create any temporal and/ or epistemic conflict. The CG perspective on the present tense, however, goes beyond Fleischman’s strictly temporal view of tense by claiming that – in addition to indicating ‘‘atemporality’’ – the abstract meaning of the present tense is to indicate the speaker’s proximal perspective vis-a`-vis his or her utterances. 4.4.3. Politeness space Whereas the use of the present tense indicates that the situation described is close to the speaker, the past tense indicates distance with respect to the situation or the hearer. In example (14), the past tense is used although situation time is the present time, as the question is asked at that precise moment: (14) I wanted to ask you something. (British National Corpus: HTN 2787)

27. In his 2009 publication, Klein seems to see this slightly di¤erently: ‘‘In the narrative present, the whole action is in the past (. . .) but that at least some of (sic) situations are presented ‘‘as if they were present’’. There are two common interpretations of this use: the situations are ‘‘felt to be present’’ at the time of utterance, or the speaker imagines himself to be present in the situation. Under the first interpretation, the situations are somehow ‘‘shifted in time’’, and under the second interpretation, the deictic anchoring is ‘‘shifted’’ (49). Klein does not further elaborate on this view.

46

Susanne Niemeier

According to Tyler and Evans (2001: 95), ‘‘we conventionally understand that the use of past tense does not place the desire to ask the question in the past, but rather that it attenuates and so makes such requests less facethreatening and hence more polite’’. That is, for reasons of politeness the speaker presents the utterance’s relevance time as non-present time, which has the e¤ect that the request seems to be less urgent so that the hearer may feel less imposed upon and thus less face-threatened. Using the past tense in requests, suggestions, invitations, commands, and reprimands is conventionally interpreted as polite, mitigating the amount of imposition on the addressee. By moving from base space to politeness space, the speaker signals a cognitive, non-temporal distance between him-/herself and the hearer and by using past tense morphology, the speaker signals this distance also grammatically. The perspective on the functions of tense morphology described above ties in well with Tyler and Evans’ approach of pragmatic strengthening: . . . due to the way in which we actually experience the notions of intimacy, salience, actuality, and politeness, namely in terms of proximal-distal spatial relations, and the fact that time-reference is experienced in terms of analogous spatial relations, in certain situations tense morphemes which canonically signal time-reference can implicate a non-temporal relation. Through usage-based conventionalization, i.e., pragmatic strengthening, a conventional time-meaning can become associated with a particular tense morpheme (2011: 65).

According to Tyler and Evans, non-temporal meaning extensions associated with tense are explainable by the polysemy of tense morphology. By entrenchment (i.e., pragmatic strengthening), tense morphemes have become associated with non-temporal meanings. The concept of intimacy, for example, in its basic meaning refers to physical intimacy, but in an extended meaning we can also either feel ‘‘close’’ or feel ‘‘distant’’ to somebody who is not necessarily spatially close or spatially distant to us. Therefore, we may talk in the past tense about people we do not feel close to. When we start telling a love story from our past, we may say things like We met in Brisbane. He was an architect . . . may well still be alive and still be an architect, but by using past tense morphology, we distance ourselves from this specific episode of our life. The concept of salience is explainable in quite a similar way, as what is physically closer to us is more salient and vice versa, which is why we can speak metaphorically of ‘‘issues closer at hand’’ or about ‘‘distant

Cognitive perspective

47

rumours’’. Combining these insights with the use of tense morphology, we can foreground important facts and make them more salient by using the present tense and we can background less important facts by using the past tense. This is in line with certain uses of the present tense for lively narratives, the historical present and other non-canonical uses (see Section 4.2.1). As Tyler and Evans argue, ‘‘the use of the present tense to make a particular event more ‘real’ would seem to be related to the use of the present tense to denote greater salience and hence importance in terms of information structure’’ (2001: 93). To sum up, tense morphology cannot only be used to symbolize temporal relevance, but it can furthermore be used to express epistemic relevance, salience, and attenuation in certain contexts. Both the temporal and the non-temporal uses of tense forms can be ascribed to a common conceptual basis, the proximal/distal (or immediacy/non-immediacy) schema (Langacker 1991: 249).28 This means that while the present tense is always used to express proximity/immediacy – be it temporal, epistemic, ‘‘narrative’’, or formal proximity/immediacy –, the past tense always indicates distance/non-immediacy. In other words, in a very iconic way, more form is more meaning, i.e., the addition of the past tense morpheme signals the addition of the notion of distance, either with respect to relevance time, reality status, backgrounding, or social commitment. The CG view thus extends the mainly temporal view of tense that researchers such as Fleischman (1990) or Klein (1994) have propagated by also incorporating pragmatic aspects, especially concerning speaker perspective.

28. Tyler and Evans account for the fact that time is associated with the spatial concepts of proximity and distance by referring to the experiential correlation between the two concepts. When we speak, we are in the here-and-now, which functions as our deictic center: ‘‘We cannot help but experience the present moment in terms of our immediate physical surroundings and our sensory perceptions of them (. . .) Traversing a certain distance inevitably correlates with the elapse of a certain amount of time. Thus, elements of the spatial domain, such as movement from one location to another and distance, have become strongly associated with the elapse of time’’ (2001: 81). In other words, the concepts of space and time are so intertwined in human cognition that they are frequently co-activated, which is – amongst other phenomena – visible in the non-temporal use of temporal morphology, when we speak about the past tense as signaling distance (a spatial concept) in various ways.

48

Susanne Niemeier

5. Conclusion Although this chapter’s aim was primordially an account of the CG perspective on tense and aspect, the teaching angle has been addressed throughout the contribution whenever appropriate. Concerning the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language, CG has not yet reached regular textbooks, teaching materials, teacher training, or even teachers’ awareness. Therefore, in order to be able to argue convincingly for the benefits of a CG-based approach to teaching tense and aspect, we need a lot more research, especially empirically oriented, and we need materials development based on such research. For an empirical study to be fruitful and valid, however, we do not only need a test group, but also a control group, which means that a second class would have to be taught in a di¤erent, more traditional way so that the results of these two groups could then be reliably compared at certain points during the study, a process which may well cover several years. Such ideal research scenarios are hard to find, therefore it seems much more realistic to use smaller test items than tense or aspect in their totality and to restrict the time for the studies. The results found will not be as positive as they might be under ideal test conditions, but if they are indeed positive even under less-than-optimal circumstances, this may already pave the way towards a rethinking of grammar learning and teaching in the direction of CG-based instruction. For Spanish as a foreign language the research situation seems to be somewhat better than for English, as there are quite some publications dealing with CG-inspired approaches, for example Marras and Cadierno (2008) on constructions or Llopis Garcı´a (2010) on mood selection. Especially interesting in this respect is Lo´pez Garcı´a (2005), which outlines hands-on ways for teaching Spanish grammar in a CG way for all grammatical areas, including tense and aspect. For English, there are – among others – several contributions by Tyler and Evans on prepositions (2003, 2004) or by Alejo Gonzalez (2010), Dirven (2001) and Kurtyka (2001) on phrasal verbs, but they all remain quite theoretical and do not report on classroom experiments or give practical advice for teaching. Tyler, Mueller, and Ho (2010) report on an actual teaching experiment concerning modality, however, the group size was very small and the learners were adult learners, therefore the results are not immediately replicable in the regular foreign language classroom. So far, there is no published empirical research on CG-inspired ways in which to teach English tense and aspect at school.

Cognitive perspective

49

There is certainly no lack of research questions such as for example a definition and description of the acquisition sequence of the tense-aspect system. It would also be interesting to find out whether CG-based instruction is equally well suited for every learning style, whether visualizations of grammatical phenomena are perceived as helpful and – if so – by which types of learner, which kind of visualization works best, how to introduce topics and which terminology to use in the classroom at various levels, or whether the learners’ error rate after CG-based instruction is lower and if it is, in which areas (analysis of utterances, closed exercises, half-open exercises, or open exercises such as free text production).29 The teaching of tense and aspect, two of the most error-prone areas for ESL learners, could presumably profit very much from a CG approach with its focus on the meaningfulness of grammar. Such an approach enables teachers to begin with prototypical instances on the basis of which their learners can understand the – admittedly abstract – meaning of specific grammatical phenomena. In later lessons, teachers can then gradually introduce non-prototypical instances of the phenomena in question. It is important that learners are made aware of the fact that these more marginal instances are not necessarily interrelated but nevertheless always related to the basic meaning. For example, the proximity versus distance meanings of the tenses are to be found in the use of the -ed morpheme in temporal relations, which acts as a prototype, but they are also to be found in other areas, for example in referring to irreality, as outlined above. Connecting these various areas in teaching makes it easier for learners to see that the abstract meaning of – in this case – the ed-morpheme stays intact in all of them, and the learners thus have the chance to get an integrated view on grammatical areas that in traditional grammar teaching remain unconnected (as for 29. Boers (2004) claims that learners retain the meanings of metaphorical expressions better if they can be made aware of their motivations, and that such awareness raising works best for intermediate learners (beginners have too little vocabulary at their disposal, advanced learners refrain too much from taking risks) with an analytic and ‘‘imager’’ cognitive style. In Boers’ experiments, analytic learners were clearly able to distinguish literal from figurative usage, whereas learners with a more holistic style found it harder to identify source domains of metaphors. ‘‘Imagers’’ were better than ‘‘verbalisers’’ because they could associate novel figurative expressions more easily with mental pictures or concrete scenes. There is no comparable research for grammar teaching but as meaning stays the most important factor, one might assume that also in grammar teaching, analytic and ‘‘imager’’ learners might benefit more than others.

50

Susanne Niemeier

example the past tense and conditionals; or aspect and the distinction between mass nouns and count nouns). This will allow them to establish meaningful neural connections and come up with grounded hypotheses for the usage of these grammatical phenomena. Combining Langacker’s approach to tense with Mental Space Theory allows learners to trace the thought processes behind utterances – as shown before – and to determine which mental space(s) the utterances refer to, whether the meaning is temporal and/or epistemic and therefore arrive at a correct interpretation, which should ideally also serve as a model for the learners’ own future utterances in the foreign language. Learners should start in the here-and-now, (i.e., in base space), and work their way up to other mental spaces, while detecting the meanings of and the relations between the various tense and aspect uses. Concerning the teaching of aspect, the notion of ‘‘boundaries’’ may come in helpful, especially when introduced via the teaching of mass and count nouns (see also Niemeier 2008). Tense and aspect are present from the very beginning of ESL learning, not necessarily in an explicit way but at least in the teacher’s language. As soon as learners start producing their own utterances, they will use verbs and therefore also tense and aspect. In other words, CG-oriented foreign language instruction should ideally begin with the very first lesson in the foreign language because only then can it unfold its full potential. References Achard, Michel & Susanne Niemeier (Eds.) 2004 Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Alejo-Gonza´lez, Rafael 2010 Making sense of phrasal verbs: A cognitive linguistic account. In Jeannette Littlemore & Constanze Juchem-Grundmann (Eds.), AILA Review 23: Applied cognitive linguistics and second language learning and teaching, 50–71. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bhat, D. N. Shankara 1999 The prominence of tense, aspect and mood. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Boers, Frank 2004 Expanding learners’ vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, what learners, what vocabulary? In Michel Achard & Susanne Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, 211–232. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cognitive perspective

51

Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dekel, Nurit 2010 A matter of time: Tense, mood and aspect in spontaneous spoken Israeli Hebrew. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam. Available at: http://dare.uva.nl/document/174501. Oct. 17 (2 August, 2011). De Knop, Sabine & Teun De Rycker (Eds.) 2008 Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. De Wit, Astrid & Frank Brisard 2009 Expressions of epistemic contingency in the use of the English present progressive. Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium 4. Available at: http://webh01.ua.ac.be/linguist/SBKL/sbkl2009/ dew2009.pdf. Oct. 17 (13 August, 2011). Dirven, Rene´ 2001 English phrasal verbs: Theory and didactic application. In Martin Pu¨tz, Susanne Niemeier & Rene´ Dirven (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition, 3–28. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Doiz-Bienzobas, Aintzane 1995 The preterite and the imperfect in Spanish: Past situation versus past viewpoint. San Diego, CA: University of California-San Diego, Ph.D. dissertation. Doiz-Bienzobas, Aintzane 2002 The preterite and the imperfect as grounding predications. In Frank Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 299–347. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green 2006 Cognitive linguistics. An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fauconnier, Gilles 1994 Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fauconnier, Gilles 1997 Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner 2002 The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. Fleischman, Suzanne 1990 Tense and narrativity. London: Routledge.

52

Susanne Niemeier

Gibbs, Raymond W. 2006 Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gisborne, Nikolas 1996

English perception verbs. London: University College London, Ph.D. dissertation.

Gurevich, Olga 2010 Conditional constructions in English and Russian. In Hans C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar, 87–102. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Horner, Marion, Elizabeth Daymond, Jennifer Baer-Engel & Peter Lampater 2010 Green Line 1–6. Stuttgart: Klett. Ibarretxe Antun˜ano, Iraide 1999 Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs: A cross-linguistic study. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh. Available at http://www.unizar.es/linguisticageneral/articulos/IbarretxePhD-Thesis-99.pdf. Oct. 17 (3 August, 2011). Klein, Wolfgang 1994 Time in language. London/New York: Routledge. Klein, Wolfgang 1995 A simplest analysis of the English tense-aspect system. In Wolfgang Riehle & Hugo Keiper (Eds.), Anglistentag 1994 Graz: Proceedings of the Conference of the German Association of University Teachers of English, 139–152. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Klein, Wolfgang 2009 How time is encoded. In Wolfgang Klein & Ping Li (Eds.), The expression of time, 39–81. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Klein, Wolfgang & Ping Li (Eds.) 2009 The expression of time. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kurtyka, Andrzej 2001 Teaching English phrasal verbs: A cognitive approach. In Martin Pu¨tz, Susanne Niemeier & Rene´ Dirven (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition, 87–116. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lako¤, George 1987

Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987b Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1). 53–94. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991a Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cognitive perspective

53

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991b Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 2000 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 2001 Cognitive linguistics, language pedagogy, and the English present tense. In Martin Pu¨tz, Susanne Niemeier & Rene´ Dirven (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition, 3–39. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 2002 Langacker, Ronald W. (2002), Remarks on the English grounding systems. In Frank Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 29–38. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 2008a Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 2008b Cognitive Grammar as a basis for language instruction. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 66–88. New York/London: Routledge. Langacker, Ronald W. 2008c The relevance of Cognitive Grammar for language pedagogy. In Sabine de Knop & Teun de Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar, 7–35. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 2011 The English present: Temporal coincidence versus epistemic immediacy. In Adeline Patard & Frank Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality, 45–86. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Llopis Garcı´a, Reyes 2010 Why Cognitive Grammar works in the L2 classroom: A case study of mood selection in Spanish. In Jeannette Littlemore & Constanze Juchem-Grundmann (Eds.), AILA Review 23: Applied cognitive linguistics and second language learning and teaching, 72– 94. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ´ ngel Lo´pez Garcı´a, A 2005 Grama´tica Cognitiva para profesores de espan˜ol L2. Madrid: Arco.

54

Susanne Niemeier

Marras, Valentina & Teresa Cadierno 2008 Spanish gustar versus English like: A cognitive analysis of the constructions and its implication for SLA. In Andrea Tyler, Yiyoung Kim & Mari Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Cognitive and usage-based approaches to language and language learning, 233–252. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Niemeier, Susanne 2008 The notion of boundedness/unboundedness in the foreign language classroom. In Frank Boers & Seth Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, 309–327. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Niemeier, Susanne & Monika Reif 2008 Progress isn’t simple – teaching English tense and aspect to German learners. In Sabine de Knop & Teun de Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar, 325–255. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pu¨tz, Martin, Susanne Niemeier & Rene´ Dirven (Eds.) 2001 Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Radden, Gu¨nter 1992 The cognitive approach to natural language. In Martin Pu¨tz (Ed.), Thirty years of linguistic evolution, 513–541. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Radden, Gu¨nter & Rene´ Dirven 2007 Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Robinson, Peter & Nick C. Ellis (Eds.) 2008 Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and second language acquisition. New York/London: Routledge. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2008 Marking past tense in second language acquisition: A theoretical model. London: Continuum. Schmiedtova´, Barbara & Monique Flecken 2008 Aspectual concepts across languages: Some considerations for second language learning. In Sabine de Knop & Teun de Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar, 357–384. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Roger W. Andersen 1995 The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. A prototype account. Language. Vol. 71(4). 743–762. Shirai, Yasuhiro 2002 The prototype hypothesis of tense-aspect acquisition in second language. In Rafael Maximo Salaberry (Ed.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology, 455–493. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Cognitive perspective Smith, Carlota 2009

55

A speaker-based approach to aspect. In Helen Aristar-Dry, Richard P. Meier & Emilie Destruel (Eds.), Text, time, and context, 7–24. Dordrecht: Springer.

Taylor, John R. 2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Tomasello, Michael 2005 Constructing a language – A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans 2001 The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: Non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In Martin Pu¨tz, Susanne Niemeier & Rene´ Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition, 63–105. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans 2003 The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans 2004 Applying Cognitive Linguistics in pedagogical grammar: The case of over. In Michel Achard & Susanne Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, 257–280. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Tyler, Andrea 2008 Cognitive Linguistics and second language instruction. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 456–488. New York/London: Routledge. Tyler, Andrea, Charles M. Mueller & Vu Ho 2010 Applying Cognitive Linguistics to instructed L2 learning: The English modals. In Jeannette Littlemore & Constanze JuchemGrundmann (Eds.), AILA Review 23: Applied cognitive linguistics and second language learning and teaching, 30–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ungerer, Friedrich, Peter Pasch, Peter Lampater & Rosemary Hellyer-Jones 1992 Learning English: A guide to grammar. Stuttgart: Klett. Vendler, Zino 1967 Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Viberg, Ake 1984 The verbs of perception: A typological study. In Brian Butter¨ sten Dahl (Eds.), Explanations for worth, Bernard Comrie & O language universals, 123–162. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

56

Susanne Niemeier

Williams, Christopher 2002 Non-progressive and progressive aspect in English. Fasano: Schena editore. Ziemke, Tom, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (Eds.) 2007 Embodiment. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Acknowledgement I wish to thank Fred Thompson (University Koblenz-Landau, Germany) for proofreading the manuscript as well as my two reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. All remaining flaws are, as usual, my own responsibility.

Chapter 2 The Spanish preterite and imperfect from a cognitive point of view1 Aintzane Doiz 1. Introduction The goal of this chapter is to provide a semantic characterization of the imperfect (henceforth, IMP) and of the preterite (henceforth, PRET) in Spanish, two past forms that have attracted a lot of attention in the literature. In particular, two parameters will be used to account for the forms: the distinction between the actual occurrence reading and the property reading proposed by Doiz-Bienzobas (1995, 2002), and the distinction between real versus virtual events put forward by Langacker (2001b, 2008, 2009). It will be shown that this analysis captures the subtle di¤erences between the meanings of the two forms in context and accounts for the preference in the choice or the acceptability of one of the two forms in discourse. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 summarizes some of the main assumptions of Cognitive Grammar (especially Langacker 1987, 1991) and introduces the analytic tools that will be used throughout this chapter. In addition, it provides an overview of the English present and past tenses based on Langacker (1991, 2009) that will be relevant for the purpose of this chapter. Section 3 proposes an analysis of the PRET and the IMP in terms of the actual occurrence reading and the property reading that will serve to account for the readings and the acceptability of the forms in combination with certain predicates. Section 4 introduces Langacker’s characterization of virtual versus non-virtual events (2001a, 2009). This characterization will be applied in Section 5 to the understanding of the use of the IMP to talk about scheduled future situations, generics, speaker’s expect1. The results presented in this paper are part of the research project IT311–10 (Department of Education, University and Research of the Basque Government) and the UFI11/06 (the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU). I would like to thank the editors of this volume and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. Any errors or mistakes are, however, entirely my responsibility.

58

Aintzane Doiz

ations, and irrealis. Section 6 summarizes the main points of the analysis of the IMP and the PRET proposed in the chapter.

2. Prerequisites and a cognitive account of the English present and past tense In the first part of this section, I introduce some basic notions that have been developed within Cognitive semantics/Cognitive Grammar during the last quarter century and which will be helpful for the understanding of this chapter.2 In the second part, I provide a simplified description of the characterization of the present and the past tense provided by Langacker within Cognitive Grammar. 2.1. Prerequisites Speakers may conceptualize and portray the same situation in di¤erent ways; this ability is referred to as construal. Since ‘‘every linguistic expression incorporates a particular way of construing the conceptual content it evokes, construal is [. . .] part of the conventional semantic value of lexical and grammatical elements’’ (Langacker 2009: 14). Thus, from the Cognitive semantics perspective, meaning is identified with ‘‘conceptualization, i.e., mental experience, which is ultimately to be explicated in terms of cognitive processing’’ (Langacker 1991: 5). The notion of construal has four dimensions: specificity, perspective, scope, and prominence. In this chapter we focus on two dimensions of construal: scope – an aspect of perspective – and profiling – a kind of prominence. Scope is ‘‘the extent of the conceptual content an expression invokes as the basis for its meaning’’ (Langacker 2009: 14). For instance, in order to conceptualize physical objects, the domain of space has to be evoked since objects exist in space, occupy a space, and their size and shape are also manifested in space. But only the spatial expanse su‰cient for the object to manifest in it is required; we do not need to bring the entire universe within our scope of conception. In the case of the notion table, for example, the delimited spatial region invoked to support it is its spatial scope or spatial domain as illustrated in Figure 1.

2. See Chapter 1 for a summary of the main assumptions within Cognitive Linguistics.

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

59

Figure 1. Spatial scope and space for the notion table

Within a domain, we can often distinguish between the maximal scope (MS) and the immediate scope (IS). The MS stands for the overall content of an expression and the IS is the portion within the MS which is relevant to identify the meaning of an expression. For instance, the IS of elbow is an arm and its MS is the body as a whole. Both scopes are necessary because it is impossible to characterize the notion of elbow without invoking the notion of arm, which in turns invokes the notion of body. Finally, the conceptual content of an expression is also characterized by the profiling – a kind of prominence – and the profile it invokes (i.e., the entity it designates or refers to). Following the example of elbow, we can say that elbow profiles a specific section of the arm, namely, the bend of the arm between the forearm and the upper arm represented with the heavy lines in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Maximal scope (MS), immediate scope (IS), and profile in the notion elbow

60

Aintzane Doiz

Nouns and verbs profile di¤erent kinds of entities. Nouns profile a kind of a thing in an abstract sense. By contrast, verbs profile an event, a relationship that unfolds through time.3 Relationships may designate a bounded event or process, as in the case of perfective predicates, or an unbounded process, as in the case of imperfective predicates (Langacker 2008, 2009). Imperfective predicates correspond to stative verbs (e.g., to be, to love) within Vendler’s categorization. Imperfectives lack an intrinsic beginning or ending, they are internally homogenous and contractible (any subpart of the process is an instance of the process), and they are non-replicable (when two instances of an imperfective are combined, a larger instance of the process is obtained). Perfective predicates subsume the categories of achievement, accomplishment, and activity verbs proposed by Vendler (1967). They designate dynamic processes with natural boundaries. They are non-homogenous, i.e., they have di¤erent stages: in the case of the perfective predicate to write a letter, for instance, there are usually four di¤erent stages: writing the name of the addressee, starting the letter, writing some paragraphs, and finishing the letter. The stages are not contractible (all the stages that constitute the process need to be present in order to have an instance of the process) and they are replicable, that is to say, two successive acts of the process designated by a perfective predicate constitute two instances of the process type rather than a bigger or longer instance of the process (e.g., two instances of letter writing result in two di¤erent letters.)4 Figures 3a and 3b contain the representation of an abstract perfective and an abstract imperfective predicate, respectively (Langacker 2008, 2009: 19). In Figure 3a, the perfective process is represented by the rectangle with the heavy lines within the IS. In Figure 3b, the imperfective process is represented by the profiled section of the rectangle; the beginning and the ending of the process within the IS are not profiled. The two kinds of processes develop through time as indicated by the arrow, the time line t.

3. See Langacker (1987, 2009) for a more detailed account. 4. Activities such as to sing and to eat are perfective in that they naturally occur in bounded episodes but they are internally homogeneous (Langacker 2009: 22).

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

61

Figure 3a. Perfective process

Figure 3b. Imperfective process

2.2. The English present tense and the past tense Tense morphemes impose an immediate temporal scope and direct the speakers’ attention to a particular span of time relative to a speech event (Langacker 1991, 2009: 23). The value of the present tense is that of temporal coincidence: the situation is coextensive with the speech event, the here-and-now of the speaker. The function of the past tense is to impose an immediate temporal scope that is prior to the time of speaking

62

Aintzane Doiz

(Langacker 2009: 22).5 Figure 4a contains the representation of a present tense morpheme with a perfective process (e.g., *He writes a book) and an imperfective process (e.g., He knows Italian). Figure 4b contains the representation of a past tense morpheme with a perfective process (e.g., He wrote a book) and an imperfective process (e.g., He knew Italian). The speech event is represented by the box with the squiggly lines over the time line (t).

Figure 4a. The present tense

Figure 4b. The past tense 5. These are the characterizations of the prototypical temporal uses of the English present tense and past tense (Langacker 1991, 2001b, 2009). Langacker (2009) and Brisard (1999, 2001, 2002) argue that a more general characterization of the two tenses is epistemic.

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

63

On the one hand, perfectives do not usually occur with the English present tense (e.g., *He writes a book). Langacker argues that the ungrammaticality is due to durational and epistemic reasons. Firstly, the durational problem refers to the fact that processes designated by perfectives are, generally speaking, too long to coincide with the speech time: a sentence like He writes a book may be uttered in a very short time, but the actual duration of the process it designates is longer than the time it takes to be uttered. Secondly, the epistemic motivation derives from the fact that by the time the addressee has heard enough of the utterance to be able to recognize the process designated, it is too late to make the beginning of the event coincide with its description at the speech event.6 On the other hand, imperfectives may occur with the present tense (He knows Italian) because any profiled subpart of the process is equivalent to the other and, consequently, the part of the imperfective process that coincides with the speech time is in itself an instance of the process type (Figure 4a). Both, perfectives (He wrote a book) and imperfectives (He knew Italian) occur with the past tense. In the case of perfectives with the past tense, the entire situation is contained within the IS, which means that the situation may be apprehended or viewed as a whole from the speech time by the speaker and the hearer (Figure 4b). There are no durational or epistemic constraints. In the case of imperfectives with the past tense, the situation is designated without its beginning or ending.

3. The past tense in Spanish: Actual occurrence reading versus property reading Like the past tense in English, the Spanish PRET and IMP impose an immediate temporal scope that is prior to the time of speaking. However, the PRET and the IMP construe the situations they modify in a di¤erent way. I propose the following characterizations:7 (I) Predicates with the PRET evoke the actual occurrence reading; they state that something 6. However, perfectives may occur with the present tense in the case of performatives (I order you to go now) or schedules (The train leaves at 6.00) because there are no durational or epistemic incompatibilities in these two contexts. 7. These characterizations di¤er in some respects to the ones proposed in DoizBienzobas (1995, 2002). However, the notions of actual occurrence versus property do not di¤er from the original proposal. Leonetti (2004) also refers to the notion of property for the characterization of the IMP.

64

Aintzane Doiz

happened or that something has changed. Hence, the PRET evokes the occurrence of an actual bounded event which started and finished at some point in the past, as illustrated in (1a). It may also designate a bounded state in combination with some imperfective predicates (1b). (1) a.

b.

Juan condujo muy ra´pido ayer. Juan drove-PRET very quickly yesterday. ‘Juan drove very quickly yesterday’. Juan estuvo aquı´ (ya no). Juan was-PRET here (not anymore).

(II) Predicates with the IMP evoke the property reading. Therefore, unlike the PRET, the IMP construes the situation it modifies as an unbounded state of a¤airs or an unbounded property which is generally stated of the subject of the sentence. In (2a) Juan had the property of being a fast driver; in (2b) Juan had the property of being Swedish. (2) a.

b.

Juan conducı´a muy ra´pido. Juan drove-IMP too quickly. ‘Juan was a fast driver’. Juan era sueco. Juan was-IMP Swedish.

It is up to the speaker and hearer to decide which construal, the actual occurrence reading which is evoked by the PRET, or the property reading, associated with the IMP, best fits her communicative intention and the situation being talked about. In 3.1, I illustrate the actual occurrence reading imposed by the PRET and the property reading associated with the IMP in combination with imperfective and perfective predicates. In Section 3.2, I account for the acceptability judgements of perfectives and imperfectives with the PRET and the IMP. 3.1. The IMP and the PRET in contrast 3.1.1. Imperfectives þ PRET/IMP Imperfective predicates may occur with the IMP and the PRET, but the interpretation of the sentences they appear in is very di¤erent. Consider (3a) and (3b), where the imperfective predicate ‘‘to be interesting’’, an intrin-

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

65

sically unbounded homogeneous state, may occur with the PRET or with the IMP. (3) a. b.

La pelı´cula fue interesante (?por lo menos en teorı´a). The movie was-PRET interesting (?at least in theory). La pelı´cula era interesante (por lo menos en teorı´a). The movie was-IMP interesting (at least in theory).

When the PRET is used (3a), the actual occurrence reading surfaces. The sentence evokes the occurrence of an event, namely, the showing of the movie, as confirmed by the unacceptability of adding the phrase ‘‘at least in theory’’, which explicitly negates the occurrence of the event (DoizBienzobas 1995, 2002). When the IMP is used (3b), however, there need not be a showing of the movie, and consequently, the phrase ‘‘at least in theory’’ is fine. The state of being interesting is construed as an unbounded property of the subject, the movie. 3.1.2. Perfectives þ PRET/IMP As in the case of imperfectives, perfective predicates (i.e., non-stative predicates) may be modified by the PRET and the IMP. However, the construals evoked by the two predicates are very di¤erent, as illustrated by (4) and (5). When the PRET is used, speaker A wants to know what happened on Tuesday in terms of weather (actual occurrence reading): whether it rained or not. Speaker B answers that it rained on Tuesday morning, but that the weather was good in the afternoon. The perfective predicate, hacer bueno ‘‘to make good’’ in combination with the PRET designates the occurrence of an action (‘‘it made good’’). (4) Speaker A: Que´ tiempo hizo el martes? Llovio´? ?

?

What made-PRET (was) the weather (like) on Tuesday? Did it rain-PRET? Speaker B: Sı´, por la man˜ana llovio´, pero a la tarde hizo bueno. Yes, in the morning it rained-PRET, but in the afternoon it made-PRET (was) good (the weather was good). By contrast, when the perfective predicate ‘‘to make good’’ is modified by the IMP (5), the predicate does not respond to the question What happened

66

Aintzane Doiz

weatherwise on Tuesday? In this case, the predicate designates a property attributed to the topic. The sentence it made-IMP good describes an unbounded property or a state of a¤airs similar to the one evoked by the sentences it was rainy or it was cold. The property reading surfaces and it serves as the background for the occurrence of the event We went to the beach:8 (5) Speaker A: Que´ hicisteis el martes? ?

What did you do-PRET on Tuesday? Speaker B: Como el martes hacı´a bueno, fuimos a la playa. Since the weather made-IMP (was) good on Tuesday, we wentPRET to the beach. The analysis of the use of the IMP in (5) is compatible with Ducrot’s analysis of the sentence provided in (6) (Ducrot 1979: 6): (6) El an˜o pasado en Parı´s hacı´a/hizo calor. Last year it made-IMP/PRET (was) hot in Paris. Ducrot (1979) proposed that predicates with the IMP designate a property that is applicable to the topic as a whole. In the case of the sentence with the IMP in (6), the speaker is saying that it was hot all year round in Paris. On the other hand, when the PRET is used, the property designated by the predicate may be assigned to a subpart of the topic: it may be the case that it was hot just some days that year. The ‘‘subpart’’ reading is supported by the fact that the PRET, and not the IMP, is normally used when there is explicit reference to some subparts of the temporal frame, e.g., three times within a week in (7) (sentence provided by Leonetti 2004: 497): (7) La semana pasada, ?llovı´a/llovio´ tres veces. Last week, it rained-?IMP/PRET three times.

8. The occurrences of backgrounded situations in the IMP and of foregrounded situations in the PRET have long been noted in the literature. Hopper and Thompson (1980) established a correlation between backgrounding and atelicity (unboundedness), and foregrounding and telicity (boundedness). Fleischman (1989, 1990) also stated that the function of the French imparfait, similar to the Spanish IMP, is to provide backgrounded information at the textual level (see Chapter 9, for a discussion of foreground and background).

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

67

Leonetti (2004: 497) derived the global property reading associated with the IMP from the imperfective nature of the IMP.9 He argued that, since the IMP construes the predicate it modifies as an unbounded and homogeneous property (i.e., as an imperfective), it is unnatural to assign the property to a part. Consequently, the property is stated of the whole temporal frame in which the situation holds. The characterization of the IMP that has been proposed here also accounts for the so-called imperfecto narrativo (‘‘IMP of narration’’) and its two variants, the imperfecto biogra´fico (‘‘IMP of biographies’’) and the imperfecto de ruptura (‘‘IMP of breakage’’).10 These uses of the IMP are generally attested at the beginning and at the end of narratives, where the function of backgrounding or the framing of the narration has greater prominence (Ferna´ndez Ramı´rez 1986). Consider the sentences in (8a) and (8b), which illustrate the imperfecto biogra´fico and the imperfecto de ruptura, respectively: (8) a.

A los tres an˜os, el general morı´a de una forma misteriosa. Three years later, the general died-IMP in a mysterious way.

b.

Media hora despue´s la herida paraba de sangrar. Half an hour later the wound stopped-IMP bleeding.

The use of the IMP results in the understanding of the predicate as a state of a¤airs or a property predicated of a temporal topic: the temporal topic of three years later in (8a) is characterized by the general’s death; in (8b) the temporal topic of half an hour later is characterized by a property of the wound. The use of the PRET in these sentences would result in the actual occurrence reading whereby the predicates state that something happened at a particular time in the past. 3.2. The unacceptability of the PRET and the IMP While the IMP and the PRET may occur both with imperfectives and perfectives (Section 3.1.), there are contexts in which only one of the two forms is possible. As stated by Ferna´ndez Ramı´rez (1986: 281): ‘‘Parece 9. Leonetti proposed that IMP is the equivalent of individual-level predicates (Carlson 1977; Kratzer 1989; Diesing 1992) in the verbal system. For reasons of space, I will not discuss this point in detail. 10. Bertinetto (1986: 392 and beyond) and Vetters (1996) also discuss these uses of the corresponding Italian and French IMP, respectively. See Ferna´ndez Ramı´rez (1986) and Go´mez (2002) for more information on the narrative uses of the IMP.

68

Aintzane Doiz

pues que existe cierta concurrencia del imperfecto y del prete´rito. Pero esta libertad esta´ limitada en la mayorı´a de los casos y determinada por una serie de factores que serı´a necesario fijar caso por caso’’.11 According to grammar books and course books for students of Spanish, imperfective predicates (i.e., states) tend to occur with the IMP and perfective predicates (i.e., activities, accomplishments, and achievements) with the PRET. In other words, intrinsically unbounded situations (i.e., imperfectives) occur with the IMP because it portrays the situations it modifies as unbounded; intrinsically bounded situations (i.e., perfectives) occur with the PRET because it portrays the situations it modifies as bounded. Hence, the unacceptability of the IMP or the PRET in certain contexts is attributed to the clash between the intrinsic boundedness of the situation designated by the predicate and the boundedness of the situation evoked by the PRET and the IMP. Under this account, the predicate ‘‘to be of age’’ is unacceptable with the PRET in (9) because the PRET imposes some boundaries to the intrinsically unbounded situation. By contrast, the perfective predicate, ‘‘to write a letter’’, is unacceptable with the IMP because the IMP portrays the intrinsically bounded situation as unbounded (10). Imperfective þ ?PRET/IMP (9) Como ?fue/era mayor de edad, condujo el coche. Since he was-?PRET/IMP of age, he drove the car. Perfective þ PRET/?IMP (10) Ayer escribı´/?escribı´a una carta. Yesterday I wrote-PRET/?IMP a letter. However, the analysis of the compatibility of the IMP/PRET in context in terms of boundedness does not account for the unacceptability of the IMP with some imperfective predicates, and for the unacceptability of the PRET with some perfective predicates. I consider these two cases in the remainder of this section. Imperfectives þ *IMP As we have already seen, imperfective predicates may normally occur with the IMP (2b and 9), but this is not always the case as illustrated in (11), 11. ‘‘Hence, there seems to be some overlap between the IMP and the PRET. But the possibility of using either form is limited in the majority of the cases and is conditioned by some factors that need to be determined case by case’’ (translation provided by the author of the chapter).

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

69

where the predicate ‘‘to be those three’’ cannot be modified by the IMP; and thus it has to appear in the PRET.12 (11) Speaker A: Who did it? Speaker B: Fueron/?Eran esas tres. It was-PRET/?IMP those three (girls). Speaker A knows that somebody did something, but she does not know who it was, so she asks speaker B (who did it?). Since the sentence evokes an actual occurrence reading (i.e., something happened), speaker B codes the missing information in the PRET (‘‘it was-PRET those three girls’’). By contrast, the use of the IMP is unacceptable in this context because it portrays the three women as the entities of whom a property is stated, a construal which is not an appropriate reply to the question posed by speaker A. Similarly, (12) also illustrates the unacceptability of an imperfective predicate with the IMP and its acceptability with the PRET with an imperfective verb when the actual occurrence reading is the only appropriate construal of the situation in the context. (12) Fue/?Era inteligente: no contesto´. She was-PRET/?IMP intelligent: she did not reply. When the PRET is used, the first proposition states that the subject did something that made him seem intelligent. The proposition after the colon specifies what that action was, namely, not replying. Since the two propositions have a coherence relation, they result in an acceptable discourse. However, when the IMP is used, the predicate modified by the IMP states that the subject was characterized by the property of being intelligent. The clause after the colon states that the subject did not say a word. Since there is no logical coherence between the two propositions, the sentence is unacceptable.13

12. A similar example is analyzed in Doiz-Bienzobas (1995, 2002). 13. As noted by Brisard (2010: 493), ‘‘the idea that there should be a coherence relation between two subsequent units in a discourse is a requirement which can be formulated in terms of Gricean maxims or relevance conditions (Sperber and Wilson 1995)’’.

70

Aintzane Doiz

Perfectives þ *PRET Counter to the predictions made by an analysis of the PRET in terms of boundedness, sometimes perfective predicates may not be modified by the PRET, as illustrated in (13):14 (13) La carta *dijo/decı´a lo mucho que le querı´a. The letter said-*PRET/IMP how much he loved her. When the PRET is used, the predicate ‘‘said how much he loved her’’ designates the occurrence of an event in which an agent did something: the letter ‘‘uttered’’ some words in the past. Under normal circumstances, only people may carry out this activity, so the unacceptability of the sentence in (13) with the PRET, where the letter is responsible for the utterance, comes as no surprise. When the IMP is used, however, the letter is not construed as actually talking. The predicate designates a property, which is attributed to the subject: the letter was characterized by having the message of how much he loved her. This sentence portrays a pragmatically feasible scenario, and hence, it is acceptable.15 Last but not least, the analysis proposed in this chapter accounts for the general tendency for imperfectives to occur with the IMP and for perfectives to occur with the PRET, as explained by the traditional analyses in terms of boundedness. Consider (9) and (10), repeated here under (14) and (16). (14) Como ?fue/era mayor de edad, condujo el coche. Since he was-?PRET/IMP of age, he drove the car. When the IMP is used, the predicate ‘‘being of age’’ is construed as a property attributed to the subject, and this property explains his being able to drive the car: since he was of age, he drove the car. The IMP is acceptable. The PRET, on the other hand, construes the predicate ‘‘being of age’’ as an actual occurrence (i.e., something happened: he became of age). Therefore the reading of the sentence is: Since he became of age, he drove the car. The lack of a coherence relation between the two proposi14. A similar example is analyzed in Doiz (1995, 2002) in more detail. 15. As one of the editors of this volume pointed out, predicates similar to ‘‘to say’’ such as estipular ‘‘to stipulate’’, detallar ‘‘to specify’’, establecer ‘‘to establish’’ may take an inanimate subject in the PRET. In these cases, the predicate designates an activity that may be carried out by the inanimate subject. I suggest that the selectional restrictions regarding the animacy of the subjects of these verbs are di¤erent from the ones associated with the verb ‘‘to say’’.

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

71

tions renders the PRET unacceptable. In order for the PRET to be acceptable, a context where the predicate needs to be construed as an actual occurrence is required, as in (15): (15) Cuando fue mayor de edad, condujo el coche. When he was-PRET of age, he drove the car. ‘When he became of age, he drove the car’. In (15), the temporal conjunction when marks the beginning of the situation becoming of age. The speaker states that the subject was able to drive when something happened, namely, when the subject became of age (actual occurrence reading). Consequently, in this case, the PRET is grammatical. Finally, the so-called preference of perfectives to occur with the PRET is also accounted for under the characterizations of the PRET and the IMP provided here. In (16) the PRET is the preferred choice for the perfective predicate ‘‘to write a letter’’: the perfective situation is perceived as an actual occurrence. In order for the IMP be acceptable, the perfective predicate has to be embedded in a discourse in which the property reading is appropriate, such as in literary contexts where the narrative uses of the IMP are found, as discussed in Section 3.1. (16) Ayer escribı´/?escribı´a una carta. Yesterday I wrote-PRET/?IMP a letter. As a summary, in this section I have discussed the di¤erences in the interpretation of the sentences whose predicates take the PRET and the IMP, and I have accounted for the acceptability judgements of the two forms with various imperfective and perfective predicates. In both tasks, the characterization of the PRET and the IMP in terms of the actual occurrence reading versus property reading was crucial. In Section 4, I introduce the distinction between virtual and non-virtual events proposed by Langacker (2003, 2008, 2009), which will be shown to be relevant for the understanding of the IMP and the PRET in Section 5. 4. Actual versus virtual events in English Linguistic expressions may reflect the direct description of an actual or represented event, or they may code a virtual or representing event of the actual event. The former reflects the default apprehension or viewing arrangement of a situation by the speaker and hearer (Figure 5a); the latter portrays a special apprehension or viewing arrangement (Figure 5b) (Langacker 2001a, 2009):

72

Aintzane Doiz

Figure 5a. Default viewing arrangement of an event

Figure 5b. Special viewing arrangement of an event

On the one hand, the default viewing arrangement occurs when the speaker and hearer observe and report on actual occurrences. On the other hand, the special viewing arrangement is taken when what is linguistically coded is not an actual or represented event but a representing or virtual event. Scheduled future events, generics, and the historical present are all mental constructions involving instances of virtual or representing events. Generics, which include general truths, laws of nature, and established social practices, such as the ones illustrated in (17) and (18) (sentences from Langacker 2009: 28), describe how the world is supposed to work (Goldsmith and Woisetschlaeger 1982; Langacker 2009). That is to say, generics describe structural generalizations based on what is common to actual occurrences; they do not describe the actual occurrences themselves.

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

73

Consequently, when speakers state a generalization, they are describing a virtual or representing situation, which captures the common aspects of all the corresponding actual situations. When the generalization is accessible at the speech event, the present tense is used, as in (17). When the generalization is accessible at a past point in time, the past tense is used (18). (17) A man proposes to a woman. [That’s how it’s done.] (18) In those days, a man proposed to a woman. [Now anything goes.] Figures 6 and 7 contain the representations of present singular generics and past singular generics, respectively. The boxes which include the circles containing the letters m, w, and the arrow stand for the events (or the relationships) of a man proposing to a woman (m ! w). The various instances of the events of a man proposing to a woman from which the generalization is drawn are the actual situations. The generalizations are represented by the profiled boxes with the heavy lines within the IS. The empty boxes to the left and to the right of the boxes with the heavy lines stand for other (unspecified) generalizations that the speaker may have. It is important to note that, whereas the actual situations are not located at specific points in time, the generalizations (i.e., the virtual generic situations) are. In the case of present generics, the generalization coincides with the time of speaking (the box with the squiggly lines), as represented in Figure 6; in the case of past singular generics, the generalization is in e¤ect in the past, as represented in Figure 7.

Figure 6. Present singular generics (Langacker 2009: 28)

74

Aintzane Doiz

Figure 7. Past singular generics

Like generics, scheduled situations also involve virtual events. ‘‘A schedule comprises a series of virtual events, each the mental representation of an anticipated actual event’’ (Langacker 2009: 27). Consider (19) and (20) which designate a present and a past schedule, respectively: (19) We have to hurry. The plane leaves in ten minutes. (Langacker 1999: 94, 2001a: 31, 2001b: 268, 2003: 22, 2009: 26) (20) She was rushing through the airport. The plane left in ten minutes. (Langacker 2009: 26) Scheduled situations evoke two events. The anticipated event, the plane’s actual leaving, which may or may not take place, and the virtual or the representing event, that is, the knowledge that the speaker has of the anticipated event. It is the virtual event that is linguistically coded, not the anticipated situation. When the time in which the speaker apprehends the virtual event coincides with the time of speaking, the virtual situation is coded in the present tense in English, as illustrated in (19). When the speaker refers to ‘‘a mental schedule that was in e¤ect at an earlier time’’ with respect to the speech event, the past tense is used in English (Langacker 2009: 37), as illustrated in (20). Hence, the scheduled future use of the present tense and of the past tense are sketched in Figures 8 and 9, respectively.

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

75

Figure 8. Scheduled future situations in the present (Langacker 2009: 9)

Figure 9. Scheduled future situations in the past

The profiled boxes (i.e., the boxes with the heavy lines) within the IS represent the schedule, the knowledge or virtual situation the speaker has, namely, the situation The plane leaves in ten minutes in the cases of (19) and (20). This knowledge is accessible at the speech time when the present tense is used, as in (19) (Figure 8), or at a time prior to the speech time when the past tense is used, as in (20) (Figure 9). The boxes to the left

76

Aintzane Doiz

and to the right of the box in bold represent other potential virtual events, which have not or were not accessed by the speaker. The boxes with the dotted lines are the anticipated actual events which correspond to the virtual events: in (19) and (20) they stand for the future situation, namely, for the plane’s actual departure, which may or may not take place.16 It is important to bear in mind that genericity and scheduling are not part of the meaning of the present tense or the past tense; they are not ‘‘a meaning’’ of these tenses. Genericity and scheduling are mental constructs found in a particular context that are coded in the present tense or in the past tense in accordance to the prototypical temporal value of the tenses, as discussed in Section 2.2. (Langacker 2009: 28).

5. Virtual events in Spanish and the IMP In Spanish, habituals, generics, and schedules occur with the IMP. Similarly, speaker’s expectations and the expression of irrealis are also coded in the IMP. Drawing from the analysis of genericity and scheduling provided by Langacker (Section 4), I propose that the IMP is compatible with virtuality.17 Past singular generics/past habituals In Spanish, the reading of past genericity and habituality surfaces with the IMP (21a), not with the PRET (21b): (21) a. b.

[Antes] un barbero sacaba muelas. [Ahora ya no]. [Before] a barber took-IMP out back teeth. [Not any more]. Un barbero saco´ muelas. A barber took-PRET out back teeth.

16. The participants of the situations and the relationship linking them (i.e., the plane leaving in ten minutes) have not been represented within the profiled/ non-profiled boxes in Figures 8 and 9. 17. See Brisard (2010: 505) for an analysis of the French imparfait as a marker of a kind of virtual reality: ‘‘The French imparfait either shifts the viewpoint to the past, thereby virtualizing it (making the viewpoint and situation virtually available at the time of speaking), or shifts it to another space than the actual one, also virtual (which may then be interpreted in context as hypothetical etc.)’’.

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

77

On the one hand, when the IMP is used (21a), the speaker is referring to a generalization (i.e., to a virtual event) that is extracted from the commonality among the actual events in the past; the speaker is not referring to a particular instance of the situation. On the other hand, when the PRET is used (21b), the situation designated by the sentence is the actual occurrence of an event in the past: the speaker is referring to a specific time when a barber took out some back teeth. Since the generic/habitual reading surfaces with the IMP, it is concluded that the IMP is compatible with the linguistic coding of virtual events. Scheduled/planned future situations Scheduled or planned future situations have been referred to as anticipated (Doiz-Bienzobas 1995, 2002) or prospective situations/readings (Leonetti and Escandell-Vidal 2003) in the literature. These situations are coded in the IMP in Spanish, as illustrated by (22a) and (22b): (22) a.

b.

Al an˜o siguiente habı´a fiestas. (Pero se cancelaron/Fueron divertidas). The following year there were-IMP some festivities. ‘The following year there were going to be some festivities’. (But they got cancelled/They were a lot of fun). El tren salı´a a las 6. (Se estropeo´ /Salio´ en punto) The train left-IMP at 6 o’clock. ‘The train was leaving (was scheduled to leave) at 6 o’clock’. (It broke down/It departed on time).

In (22a) and in (22b) the speaker is referring to a situation which has been planned/scheduled to take place at a time in the future with respect to a past reference time; the speaker does not state whether the situation has taken place or not (They were a lot of fun/It departed on time; They were cancelled/It broke down). Following Langacker’s characterization of scheduled future situations, it is proposed that what is coded linguistically in (22a) and (22b) is the virtual plan, the schedule regarding the future occurrence of the situation, rather than the actual future situation itself. In this view, the IMP is compatible with past virtual situations. By contrast, when the PRET is used, the anticipated reading or scheduled reading does not surface. The sentences in (23a) and (23b) designate a situation which actually occurred in the past as shown by the unacceptability of adding But they were cancelled (23a) or It didn’t leave (23b). There is no reference to a scheduled or to an anticipated event:

78

Aintzane Doiz

(23) a.

b.

Al an˜o siguiente hubo fiestas. (?Pero se cancelaron/Fueron divertidas). The following year there were-PRET festivities. ‘The following year some festivities took place’. (?But they got cancelled/They were a lot of fun). El tren salio´ a las 6. (Llegamos a tiempo/?No salio´). The train left-PRET at 6 o’clock. (We arrived in time to catch it/?It didn’t leave).

The mental construction of a schedule also underlies the use of the socalled imperfecto de error (‘‘the imperfect of mistakes’’) illustrated in (24). This use is discussed in Grijelmo (2006: 254) and in some Spanish grammar books. (24) El co´nyuge sorprendido le dijo a su pareja: ‘‘ No venı´as man˜ana de Italia?’’ The surprised husband told his wife: ‘‘Not come-IMP tomorrow from Italy?’’ ‘The surprised husband told his wife: ‘‘Weren’t you coming back tomorrow from Italy?’’’ ?

In (24), the husband expresses his surprise at the early return of his wife by asking: Weren’t you coming back tomorrow from Italy? At the time in which the question is asked, the speaker knows that his wife is not coming home on the following day because she is already home. In this case, the speaker is accessing his knowledge about the scheduled date of return of his wife. The question is posed to get his wife’s confirmation of the validity of his schedule, of the virtual event. That is why the IMP is used. Since it may be the case that the speaker is not necessarily wrong (his schedule could have been right but the actual event did not follow the timing stated in the schedule, as in the present example), the label ‘‘the imperfect of mistakes’’ is not quite appropriate. The speaker is merely seeking to have his schedule or piece of knowledge confirmed. As in the previous cases, this reading is not part of the semantic contribution of the IMP. The speaker’s expectations The speaker’s expectations are the set of beliefs that the speaker has regarding the way things should have been in the past or should be in the present or in the future. Since expectations are not actual situations, but rather, they

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

79

are virtual events with corresponding potential actual situations, the IMP is used. Compare (25a) and (25b):

Do´nde estabas ayer, Juan? Where were-IMP you yesterday, Juan? ?

b.

Do´nde estuviste ayer, Juan? Where were-PRET you yesterday, Juan? ?

(25) a.

When the PRET is used (25a), the speaker wants to know where the addressee, Juan, was at a specific point in the past. The speaker is accessing an actual past situation. In this case, the speaker does not have any pre-conceived idea of where Juan was or should/could have been, and she expects a straight forward answer such as I was at the movies, I went shopping, etc. No further explanation is required or expected from the hearer. By contrast, when the IMP is used (25b), the question posed by the speaker is not a neutral question. In this case the speaker is referring to her expectation regarding the hearer’s location at some moment in the past; the question refers to some knowledge or a virtual idea. By questioning her knowledge or expectation, the speaker implies that the expectation is not met and, consequently, she is asking the hearer to explain to provide a reason. The process is something like: Given some piece of information/knowledge I had, I expected to see you at the party ! You were not at the party ! I am asking you ‘‘where were you given the fact that you were not where you were expected?’’ ! ‘‘Why weren’t you there?’’

The emergence of certain implications that are present when the IMP is used is a desired e¤ect that is exploited by speakers as illustrated by the dialogue in (26a). Let’s imagine that a crime has been committed. A police o‰cer, speaker A, is conducting an investigation and is cross-examining a suspect, speaker B. The choice of the IMP or the PRET reflects a di¤erent understanding of the situation, as reflected by the police o‰cer’s attitude towards speaker B. If speaker A uses the IMP, speaker B is the suspect of some wrong-doing (26a); if she uses the PRET, speaker B is not a suspect for the time being (26b). The answers provided by speaker B reflect the specific scenarios associated with the sentences with the PRET and the IMP, respectively:

Aintzane Doiz

Speaker A: Que´ hacı´a ayer a las 3 en el despacho? ( ! Por que´ estaba allı´?) Speaker B: Tenı´a que terminar un informe y me quede´ hasta tarde. Speaker A: What did you do-IMP yesterday at 3 o’clock at the o‰ce? ( ! Why were you there?) Speaker B: I had-IMP to finish a report and I stayed late in the o‰ce. ?

b.

Speaker A: Que´ hizo ayer a las 3 en el despacho? Speaker B: Termine´ un informe. Speaker A: What did you do-PRET yesterday at 3 o’clock in the o‰ce? Speaker B: I finished-PRET a report. ?

(26) a.

?

80

When the PRET is used (26b), the o‰cer is enquiring about the specific activities that the suspect carried out at his o‰ce at a certain time. Speaker B provides a straightforward reply. However, when the IMP is used (26a), speaker A is accessing her expectations; she asks speaker B what he was doing at the o‰ce at a time when he should have been home (according to her knowledge/expectations). The process is something like: Yesterday you were at the o‰ce at three in the night. I know that this is unusual; people are usually at home at that time. So ! what were you doing there that could not wait until the morning? ! Why were you there?

Since the reply given by speaker B in (26a) designates an actual event (I stayed late in the o‰ce) that does not coincide with the police o‰cer’s expectations, speaker B feels the need to add an explanation, I had to finish a report, a planned situation which is coded in the IMP. Intentions/Wishes An intention is a volition that is intended to be carried out; a wish is a hope or a desire for something. Frequently intentions are based on wishes, and wishes are translated into volitions. For our purposes, it is not important to draw a line separating one kind of event from the other. What is important, though, is to acknowledge the virtual nature of the wish or the intention designated. In Spanish, present wishes or intentions occur with the present tense (27a); and past wishes/intentions with the IMP (27b):

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

(27) a. b.

81

Espero ir a Hawai de vacaciones en julio. I intend (hope) to go to Hawaii on holidays in July. Yo esperaba ir a Hawai de vacaciones en julio. I hoped-IMP (it was my intention) to go on holidays to Hawaii in July.

In (27a), the speaker is accessing a virtual event, which describes her wish at the time of speech; the corresponding actual event is located in the future. When the IMP is used (27b), the sentence designates a past wish; it is a virtual event with a corresponding actual occurrence, which may have taken place or not. Irrealis The mental constructs that have been analyzed in the preceding sections (e.g., schedules, generalizations, expectations, and wishes) involve virtual events that are part of the speaker’s accepted reality (Langacker 2009: 31). In the remainder of this section, I consider the use of the IMP for the linguistic coding of some virtual events that are not part of the speaker’s reality, namely, hypotheticals, dreams, and children’s play games, which all belong in irrealis. The relationship between the past tense and non-actuality or irrealis has been widely acknowledged in the literature (see Chapter 1; Brisard 2010; Doiz-Bienzobas 1995, 2002; Fleishman 1989; Hutchison 1985; Langacker 1987; and Steele 1975, among others): Distance in the past frequently serves to remove a real event from actuality/ reality, relocating it in a hypothetical world. It should therefore come as no surprise to find languages using the PAST to refer to (present or timeless) situations predicated as occurring in explicitly hypothetical or imaginary worlds, e.g., those of dreams and of children’s make-believe games (Fleischman 1989: 14).

As a result, it has been argued that the basic meaning of the past tense should be understood as ‘‘distance from reality’’. Langacker (1991: 245, 2009), for example, provides a comprehensive account of tense in English where the present and past tenses designate the proximal/distal contrast in the epistemic sphere.18 In the case of languages with two past forms like Spanish, the IMP, and not the PRET, is normally used to express irrealis. It has been proposed 18. Brisard (2010) provides an account of the French imparfait along the same lines lines too.

82

Aintzane Doiz

that the choice of the IMP in this context results from the unboundedness or imperfectivity of the situations designated by the predicates with the IMP (Leonetti 2004),19 whereas others have attributed this correlation to the backgrounding function of the IMP as opposed to the foregrounding role of the PRET (Hopper 1979). I propose that the use of the IMP to convey irrealis is accounted for by an analysis that proposes the compatibility of the IMP with virtuality. I will consider a few cases in the remainder of this section. a) Dreams Dreams are part of irrealis and are in e¤ect at a time prior to the speech time. They are virtual (i.e., non-actual) events that are told through recall. In Castilian Spanish, dreams are normally coded in the IMP, as illustrated in (28): (28) Son˜e´ que ganaba/*gane´ la loterı´a y que me compraba/*compre´ una bicicleta. I dreamed that I won-IMP/*PRET the lottery and that I bought-IMP/*PRET a bicycle. It should be noted that the retelling of a past event through recall does not license the use of the IMP, as illustrated by the ungrammaticality of the IMP to designate a real situation in (29). (29) Ayer me acorde´ de que Juan hizo/*hacı´a la mili en Madrid.20 Yesterday I remembered that Juan did-PRET/*IMP the compulsory military service in Madrid. ‘Yesterday I remembered that Juan performed on the compulsory military service in Madrid’. 19. Leonetti (2004) proposes that the anaphoric value of the IMP, which derives from its imperfectivity, requires the IMP to be anchored to a (temporal) reference point that has already been introduced in the discourse. Accordingly, the use of the IMP in dreams, counterfactuals, and sentences such as the ones I am discussing in this section is a side-e¤ect of the anaphoric character of the IMP: the predicate modified by the IMP is interpreted relative to a temporal or other kind of frame which has already been introduced. In the present cases, it could be a dream, a movie, or a hypothetical space. By contrast, the PRET is a non-anaphorical form. It introduces its own temporal reference in reality. 20. The use of the IMP in (29) is grammatical when the sentence with the IMP takes the scheduled future reading, that is to say, when it involves a virtual situation. The grammaticality of this reading is predicted by the analysis proposed here.

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

83

In order for the IMP to be grammatical, the situation has to be virtual, as in (28). When virtuality (e.g., dreams) and reality are mixed in the same discourse, linguistic coding can keep them apart, as illustrated in (30a) (Doiz-Bienzobas 1995, 2002). (30) a.

b.

En el suen˜o, la sen˜ora que trajo el libro el otro dı´a era mi tı´a. In the dream, the lady who brought-PRET the book the other day was my aunt. En el suen˜o, la sen˜ora que traı´a el libro (*el otro dı´a) era mi tı´a. In the dream, the lady who brought-IMP the book (*the other day) was my aunt.

In (30a) and (30b) the fact that the lady is part of the dream is reflected by the use of the IMP in the copula ‘‘to be’’. In (30a) the PRET is used to designate an event that is part of reality, namely, the lady who brought the book. This is an event that took place at some point in the past as specified by the time adverbial the other day. By contrast, the IMP is used when the event the lady who brought the book is stated to be part of the dream. Accordingly, the event cannot be modified by the temporal adverbial the other day (30b). b) Hypothetical sentences The use of the past tense morphology to refer to epistemic distance in a hypothetical space accounts for the occurrence of the past tense in counterfactual sentences in English (see Chapter 1; Langacker 2009). In Spanish, the past subjunctive, a past tense, is also used in the protasis of counterfactual hypothetical sentences. The verb in the apodosis is modified by the conditional and/or the IMP, as illustrated by the sentence in (31): (31) Si tuviera dinero, me comprarı´a/compraba una casa. If I had-PAST SUBJ money, I buy-COND/IMP a house. ‘If I had money, I would buy a house’. Intuitively speaking, there is a sense in which the sentence is more assertive with the IMP than with the conditional (Ferna´ndez Ramı´rez 1986; Porcar Miralles 1993). I propose that the di¤erence in the degree of assertiveness between the two forms results from the fact that when the IMP is used, a plan/schedule in a hypothetical space is designated. When the conditional

84

Aintzane Doiz

is used, however, a prediction is designated. Plans/schedules are less tentative than predictions because the former evoke situations that are arranged beforehand and that are meant to be followed. The grammaticality judgments of the IMP and the conditional in (32) support this idea: (32) Si viajaras ma´s, no *estabas/estarı´as aburrida. If you travelled more, you were-*IMP/COND not bored. ‘If you travelled more, you would not be bored’. When the IMP is used, the state of being bored is perceived as a scheduled/ planned situation. Since it is unlikely to schedule this kind of state, the IMP is ruled out. But when the conditional is used, the situation of being bored is perceived as a prediction that will come true if the condition stated in the subordinate clause is met. Since it is possible to predict being bored in a particular situation, the use of the conditional is feasible. Finally, our account predicts that the PRET may not be used in hypothetical sentences because it construes the situation it modifies as an actual past situation that is incompatible with the hypothetical space evoked by the protasis as in (33): (33) Si tuviera dinero, me *compre´ una casa. If I had money, I bought-*PRET a house. In order for the PRET to be grammatical, the condition expressed in the protasis has to be met in reality, as it is the case in one of the readings of (34). (34) Si Juan estuvo en Parı´s, robo´ el banco. If Juan was in Paris, he robbed-PRET the bank. In (34) the speaker does not know whether Juan was in Paris or not. But she knows that if the condition of being in Paris is met in reality, then the fact that he robbed the bank is also true. That is to say, when the condition in the protasis of the hypothetical sentence is met in the reality space, the apodosis is satisfied in the actual world too. In this case, there is no irrealis and the PRET is used. c) Children’s play games The IMP is also used in the coding of the preparations undertaken by children before they start role-playing games. This use has long been noted in the literature (Doiz-Bienzobas 1995; Ferna´ndez Ramı´rez 1986: 275;

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

85

Go´mez 2002: 149; Herna´ndez 1996: 433) and has been referred to as imperfecto lu´dico or the imperfecto de fantası´a (35): Jugamos? Tu´ eras el policı´a y yo el ladro´n y entonces tu´ robabas un banco. . . Shall we play? You were-IMP the policeman and I the thief and then you robbed-IMP a bank. . . ?

(35)

When children play pretend games, they do a lot of planning regarding who plays which character and regarding the course of the events that are going to be acted out. In other words, they have to provide a plan or script that will have to be agreed on prior to their game. In fact, scripts are very similar to schedules: ‘‘a script is something like a schedule, one di¤erence being that the represented events can occur at any time [. . .]’’ (Langacker 2009: 27). Scripts, like schedules, are also virtual situations, and therefore, the IMP is used.

6. Conclusions In this chapter, I have provided a characterization of the Spanish IMP and PRET in terms of two sets of distinctions, the actual occurrence/property reading and the virtuality/nonvirtuality distinction. The PRET is stated to construe a situation as a bounded occurrence that took place at a moment in the past. Therefore, situations with the PRET are anchored in reality. The IMP portrays a situation as an unbounded property or a state of a¤airs, which may be compatible with the expression of virtual mental constructs. These characterizations have allowed us to account for the following facts: (a) the tendency for perfectives to occur with the PRET and some imperfectives with the IMP; (b) the unacceptability of certain predicates with the PRET or the IMP; (c) the di¤erences in the interpretations of the sentences with the IMP and the PRET; and (d) the use of the IMP to refer to di¤erent kinds of situations such as schedules, generics, expectations, or dreams. The characterizations that I have provided in this chapter will hopefully help students of Spanish to grasp the di¤erences in the semantics of the two forms and to master their use. At a more abstract level, the usefulness of cognitive semantic constructs has been supported.

86

Aintzane Doiz

References Bertinetto, Pier 1986 Tempo, aspetto e azione nel verbo italiano. Florence: Accademia della Crusca. Brisard, Frank 1999 A critique of localism in and about tense theory. Antwerp: University of Antwerp, Ph.D. dissertation. Brisard, Frank 2001 Be going to: An exercise in grounding. Journal of Linguistics 37. 251–285. Brisard, Frank 2002 The English Present. In Frank Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 251–298. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Brisard, Frank 2010 Aspects of virtuality in the meaning of the French imparfait. Linguistics 48(2). 487–524. Carlson, Gregory 1977 A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 413–457. Diesing, Molly 1992 Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Doiz-Bienzobas, Aintzane 1995 The preterite and the imperfect in Spanish: Past situation versus past viewpoint. San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego, Ph.D. dissertation. Doiz-Bienzobas, Aintzane 2002 The preterite and the imperfect as grounding predications. In Frank Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 299–348. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ducrot, Oswald 1979 L’imparfait en franc¸ais. Linguistische Berichte 60. 1–23. Ferna´ndez Ramı´rez, Salvador 1986 Grama´tica espan˜ola. 4. El verbo y la oracio´n. Madrid: Grafur. Fleischman, Suzanne 1989 Temporal distance: A basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language 13. 1–50. Fleischman, Suzanne 1990 Tense and narrativity, from medieval performance to modern fiction. Austin: University of Texas Press. Goldsmith, John & Erich Woisetschlaeger 1982 The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 79– 89.

Cognitive perspective on Spanish

87

Go´mez, Leonardo 2002 Grama´tica dida´ctica del espan˜ol. 8th edition. Madrid: SM. ´ lex Grijelmo, A 2006 La grama´tica descomplicada. Madrid: Taurus. Herna´ndez, Ce´sar 1996 Grama´tica funcional del espan˜ol. 3rd edition. Madrid: Gredos. Hopper, Paul 1979 Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Givo´n Talmy (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Discourse and syntax, 213–242. London: Academic Press. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson 1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. Hutchinson, Chris 1985 The where of the when: Some arguments for a non-temporal interpretation of tense. Papers in Linguistics 21/22. 1–35. Kratzer, Angelika 1989 Stage and individual level predicates: Papers on quantification, NSF Grant Report, Department of Linguistics. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1999 Virtual reality. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29. 77–103. Langacker, Ronald W. 2001a Cognitive Linguistics, language pedagogy and the English present tense. In Martin Pu¨tz, Susanne Niemeier & Rene´ Dirven (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition, 3–39. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 2001b The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics: 251–272. Langacker, Ronald W. 2003 Extreme subjectification: English tense and modals. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, Rene´ Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Gu¨nter Radden, 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Langacker, Ronald W. 2008 Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

88

Aintzane Doiz

Langacker, Ronald W. 2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald, W. 2011 The English present: Temporal coincidence versus epistemic immedicacy. In Frank Brisard & Adeline Patard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality, 45–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Leonetti, Manuel & Victoria Escandell 2003 On the quotative readings of Spanish imperfecto. Cuadernos de Lingu¨´ıstica X. 135–154. Leonetti, Manuel 2004 Por que´ el imperfecto es anafo´rico. In Luis Garcı´a Ferna´ndez & Bruno Camus Bergareche (Eds.), El prete´rito imperfecto, 481– 507. Madrid: Gredos. Porcar Miralles, Margarita 1993 La oracio´n condicional. La evolucio´n de los esquemas verbales condicionales desde el Latı´n al Espan˜ol actual. Castello´: Universitat Jaume I. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson 1995 Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Steele, Susan 1975 Past and irrealis: Just what does it all mean? International Journal of American Linguistics 41. 200–217. Vendler, Zeno 1967 Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Vetters, Cari 1996 Temps, aspect et narration. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.

Chapter 3 Frequency-based grammar and the acquisition of tense and aspect in L2 learning1 Nick Ellis 1. Frequency and language cognition The last 50 years of psycholinguistic research has demonstrated language processing to be exquisitely sensitive to usage frequency at all levels of language representation: phonology and phonotactics, reading, spelling, lexis, morphosyntax, formulaic language, language comprehension, grammaticality, sentence production, and syntax (Ellis 2002a). Language knowledge involves statistical knowledge, so humans learn more easily and process more fluently high frequency forms and ‘regular’ patterns which are exemplified by many types and which have few competitors. Psycholinguistic perspectives thus hold that language learning is the implicit associative learning of representations that reflect the probabilities of occurrence of formfunction mappings. Frequency is a key determinant of acquisition because ‘rules’ of language, at all levels of analysis from phonology, through syntax, to discourse, are structural regularities which emerge from learners’ lifetime unconscious analysis of the distributional characteristics of the language input. It is these ideas which underpin the last 30 years of investigations of language cognition using connectionist and statistical models (Christiansen and Chater 2001; Elman et al. 1996; Rumelhart and McClelland 1986), the competition model of language learning and processing (Bates and MacWhinney 1987; MacWhinney 1987b, 1997), the investigation of how frequency and repetition bring about form in language and how probabilistic knowledge drives language comprehension and production (Bod, Hay, and Jannedy 2003; Bybee and Hopper 2001; Ellis 2002a, 2002b; Jurafsky 2002; Jurafsky and Martin 2000), and the proper empirical investigations of the structure of language by means of corpus analysis.

1. The author thanks Rafael Salaberry and Llorenc¸ Comajoan for their constructive editing of this chapter.

90

Nick Ellis

Frequency, learning, and language come together in usage-based approaches which hold that we learn linguistic constructions while engaging in communication, the ‘‘interpersonal communicative and cognitive processes that everywhere and always shape language’’ (Chapter 1; Slobin 1997). Constructions are form-meaning mappings, conventionalized in the speech community, and entrenched as language knowledge in the learner’s mind. They are the symbolic units of language relating the defining properties of their morphological, syntactic, and lexical form with particular semantic, pragmatic, and discourse functions (Bates and MacWhinney 1987; Bybee 2008; Croft 2001; Croft and Cruise 2004; Goldberg 1995, 2003, 2006; Lako¤ 1987; Langacker 1987; Robinson and Ellis 2008; Tomasello 2003). Goldberg’s (2006) Construction Grammar argues that all grammatical phenomena can be understood as learned pairings of form (from morphemes, words, idioms, to partially lexically filled and fully general phrasal patterns) and their associated semantic or discourse functions: ‘‘the network of constructions captures our grammatical knowledge in toto, i.e., it’s constructions all the way down’’ (Goldberg 2006: 18). Such beliefs, increasingly influential in the study of child language acquisition, have turned upside down generative assumptions of innate language acquisition devices, the continuity hypothesis, and top-down, rule-governed, processing, bringing back data-driven, emergent accounts of linguistic systematicities. Constructionist theories of child language acquisition use dense longitudinal corpora to chart the emergence of creative linguistic competence from children’s analyses of the utterances in their usage history and from their abstraction of regularities within them (Goldberg 1995, 2003, 2006; Tomasello 2003, 1998). Children typically begin with phrases whose verbs are only conservatively extended to other structures. A common developmental sequence is from formula to low-scope slot-and-frame pattern, to creative construction.

2. Frequency and concept learning It is human categorization ability that provides the most persuasive testament to our incessant unconscious tallying of associations. We know that natural categories are fuzzy rather than monothetic. Wittgenstein’s (1953) consideration of the concept game showed that no set of features that we can list covers all the things that we call games, ranging as the exemplars variously do from soccer, through chess, bridge, and poker, to solitaire. Instead, what organizes these exemplars into the game category is a set of family resemblances among these members – son may be like mother, and

Frequency-based grammar

91

mother like sister, but in a very di¤erent way. And we learn about these families, like our own, from experience. Exemplars are similar if they have many features in common and few distinctive attributes (features belonging to one but not the other); the more similar are two objects on these quantitative grounds, the faster are people at judging them to be similar (Tversky 1977). Prototypes, exemplars which are most typical of a category, are those which are similar to many members of that category and not similar to members of other categories. Again, the operationalisation of this criterion predicts the speed of human categorization performance – people more quickly classify as birds sparrows (or other average sized, average colored, average beaked, average featured specimens) than they do birds with less common features or feature combinations like kiwis or penguins (Rosch and Mervis 1975; Rosch et al. 1976). Prototypes are judged faster and more accurately, even if they themselves have never been seen before – someone who has never seen a sparrow, yet who has experienced the rest of the run of the avian mill, will still be fast and accurate in judging it to be a bird (Posner and Keele 1970). Such e¤ects make it very clear that although people do not go around consciously counting features, they nevertheless have very accurate knowledge of the underlying frequency distributions and their central tendencies. Cognitive theories of categorization and generalization show how schematic constructions are abstracted over less schematic ones that are inferred inductively by the learner in acquisition (Harnad 1987; Lako¤ 1987; Taylor 1998).

3. Frequency and second language acquisition Language learners, L1 and L2 both, share the goal of understanding language and how it works. Since they achieve this based upon their experience of language usage, there are many commonalities between first and second language acquisition that can be understood from corpus analyses of input and cognitive- and psycho-linguistic analyses of construction acquisition following associative and cognitive principles of learning and categorization. Therefore usage-based approaches, cognitive linguistics, and corpus linguistics are increasingly influential in L2 research too (Collins and Ellis 2009; Ellis 1998, 2003; Ellis and Cadierno 2009; Robinson and Ellis 2008), albeit with the twist that since they have previously devoted considerable resources to the estimation of the characteristics of another language – the native tongue in which they have considerable fluency –

92

Nick Ellis

L2 learners’ computations and inductions are often a¤ected by transfer, with L1-tuned expectations and selective attention (Ellis 2006b) blinding the acquisition system to aspects of the L2 sample, thus biasing their estimation from naturalistic usage and producing the limited attainment that is typical of adult L2 acquisition. In this view, L2 acquisition is di¤erent from L1 acquisition in that it involves processes of construction and reconstruction.

4. Construction learning as associative learning from usage If constructions as form-function mappings are the units of language, then language acquisition involves inducing these associations from experience of language usage. Constructionist accounts of language acquisition thus involve the distributional analysis of the language stream and the parallel analysis of contingent perceptual activity, with abstract constructions being learned from the conspiracy of concrete exemplars of usage following statistical learning mechanisms (Christiansen and Chater 2001) relating input and learner cognition. Psychological analyses of the learning of constructions as form-meaning pairs is informed by the literature on the associative learning of cue-outcome contingencies, where the usual determinants include: (1) factors relating to the form, such as frequency and salience; (2) factors relating to the interpretation, such as significance in the comprehension of the overall utterance, prototypicality, generality, and redundancy; (3) factors relating to the contingency of form and function; and (4) factors relating to learner attention, such as automaticity, transfer, overshadowing, and blocking (Ellis 2002a, 2003, 2006a, 2008b). These various psycholinguistic factors conspire in the acquisition and use of any linguistic construction. These determinants of learning can be usefully categorized into factors relating to (1) input frequency (type-token frequency, Zipfian distribution, recency), (2) form salience and perception, (3) prototypicality of meaning and redundancy), and (4) contingency of form-function mapping. 4.1. Input frequency 4.1.1. Construction frequency Frequency of exposure promotes learning. Ellis’ (2002) review illustrates how frequency a¤ects the processing of phonology and phonotactics, reading, spelling, lexis, morphosyntax, formulaic language, language comprehension, grammaticality, sentence production, and syntax. That language

Frequency-based grammar

93

users are sensitive to the input frequencies of these patterns entails that they must have registered their occurrence in processing. These frequency e¤ects are thus compelling evidence for usage-based models of language acquisition that emphasize the role of input. 4.1.2. Type and token frequency Token frequency counts how often a particular form appears in the input. Type frequency, on the other hand, refers to the number of distinct lexical items that can be substituted in a given slot in a construction, whether it is a word-level construction for inflection or a syntactic construction specifying the relation among words. For example, the ‘‘regular’’ English past tense -ed has a very high type frequency because it applies to thousands of di¤erent types of verbs, whereas the vowel change exemplified in swam and rang has much lower type frequency. The productivity of phonological, morphological, and syntactic patterns is a function of type rather than token frequency (Bybee and Hopper 2001). This is because: (a) the more lexical items that are heard in a certain position in a construction, the less likely it is that the construction is associated with a particular lexical item and the more likely it is that a general category is formed over the items that occur in that position; (b) the more items the category must cover, the more general are its criterial features and the more likely it is to extend to new items; and (c) high type frequency ensures that a construction is used frequently, thus strengthening its representational schema and making it more accessible for further use with new items (Bybee and Thompson 2000). In contrast, high token frequency promotes the entrenchment or conservation of irregular forms and idioms; the irregular forms only survive because they are high frequency. These findings support language’s place at the center of cognitive research into human categorization, which also emphasizes the importance of type frequency in classification. 4.1.3. Zipfian distribution In the early stages of learning categories from exemplars, acquisition is optimized by the introduction of an initial, low-variance sample centered upon prototypical exemplars (Elio and Anderson 1981, 1984). This low variance sample allows learners to get a fix on what will account for most of the category members. The bounds of the category are defined later by experience of the full breadth of exemplar types. Goldberg Casenhiser and Sethuraman (2004) demonstrated that in samples of child language acquisition, for a variety of verb-argument constructions (VACs), there is a

94

Nick Ellis

strong tendency for one single verb to occur with very high frequency in comparison to other verbs used, a profile which closely mirrors that of the mothers’ speech to these children. In natural language, Zipf ’s law (Zipf 1935) describes how the highest frequency words account for the most linguistic tokens: the constitutes nearly 7% of the Brown Corpus of English usage, to more than 3%; while about half the total vocabulary of about 50,000 words are hapax legomena: words that occur only once in the corpus. If pf is the proportion of words whose frequency in a given language sample is f, then pf P f b, with b Q 1. Zipf (1949) showed this scaling relation holds across a wide variety of language samples. Subsequent research has shown that many language events (e.g., frequencies of phoneme and letter strings, of words, of grammatical constructs, of formulaic phrases, etc.) across scales of analysis follow this law (Ferrer i Cancho and Sole´ 2001, 2003). It has strong empirical support as a linguistic universal and has important implications for language structure, use, and acquisition. Goldberg et al. (2004) show that Zipf ’s law applies within VACs too, and they argue that this promotes acquisition: tokens of one particular verb account for the lion’s share of instances of each particular argument frame; this pathbreaking verb also is the one with the prototypical meaning from which the construction is derived (see also Ninio 1999, 2006). Ellis and Ferreira-Junior (2009a, 2009b) investigate e¤ects upon naturalistic second language acquisition of type/token distributions in the islands comprising the linguistic form of English verb-argument constructions (VACs: VL verb locative, VOL verb object locative, VOO ditransitive) in the ESF corpus (Perdue 1993). They show that in the naturalistic L2 acquisition of English, VAC verb type/token distribution in the input is Zipfian and learners first acquire the most frequent, prototypical and generic exemplar (e.g., put in VOL, give in VOO, etc.). Their work further illustrates how acquisition is a¤ected by the frequency and frequency distribution of exemplars within each island of the construction (e.g., [Subj V Obj Oblpath/loc]), by their prototypicality, and, using a variety of psychological (Shanks 1995) and corpus linguistic association metrics (Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004; Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003), by their contingency of form-function mapping. Ellis and Larsen-Freeman (2009a) describe connectionist serial-recurrent network models of these various factors as they play out in the emergence of constructions as generalized linguistic schema from their frequency distributions in the input. This fundamental claim that Zipfian distributional properties of language usage helps to make language learnable has thus begun to be explored

Frequency-based grammar

95

for these three verb argument constructions, at least. Ellis and O’Donnell (2012) are exploring its generality across a wide range of VACs in 100 million words of English. 4.1.4. Recency Language processing also reflects recency e¤ects. This phenomenon, known as priming, may be observed in phonology, conceptual representations, lexical choice, and syntax (Pickering and Ferreira 2008). Syntactic priming refers to the phenomenon of using a particular syntactic structure given prior exposure to the same structure. This behavior has been observed when speakers hear, speak, read, or write sentences (Bock 1986; Pickering 2006; Pickering and Garrod 2006). For L2 acquisition, Gries and Wul¤ (2005) provided evidence (a) that advanced L2 learners of English showed syntactic priming for ditransitive (e.g., The racing driver showed the helpful mechanic) and prepositional dative (e.g., The racing driver showed the torn overall . . .) argument structure constructions in a sentence completion task, (b) that their semantic knowledge of argument structure constructions a¤ected their grouping of sentences in a sorting task, and (c) that their priming e¤ects closely resembled those of native speakers of English in that they were very highly correlated with native speakers’ verbal subcategorization preferences whilst completely uncorrelated with the subcategorization preferences of the German translation equivalents of these verbs. There is now a growing body of research demonstrating such L2 syntactic priming e¤ects (McDonough 2006; McDonough and Mackey 2006; McDonough and Trofimovich 2008). 4.2. Form (salience and perception) The general perceived strength of stimuli is commonly referred to as their salience. Low salience cues tend to be less readily learned. Ellis (2006a, 2006b) summarized the associative learning research demonstrating that selective attention, salience, expectation, and surprise are key elements in the analysis of all learning, animal and human alike. As the RescorlaWagner (1972) model encapsulates, the amount of learning induced from an experience of a cue-outcome association depends crucially upon the salience of the cue and the importance of the outcome. Many grammatical meaning-form relationships, particularly those that are notoriously di‰cult for second language learners like grammatical particles and inflections such as the third person singular -s of English, are of low salience in the language stream. For example, some forms are

96

Nick Ellis

more salient: today is a stronger psychophysical form in the input than is the morpheme -s marking third person singular present tense, thus while both provide cues to present time, today is much more likely to be perceived, and -s can thus become overshadowed and blocked, making it di‰cult for L2 learners of English to acquire (Ellis 2006b, 2008a; Goldschneider and DeKeyser 2001). 4.3. Prototypicality of meaning and redundancy 4.3.1. Prototypicality of meaning Categories have graded structure, with some members being better exemplars than others. In the prototype theory of concepts (Rosch and Mervis 1975; Rosch et al. 1976), the prototype as an idealized central description is the best example of the category, appropriately summarizing the most representative attributes of a category. As the typical instance of a category, it serves as the benchmark against which surrounding, less representative instances are classified. The greater the token frequency of an exemplar, the more it contributes to defining the category, and the greater the likelihood it will be considered the prototype. The best way to teach a concept is to show an example of it. So the best way to introduce a category is to show a prototypical example. Ellis and Ferreira-Junior (2009a) show that the verbs that L2 learners first used in particular VACs are prototypical and generic in function (go for VL, put for VOL, and give for VOO). The same has been shown for child language acquisition, where a small group of semantically general verbs, often referred to as light verbs (e.g., go, do, make, come) are learned early (Clark 1978; Ninio 1999; Pinker 1989). Ninio argues that, because most of their semantics consist of some schematic notion of transitivity with the addition of a minimum specific element, they are semantically suitable, salient, and frequent; hence, learners start transitive word combinations with these generic verbs. Thereafter, as Clark describes, ‘‘many uses of these verbs are replaced, as children get older, by more specific terms. . . . General purpose verbs, of course, continue to be used but become proportionately less frequent as children acquire more words for specific categories of actions’’ (53). Notwithstanding the fact that prototypicality can help L2 learners during the beginning stages of acquisition of complex, graded and fuzzy concepts (such as tense-aspect meanings), the acquisition of the less prototypical exemplars of a complex concept remains an area of fertile research. This is particularly relevant in the case of target items that can only be concurrently defined at various levels of representation of language (e.g.,

Frequency-based grammar

97

lexical, morphosyntactic, discursive, and pragmatic at the same time). In the sections below, we address this issue through the specific analysis of specific tense-aspect meanings that could potentially be outside of the realm of the basic concept. 4.3.2. Redundancy The Rescorla-Wagner model (1972) also summarizes how redundant cues tend not to be acquired. Not only are many grammatical meaning-form relationships low in salience, but they can also be redundant in the understanding of the meaning of an utterance. For example, it is often unnecessary to interpret inflections marking grammatical meanings such as tense because they are usually accompanied by adverbs that indicate the temporal reference. Second language learners’ reliance upon adverbial over inflectional cues to tense has been extensively documented in longitudinal studies of naturalistic acquisition (Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Dietrich, Klein, and Noyau 1995), training experiments (Ellis 2007; Ellis and Sagarra 2010), and studies of L2 language processing (Van Patten 2006). 4.4. Contingency of form-function mapping Psychological research into associative learning has long recognized that while frequency of form is important, so too is contingency of mapping (Shanks 1995). Consider how, in the learning of the category of birds, while eyes and wings are equally frequently experienced features in the exemplars, it is wings that are distinctive in di¤erentiating birds from other animals. Wings are important features to learning the category of birds, because they are reliably associated with class membership, eyes are neither. Raw frequency of occurrence is less important than the contingency between cue and interpretation. Distinctiveness or reliability of form-function mapping is a driving force of all associative learning, to the degree that the field of its study has been known as ‘contingency learning’ since Rescorla (1968) showed that for classical conditioning, if one removed the contingency between the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned (US), preserving the temporal pairing between CS and US but adding additional trials where the US appeared on its own, then animals did not develop a conditioned response to the CS. This result was a milestone in the development of learning theory because it implied that it was contingency, not temporal pairing, that generated conditioned responding. Contingency, and its associated aspects of predictive value, information gain, and statistical association, have been at the core of learning theory

98

Nick Ellis

ever since. It is central in psycholinguistic theories of language acquisition too (Ellis 2006a, 2006b, 2008b; Gries and Wul¤ 2005; MacWhinney 1987b), with the most developed account for L2 acquisition being that of the Competition model (MacWhinney 1987a, 1997, 2001). Ellis and FerreiraJunior (2009b) use delta P and collostructional analysis measures (Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004; Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003) to investigate e¤ects of form-function contingency upon L2 VAC acquisition. Boyd and Goldberg (2009) use conditional probabilities to investigate contingency e¤ects in VAC acquisition. This is still an active area of inquiry, and more research is required before we know which statistical measures of formfunction contingency are more predictive of acquisition and processing. 4.5. The many aspects of frequency and their research consequences Interference with any of these aspects reduces learnability: constructions of low salience of form are hard to learn, constructions where there is low reliability or contingency between form and meaning are hard to learn, constructions with subtle construals yet to be discerned are hard to learn, and constructions of low frequency of occurrence tend to be acquired later. Such findings suggest that the learning of linguistic constructions, like other concepts, can be understood according to psychological principles of category learning.

5. Applications of frequency-based grammar to the study of L2 tense and aspect 5.1. The Aspect Hypothesis The study of tense and aspect (TA) has been a paradigm case in cognitive and functional SLA theory because of the pioneering work of such scholars as Roger Andersen, Yas Shirai, and Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig. Andersen was the first L2 researcher to pose the idea – following similar studies in L1 acquisition – that L2 language learners are initially influenced by the inherent semantic aspect of verbs in the acquisition of TA morphology a‰xed to these verbs. Andersen argued that L2 learners start out by using the perfective past morpheme with telic verbs (achievements and accomplishments, with a clear endpoint) before they extend its use to atelic verbs (activity and stative, with no inherent endpoint). After the perfective form is established, learners start to mark states with the imperfective form and later

Frequency-based grammar

99

spread its use to dynamic verbs towards telic events. Conversely, progressive marking is preferentially used with dynamic verbs (activities, accomplishments, and achievements) and it is first used with activity verbs (atelic) before it spreads to telic verbs. That is, progressivity is preferentially marked first with verbs that focus our attention on the process rather than the end-state of the process. This influence of the inherent lexical semantics of verbal predicates on the acquisition of morphosyntactic marking led to an important hypothesis of TA acquisition in terms of cognitive psychological processes of prototype formation (Andersen and Shirai 1994, 1996; Shirai and Andersen 1995). The Aspect Hypothesis (AH) (see Chapters 8 and 11; Andersen and Shirai 1994) proposes that the abstract grammatical schema for perfective past generalizes from more concrete beginnings close to the prototypic centre in the clear exemplifications of telic achievements and accomplishments. Likewise abstract progressive morphology emerges from concrete exemplars in the semantics of activities and states. Andersen’s hypothesis was based on the analysis of L2 Spanish data collected among adolescent learners in the natural (non-classroom based) social environment of acquisition. Even though Andersen did not obtain data to confirm all stages of acquisition of past tense morphology, he proposed a sequence of acquisition of eight phases. The strong association of the lexical semantics of verbal predicates was predicted to occur during the initial four stages. Andersen argued further that the final four stages are necessary in the model to account for the fact that learners are eventually able to use both markers of past tense aspect with any lexical aspectual class, thus breaking the categorical pairing of one lexical aspectual class and one grammatical marker (e.g., states and Imperfect, achievements and Preterite). The last four stages point to the fact that the appropriate use of TA verbal endings brings about a level of discursive and semantic complexity that accounts for the di‰culty L2 learners have in the process of acquisition. That is, a comprehensive account of how L2 learners approach the level of representation of TA meanings among native speakers must eventually go beyond the level of lexical aspect (cf., input frequency and prototypicality of meaning), incorporating in the process the variety of cues that underpin the more complex representations underpinning nativelike levels of grammatical aspect. Aspect-before-tense phenomena also prevail in L2 acquisition (Andersen and Shirai 1994; Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Indefrey and Gullberg 2008; Li and Shirai 2000). Adult language learners too are sensitive to the lexical aspects of verbs, initially using combinations of lexical and grammatical

100

Nick Ellis

aspect that are maximally compatible, with telicity being a particularly salient feature.2 Bardovi-Harlig (2000), in particular, presents an extensive functional analysis of the acquisition of L2 TA morphology in terms of cognitive principles and semantic prototypes. Thus L2 learners from a wide variety of L1/L2 combinations first use perfective past marking on achievements and accomplishments, and only later extend this to activities and state. Similarly, in L2s that have progressive aspect, progressive marking begins with activities and only extend slowly thereafter to accomplishments and achievements. Despite this support for the AH, the original argument about the e¤ect of the inherent lexical semantics of the verbal predicate on the morphosyntactic marking of TA was underspecified with regards the timing of this e¤ect: Does lexical aspect guide the process from the beginning stages of acquisition and later subside as learners are able to use both grammatical markers with every verb type as the AH suggests? Or, does the e¤ect of lexical aspect increase with experience in the L2? Previous researchers have not been clear on this point. Robison (1990) argued that the e¤ect of lexical aspect occurs ‘‘when L2 verb morphemes enter the interlanguage of an adult language learner’’, but also that ‘‘. . . verbal morphology correlates with lexical aspect at least during some stage during the development of an interlanguage’’ (Robison 1990: 329–330, italics added). Wiberg (1996) and Salaberry (1999) argued for an expansion of the claim made by Bergstro¨m (1995) showing that the perfective form was used with all lexical aspectual classes (not just dynamic verbs) during the very beginning stages of acquisition. Again, these results do not reject the e¤ect of a past tense prototypical marker; quite the opposite. Nevertheless, the e¤ect of straight lexical-grammatical pairings is weaker than expected by the AH. Also, more recent studies have shown that the e¤ect of lexical aspect tends to increase with exposure to the L2. This is contrary to the expectation that lexical semantics has maximum e¤ect at first until nonprototypical pairings are eventually incorporated to the L2 system. In fact, even early proponents of the AH have acknowledged the replication of findings that demonstrate the increasing rather than decreasing e¤ect of 2. There is a substantial amount of empirical evidence o¤ered in favor of the Aspect Hypothesis in SLA (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig 1998, 2000; Bardovi-Harlig and Reynolds 1995; Bergstro¨m 1995; Camps 2002, 2005; Collins 2002, 2004; Comajoan 2001, 2006; Hasbu´n 1995; Salaberry 1998; Shirai and Kurono 1998, which examined cloze passages, and Bardovi-Harlig 1998, 2000, which investigated oral production data obtained from narratives).

Frequency-based grammar

101

prototypical tense-aspect markings. Thus, Shirai (2004: 103) states that at least in some contexts ‘‘in cross-sectional studies involving production data, the prototypical association becomes stronger as the learner’s proficiency increases’’. These results are in agreement with the importance of type and token frequency; that is, the productivity of a pattern is a function of type frequency; the more forms that exemplify a pattern, the more productive that pattern becomes (see Section 4.1.2.) Perhaps the strongest evidence in favor of the increasing association of grammatical marking of tense-aspect and lexical aspectual classes as learners acquire more experience in the L2 is provided by Salaberry (2011) with a study that compared the claims of the AH and the Discourse Hypothesis (DH). The findings are important because this study used a large number of participants, thus providing a more robust data set than is normally used in TA studies. The results showed both that L2 learners increased their use of past tense markers in association with the inherent lexical meanings of verb phrase, and, more importantly, that native speakers had the highest association of prototypical pairings in their use. Thus, L2 learners seem to be converging, in asymptotic terms, towards the native speaker norm. That is, the main factor behind this change seems to be the distributional bias present in native speakers’ choices, which is clearly related to exposure and frequency of data. Obviously, as L2 learners gain more experience in the language and have more exposure to language samples, they are able to converge more and more towards the native speaker standard. A frequency-based approach argues that frequency/prototypicality e¤ects are there from the very get-go, because they determine the sample of language which a learner is likely to experience. Zipf ’s law entails that particular exemplars are very high frequency – these are the ones a learner is going to experience first, and these are the ones that therefore seed the system. If, as is typical in language, the high frequency forms in a construction are also prototypical in meaning, then these are the ones a learner will sample (Sections 4.1.3 and 4.3.1). These results are in line with other studies that have investigated the influence of input frequency on TA acquisition in L1 (Shirai, Slobin, and Weist 1998) and L2 (Andersen 1990). More specifically, Andersen (1990, the Distributional Bias Hypothesis) observed that the input available to learners exhibits distributional patterns similar to those observed in learners’ productions: ‘‘Native speakers in interaction with other native speakers tend to use each verb morpheme with a specific class of verbs, also following the aspect hypothesis’’ (Andersen and Shirai 1994: 137). Such input frequency biases should aid the statistical learning of TA constructions.

102

Nick Ellis

5.2. The e¤ect of frequency-based constructionist biases on the acquisition of L2 aspect Wul¤ et al. (2009) analyzed the e¤ect of the constructionist principles outlined in Section 4 (input frequency, prototypicality of meaning, and contingency of form-function mapping) for learning TA meanings using corpus linguistic analyses of representative samples of language input and of learner language. The study was designed to test frequency-based constructionist hypotheses for the acquisition of English L2 TA constructions as cognitive categories. The particular hypotheses used in this study, and the findings relating to them, were as follows: H1: Natural language data has a distributional bias whereby some verb types occupy each TA construction much more frequently than others, the distribution of the types constituting each construction being Zipfian.

In order to examine frequency biases in the input, we retrieved verb form frequencies for all verbs from two native speaker corpora taken to represent the type of language input adult L2 learners are exposed to: the 10 million word spoken section of the British National Corpus (BNCspoken) and the 1.7 million word Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE, Simpson et al. 2002). All verb form frequencies were retrieved from CLAWS-tagged versions of BNCspoken and MICASE, respectively. When we analyzed the verbs tagged as simple past or progressive, their frequency distributions across the di¤erent TA categories was Zipfian: the frequency with which verbs occur with a certain TA category is inversely proportional to their rank in the frequency table, with the most frequent verb types accounting for the lion’s share of all occurrences of any given TA morpheme. Unlike for the VAC data in Ellis and Ferreira-Junior (2009a, b) however, the top ten most frequent verbs within each category were not typically distinctive of that category, because the very highest frequency verbs in the language (like do, be, have, and get) naturally occupy the top ranks across all TA categories. H2: More-frequent verbs in each TA construction are distinctively associated with that construction in the input.

In order to determine which verbs are particularly associated with the progressive and the perfective more systematically, we computed formmeaning contingencies (see Section 4.4), in this case using a multiple dis-

Frequency-based grammar

103

tinctive collexeme analysis (MDCA) for the BNCspoken and MICASE data sets (Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004). The association-based distributions showed that a small number of verbs are extremely highly associated with a particular TA category, and association strength drops exponentially thereafter. Ranking the top ten most distinctively associated verbs for each TA reflected intuitions about verbs that typically occur with the di¤erent TA categories: the past and perfect TA columns were occupied by highly telic verbs such as die, crash, explode, lose, or finish; the progressive preferred continuous action verbs like sit, play, walk, and run. These distinctively-associated verbs, while not the highest frequency in the language (H1), are frequently experienced in that construction. H3: The verbs most distinctively associated with each TA construction in the input are prototypical of the meaning of that construction.

In order to investigate the prototypicality of the verbs, we obtained native speaker telicity ratings for a range of verbs selected from these analyses from 20 native speakers of American English. A questionnaire presented the verbs in isolation, without arguments, and in their base forms. Subjects were instructed to evaluate each verb with regard to how strongly it implies an endpoint expressed in values from 1 (if there is no endpoint implied) to 7 (if an endpoint is strongly implied). Three examples were given: smash as a highly telic verb, continue as an example of a verb that is located at the opposite, atelic end of the continuum, and swim as an example of a verb that falls somewhere in between. The resulting Telicity Rating data demonstrated that those verbs distinctively associated with past tense in the input received significantly higher telicity ratings than verbs associated with the progressive (MICASE data: t ¼ 2.107; df ¼ 18; p ¼ .049; BNC spoken data: t ¼ 4.356; df ¼ 18; p < .001). H4: The first-learned verbs in each TA construction are prototypical of that construction’s functional interpretation in terms of their telicity/lexical aspect.

Wul¤ et al. analyzed oral production data collected by Bardovi-Harlig (2000), who had 37 English beginning L2 learners from 5 di¤erent L1 backgrounds watch an excerpt of Modern Times and then tell the story in their own words. The resulting narratives produced an average of 51 verb tokens. All verb forms were coded for TA morphology (that is, simple

104

Nick Ellis

past, past progressive, pluperfect, present, present progressive, progressive without auxiliaries, present perfect, or ‘‘uninterpretable’’). For the purpose of their study, Wul¤ et al. selected from this data set verbs that occurred more than 10 times overall and which were distinctly associated with present, simple past, or progressive as determined by a chi-square test. The 5 most frequently occurring past tense verbs in the learner production data (say, see, steal, take, tell ) and the 5 most frequently occurring progressive verbs (begin, eat, run, think, walk) di¤ered significantly in their mean telicity ratings (t ¼ 2.838; df ¼ 9; p < .01), with the past tense verbs being judged more telic and the progressive verbs more atelic. In sum, the results of Wul¤ et al. (2009) suggested that the verbs first learned by adults in the progressive are also frequent in the progressive in the input, distinctively associated with the progressive in the input, and highly atelic (i.e., significantly less telic than verbs frequent and associated with past tense in the input). Likewise, the verbs first learned in past tense are frequent in past tense in the input, highly distinctive for past tense in the input, and highly telic. These findings provide some support for the hypothesis that the learning of tense and aspect, like that of other linguistic constructions, can be understood according to psychological principles of category learning. In terms of the frequency-based associative, cognitive, and functional properties of TA construction learning: (1) The first-learned verbs in each TA construction are those which appear frequently in that construction in the input. (2) The first-learned pathbreaking verbs for each TA construction are distinctive of that construction – the contingency of forms and function is reliable. (3) The first-learned verbs in each TA construction are those which are prototypical of the construction’s functional interpretation in terms of telicity/lexical aspect. In sum, TA construction learning is sensitive to input frequency, reliabilities of formfunction mapping, and prototypicality of lexical aspect in English. Although the analyses of spoken language carried out by Wul¤ et al. (2009) involved quite extensive corpus analysis, it is a stretch to claim that the language sampled therein was properly representative of that to which the ESL learners had been exposed. Additionally, the learner data was small, far from dense, and it covered only a very short period of initial acquisition. Finally, the study focused on L2 English only as the target language. We turn next to the analysis of more advanced levels of L2 Spanish, a language with a complex representation of tense-aspect markers to investigate the e¤ect of input frequency, prototypicality, and the mappings of form and meaning.

Frequency-based grammar

105

5.3. The e¤ect of frequency-based constructionist biases on acquisition of Spanish L2 aspect The e¤ects described for English above are, by and large, also relevant for the analysis of L2 Spanish data. However, the analysis of more advanced Spanish data to be discussed below (from Salaberry 2011) brings about a challenge for any constructionist approach operating only at a lexical level: the distinction between the aspectual concepts of iterativity and habituality as shown in sentences (1a) and (1b). (1a) Cuando era nin˜o, Lucas jugaba al fu´tbol. [habitual] When [he] was a child, Lucas played/used to/would (IMP) play soccer. (1b) Por an˜os, Lucas jugo´ al fu´tbol. [iterative] For years, Lucas played (PRET) soccer. The main challenge for learners is that the use of the perfective form to make reference to extended events in the past is predicated on the facts that iterativity (a) is not very frequent in the input, and (b) it does not represent a prototypical marker of iteration (i.e., the imperfective form is the prototypical marker, as documented in one of the most traditional and used rules taught to Spanish learners). On the other hand, learners can benefit from the fact that the grammatical marking of iterated events provides a direct mapping of form and function (i.e., iterativity is always marked with the Preterite, whereas habituality is marked with the Imperfect). That is, L2 learners need to go beyond the realm of prototypical pairings of lexical aspect and grammatical markings to learn some specific aspectual meanings that are clearly marked in Spanish through the choice of perfective or imperfective marker. To do so, however, L2 learners must take into account broader pieces of discourse than would be required to make decisions about straightforward lexical-grammatical pairings (as discussed in the analysis of English data above). If the challenge is to process ever-longer pieces of discourse to make judgments on the aspectual representation of eventualities, one of the first, most immediate elements that has to be considered to mark aspectual contrasts is the role of adverbial phrases. For instance, Mene´ndez-Benito (2001) shows how adverbial phrases can change the prototypical meaning of the perfective marker in Spanish (i.e., episodic meanings) to represent the iteration of eventualities (i.e., an aspectual concept reserved for the imperfective marker). The di‰culty brought about by the broader discourse prompted by the computation of adverbials (on top of the analysis of external and

106

Nick Ellis

internal arguments) for the marking of iterated eventualities is corroborated by the few studies that have looked at this area of studies. Previous studies (e.g., Pe´rez-Leroux et al. 2007; Salaberry and Martins 2011; Slabakova and Montrul 2007) show, categorically, that L2 learners – even highly advanced learners – fail to recognize the aspectual meaning of iterativity (conveyed through the use of the Preterite) as distinct from the meaning of habituality (conveyed through the use of the Imperfect). A constructionist explanation that the use of the Spanish Preterite to express iterativity is di‰cult for L2 learners to acquire would first point to the facts that iterative meanings of the Preterite are neither frequent in the input nor prototypical of the perfective form. A richer analysis of the problem is, nevertheless, possible given that the focus of Construction Grammar is as much about constructions above the word level (e.g., grounding information) as about lexical or morphological units (e.g., lexico-semantic information), thus we assign a prominent role to the conspiracy of cues in processing (see Section 4.1.3 and the acquisition of Verbargument constructions). In this respect, native speakers systematically use cues provided by adverbial phrases to select the use of Preterite or Imperfect to mark either iterativity or habituality. The debate is whether we can correlate the use of Preterite and Imperfect with generic and durational adverbial phrases as proposed by Mene´ndez-Benito (2001), or specific adverbial phrase constructions as proposed by Salaberry and Martins (2011), or some other alternative option. Further research needs to investigate how the lexical-level cues act in combination with adverbial phrases, and how learners may be more sensitive to some cues (lexical or discoursebuilding) in this conspiracy at di¤erent stages of language acquisition (Salaberry 2008, 2011; Rosi 2010). 6. Conclusions and future research directions The first part of this chapter gathered a range of frequency-related factors that influence the acquisition of any linguistic constructions: 1. the frequency, the frequency distribution, and the salience of the form types, 2. the frequency, the frequency distribution, the prototypicality and generality of the semantic types, their importance in interpreting the overall construction, 3. the reliabilities of the mapping between 1 and 2, and 4. the degree to which the di¤erent elements in the construction are mutually informative and form predictable chunks.

Frequency-based grammar

107

The second part applied these factors to TA acquisition. Before learners can recognize or use TA constructions productively, they have to analyze them, to identify their linguistic form, and then map it to meaning. Each construction has its own form, meaning, and corresponding mapping pattern. Research shows that the input that learners get is biased so that they experience past tense forms predominantly with verbs which are distinctively associated with more telic construals, and progressive forms predominantly with verbs which are distinctively associated with more atelic construals. Language lines up with the world, or, better, with the way we construe it. Our understanding of the world lines up with our language. Our actions in the world, our categorization of the world, and our talk about these actions and classifications occur in broadly parallel relative frequencies. Such parallels make constructions learnable. There are many factors involved, and research to date has tended to look at each hypothesis by hypothesis, variable by variable, one at a time. But they interact. And what we really want is a model of usage and its e¤ects upon acquisition. We can measure these factors individually. But such counts are vague indicators of how the demands of human interaction a¤ect the content and ongoing co-adaptation of discourse, how this is perceived and interpreted, how usage episodes are assimilated into the learner’s system, and how the system reacts accordingly (see Chapters 10, 11, and 12). Usage is rich in latent linguistic structure, thus frequencies of usage count in the emergence of linguistic constructions. Corpus Linguistics provides the proper empirical means whereby language input can be counted. But this is not enough; we also require an understanding of the psychology of cognition, learning, attention, and development. Sensation is not perception, and the psychophysical relations mapping physical onto psychological scales are complex. The world of conscious experience is not the world itself but a construal crucially determined by attentional limitations, prior knowledge, embodiment, and context. Not every experience is equal – e¤ects of practice are greatest at early stages but eventually reach asymptote. The associative learning of constructions as form-meaning pairs is a¤ected by: factors relating to the form such as frequency and salience; factors relating to the interpretation such as significance in the comprehension of the overall utterance, prototypicality, generality, and redundancy; factors relating to the contingency of form and function; and factors relating to learner attention, such as automaticity, transfer, and blocking.

108

Nick Ellis

Univariate counts are vague indicators of how the demands of human interaction a¤ect the content and ongoing co-adaptation of discourse, how this is perceived and interpreted, how usage episodes are assimilated into the learner’s system, and how the linguistic system reacts accordingly. We need models of learning, language, meaning, usage, interaction, development, and emergence that take all these factors into account dynamically. Some progress on language and meaning comes from cognitive linguistics (Robinson and Ellis 2008), though this is often non-quantitative research. Some progress on language usage comes from corpus linguistics (Gries and Divjak, in press), though all too often this is cognition-light. Some progress on interaction comes from work on the Interaction Hypothesis (Mackey and Gass 2006), though too often this is language-light. Some progress on emergence is being made in emergentism and complexity theory (Ellis 1998; Ellis and Larsen Freeman 2006a; Ellis and LarsenFreeman 2009b; Elman et al. 1996; Larsen-Freeman 1997; Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008; MacWhinney 1999) which analyzes how complex patterns emerge from the interactions of many agents, how each emergent level cannot come into being except by involving the levels that lie below it, and how at each higher level there are new and emergent kinds of relatedness not found below. These approaches align well with dynamic system theory, which considers how cognitive, social, and environmental factors are in continuous interactions, where flux and individual variation abound, and where cause-e¤ect relationships are non-linear, multivariate, and interactive in time (de Bot, Lowie, and Verspoor 2007; Ellis 2008a; Ellis and Larsen Freeman 2006a, 2006b; Port and van Gelder 1995; Spencer, Thomas, and McClelland 2009; Spivey 2006; van Geert 1991). But research in emergence and dynamic system theory are often light in the details of the component parts. Recent developments in corpus linguistics, neuro-linguistic programming, and computer simulation suggest that a tractable approach is to combine the qualitative linguistic analyses of construction grammar and corpus linguistics as applied to longitudinal corpora of learner language and large samples of representative input. These can then to be brought together in quantitative computer simulations of construction acquisition (Christiansen and Chater 2001), either connectionist, agent-based, or exemplar-driven, illustrated, for example, in the initial explorations of MacWhinney and Leinbach (1991), Ellis and Schmidt (1998), Li and Shirai (2000), and Ellis with LarsenFreeman (2009a). Even then, much will remain to be done in building into such models more sophisticated representation of salience of form and its perception, meaning and embodiment, and learner attention.

Frequency-based grammar

109

The analyses of the psychological representation of TA meanings, the linguistic means by which these representations are explicitly conveyed in usage, and their developmental sequences in interlanguage together provide a rich testing-ground for investigation of cognitive and linguistic universals of TA and of the role of frequency-tuning in the usage-based abstraction of constructions as categories.

References Andersen, Roger 1990 Models, processes, principles and strategies: second language acquisition inside and outside of the classroom. In B. Van Patten & J. Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition – Foreign language learning, 45–68. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Andersen, Roger & Yasuhiro Shirai 1994 Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16. 133–156. Andersen, Roger & Yasuhiro Shirai 1996 The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The pidgin-creole connection. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 527–570. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1998 Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 471–508. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 2000 Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Dudley Reynolds 1995 The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense and aspect. TESOL Quarterly 29. 107–131. Bates, Elizabeth & Brian MacWhinney 1987 Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 157–193. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bock, J. Kathrin 1986 Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18. 355–387. Bod, Rens, Jennifer Hay & Stefanie Jannedy (Eds.) 2003 Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boyd, Jeremy & Adele Goldberg 2009 Input e¤ects within a constructionist framework. Modern Language Journal 93(2). 418–429.

110

Nick Ellis

Bybee, Joan 2008

Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 216–236. London: Routledge. Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper (Eds.) 2001 Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson 2000 Three frequency e¤ects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society 23. 65–85. Christiansen, Morten H. & Nick Chater (Eds.) 2001 Connectionist psycholinguistics. Westport, CO: Ablex. Clark, Eve 1978 Discovering what words can do. In D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen & K. W. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on the lexicon, Chicago Linguistics Society April 14–15 1978, 34–57. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Collins, Laura 2002 The roles of L1 influence and lexical aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology. Language Learning 52. 43–94. Collins, Laura & Nick Ellis 2009 Input and second language construction learning: frequency, form, and function: Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal 93(2). 329–335. Croft, William 2001 Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Croft, William & Alan Cruise 2004 Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Bot, Kees, Wandar Lowie & Marjoliyn Verspoor 2007 A dynamic systems theory to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10. 7–21. Dietrich, Rainer, Wolfgang Klein & Colette Noyau (Eds.) 1995 The acquisition of temporality in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Elio, Renee & John Anderson 1981 The e¤ects of category generalizations and instance similarity on schema abstraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 7(6). 397–417. Elio, Renee & John Anderson 1984 The e¤ects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory and Cognition 12(1). 20–30. Ellis, Nick 1998 Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning 48(4). 631–664.

Frequency-based grammar Ellis, Nick 2002a

Ellis, Nick 2002b Ellis, Nick 2003

Ellis, Nick 2006a Ellis, Nick 2006b

Ellis, Nick 2007

Ellis, Nick 2008a

Ellis, Nick 2008b

111

Frequency e¤ects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 143–188. Reflections on frequency e¤ects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 297–339. Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 63–103. Oxford: Blackwell. Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics 27(1). 1–24. Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics 27(2). 1–31. Blocking and learned attention in language acquisition. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society, 965–970. Austin: Cognitive Science Society. The dynamics of language use, language change, and first and second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal 41(3). 232–249.

Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned-attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 372–405. London: Routledge. Ellis, Nick & Teresa Cadierno 2009 Constructing a second language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7 (Special section). Ellis, Nick & Fernando Ferreira-Junior 2009a Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal 93. 370–386. Ellis, Nick & Fernando Ferreira-Junior 2009b Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 111–139.

112

Nick Ellis

Ellis, Nick & Diane Larsen Freeman (Eds.) 2006a Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 27(4). Ellis, Nick & Diane Larsen Freeman 2006b Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics (introduction to the special issue). Applied Linguistics 27(4). 558–589. Ellis, Nick & Diane Larsen Freeman 2009a Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning 59 (Supplement 1). 93–128. Ellis, Nick & Diane Larsen Freeman (Eds.) 2009b Language as a complex adaptive system (special issue). Language Learning 59. Supplement 1. Ellis, Nick & Matthew O’Donnell in press Statistical construction learning: Does a Zipfian problem space ensure robust language learning? In J. Rebuschatand J. Williams (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition, 265–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ellis, Nick & Nuria Sagarra 2010 The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(4). 553–580. Ellis, Nick & Richard Schmidt 1998 Rules or associations in the acquisition of morphology? The frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13 (2 and 3). 307–336. Elman, Je¤rey, Elizabeth Bates, Mark Johnson, Annette Karmilo¤-Smith, Domenico Parisi & Kim Plunkett 1996 Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon & Richard Sole´ 2001 The small world of human language. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. 268. 2261–2265. Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon & Richard Sole´ 2003 Least e¤ort and the origins of scaling in human language. PNAS 100. 788–791. Goldberg, Adele 1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele 2003 Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7. 219–224. Goldberg, Adele 2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Frequency-based grammar

113

Goldberg, Adele, Devin Casenhiser & Nitya Sethuraman 2004 Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15. 289–316. Goldschneider, Jennifer & Robert DeKeyser 2001 Explaining the ‘‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 51. 1–50. Gries, Stefan & Dagmar Divjak (Eds.) in press Frequency e¤ects in cognitive linguistics (Vol. 1): Statistical e¤ects in learnability, processing and change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gries, Stefan & Anatol Stefanowitsch 2004 Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9. 97–129. Gries, Stefan & Stefanie Wul¤ 2005 Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3. 182–200. Harnad, Stevan (Ed.) 1987 Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Indefrey, Peter & Marianne Gullberg 2008 Time to speak: Cognitive and neural prerequisites for time in language. Language Learning 58. Jurafsky, Dan 2002 Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In R. Bod, J. Hay & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic Linguistics, 39–96. Harvard, MA: MIT Press. Jurafsky, Daniel & James Martin 2000 Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics. Englewood Cli¤s, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lako¤, George 1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald 1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, Diane 1997 Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18. 141–165. Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Lynne Cameron 2008 Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

114

Nick Ellis

Li, Ping & Yasuhiro Shirai 2000 The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Amsterdam: De Gruyter. Lieberman, Erez, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Joe Jackson, Tina Tang & Martin Nowak 2007 Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature 449(7163). 713–716. Mackey, Allison & Susan Gass 2006 Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An Introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28. 169–178. MacWhinney, Brian 1987a Applying the Competition Model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics 8(4). 315–327. MacWhinney, Brian 1987b The Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 249–308. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. MacWhinney, Brian 1997 Second language acquisition and the Competition Model. In A. M. B. De Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, 113–142. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. MacWhinney, Brian 2001 The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 69–90. New York: Cambridge University Press. MacWhinney, Brian 1999 The emergence of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. MacWhinney, Brian & Jared Leinbach 1991 Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model. Cognition 40(1–2). 121–157. McDonough, Kim 2006 Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28. 179–207. McDonough, Kim & Allison Mackey 2006 Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production and linguistic development. Language Learning 56. 693–720. McDonough, Kim & Pavel Trofimovich 2008 Using priming methods in second language research. London: Routledge. Mene´ndez-Benito, Paula 2002 Aspect and adverbial quantification in Spanish. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd North Eastern Linguistics Society, Amherst, MA.

Frequency-based grammar Ninio, Anat 1999

Ninio, Anat 2006

115

Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language 26. 619– 653.

Language and the learning curve: A new theory of syntactic development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pagel, Mark, Quentin Atkinson & Andrew Meade 2007 Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 449(7163). 717–720. Pe´rez-Leroux, Ana, Alejandro Cuza, Monika Majzlanova & Jeanette Sa´nchez Naranjo 2007 Non-native recognition of the iterative and habitual meanings of Spanish preterite and imperfect tenses. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), Formal features in second language acquisition, 432–451. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pickering, Martin 2006 The dance of dialogue. The Psychologist 19. 734–737. Pickering, Martin & Victor Ferreira 2008 Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134. 427–459. Pickering, Martin & Simon Garrod 2006 Alignment as the basis for successful communication. Research on Language and Computation 4. 203–228. Pinker, Steven 1989 Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books. Port, Robert & Timothy Van Gelder 1995 Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition. Boston MA: MIT Press. Posner, Michael & Steven Keele 1970 Retention of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology 83. 304–308. Rescorla, Robert 1968 Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 66. 1–5. Rescorla, Robert & Allan Wagner 1972 A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the e¤ectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research, 64–99. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Robinson, Peter & Nick Ellis (Eds.) 2008 A handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.

116

Nick Ellis

Rosch, Eleanor & Carolyn Mervis 1975 Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104. 192–233. Rosch, Eleanor, Carolyn Mervis, Wayne Gray, David Johnson & Penny BoyesBraem 1976 Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8. 382– 439. Rosi, Fabiana 2009 Learning aspect in Italian L2: Corpus annotation, acquisitional patterns, and connectionist modelling. Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2008 Marking past tense in second language acquisition. London: Continuum Press. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2011 Assessing the e¤ect of lexical aspect and grounding on the acquisition of L2 Spanish past tense morphology among L1 English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(2). 184–202. Salaberry, M. Rafael & Custo´dio Martins 2011 Non-accidental generalizations of the Preterite and Imperfect in Spanish. Paper presented at the CHRONOS 10: Tenth International Conference on Tense, Aspect, Evidentiality and Modality, Aston University, Birmingham, England. Shanks, David 1995 The psychology of associative learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Roger Andersen 1995 The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Language 71. 743– 762. Shirai, Yasuhiro, Dan Slobin & Richard Weist 1998 Introduction: the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. First Language 18. 245–253. Simpson, Rita, Sarah Briggs, Janine Ovens & John Swales 2002 The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Retrieved from http://micase.elicorpora.info. Slabakova, Roumyana & Silvina Montrul 2007 L2 acquisition at the grammar-discourse interface: Aspectual shifts in L2 Spanish. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), Formal features in second language acquisition, 452–483. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Slobin, Dan 1997 The origins of grammaticizable notions: Beyond the individual mind. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 5), 265–323. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Spencer, John, Michael Thomas & James McClelland (Eds.) 2009 Toward a unified theory of development: Connectionism and dynamic systems theory re-considered. New York: Oxford.

Frequency-based grammar

117

Spivey, Michael 2006 The continuity of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Gries 2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8. 209– 243. Taylor, John 1998 Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 177–202. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Tomasello, Michael 2003 Constructing a language. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Tomasello, Michael 1998 The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Tversky, Amos 1977 Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84. 327–352. van Geert, Paul 1991 A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth. Psychological Review 98. 3–53. Van Patten, Bill 2006 Input processing. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, 1–16. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1953 Philosophical investigations (G.E.M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell. Wul¤, Stefanie, Nick Ellis, Ute Ro¨mer, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig & Chelsea LeBlanc 2009 The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora, cognition, and learner constructions. Modern Language Journal 93. 354–369. Zipf, George 1935 The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.

Chapter 4 Generative approaches to the L2 acquisition of temporal-aspectual-mood systems Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman 1. Introduction The objective of this chapter is to present a concise overview of the current literature on the adult second language (L2) acquisition of tense, aspect and modality (TAM) from the generative perspective. In doing so, we highlight how such studies approach the topic and how they contribute to our understanding of the acquisition of L2 TAM systems and morphosyntax more generally. First, we present the theoretical underpinnings of current generative morpho-syntactic theory and contextualize the assumptions proposed under this paradigm. In reviewing the six most well-known hypotheses that have been tested with empirical data, Salaberry and Ayoun (2005) present a non-exhaustive overview of the factors relevant to various approaches to the investigation of L2 TAM systems: (a) pragmatic factors; (b) semantic factors (i.e., the Lexical Aspect Hypothesis; (c) contextual factors (i.e., the Discourse Hypothesis); (d) input-based factors: (i.e., the Distributional Bias Hypothesis); (e) cognitive processing factors (i.e., the Default Past Tense Hypothesis); and (f ) syntactic factors (i.e., the UG-Minimalist Hypothesis). They correctly point out that the UG-Minimalist Hypothesis relies on syntax to provide an explanatory account of tense and (lexical and grammatical) aspectual phenomena (e.g., early studies by DeMiguel 1992 and Giorgi and Pianesi 1997). However, empirical studies soon expanded the strictly syntactic line of inquiry by concerning themselves with the interaction between morphosyntax and semantics (e.g., Schell 2000), going beyond the traditional functional categories such as the Inner and Outer Aspect Phrases and Mood Phrase that host aspect and mood/modality. For instance, such studies have examined target-like use of inflectional morphology based on the productive use of perfective and non-perfective morphology in personal narratives. Most research conducted within a Universal Grammar (UG) perspective shows that no one theoretical approach can neatly account for TAM

120

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

systems in isolation because TAM is dependent on factors from many linguistic domains at the same time – syntax, morphology, semantics, and discourse/pragmatics – as well as the integration of information (operationalized as features) across internal and external linguistic-cognitive interfaces. By increasingly focusing on how these various areas are interconnected (e.g., Jackendo¤ 2002; Reinhart 2006; Rothman and Slabakova 2011; Sorace 2011; White 2011), examining TAM properties as interfaceconditioned properties has become crucial both from a theoretical and an applied linguistic perspective. In particular, doing so has placed L2 TAM studies at the center of current generative second language acquisition (SLA) research from which the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace 2011 inter alia) can be tested (e.g., Gabriele and Canales 2011; Iverson, Kempchinsky, and Rothman 2008). The Interface Hypothesis claims that properties at interfaces – overlapping points in the mental representation of grammar where syntactic computation involves the integration of properties between the syntactic and at least one other linguistic-cognitive module – are more formally complex than narrow syntactic properties, resulting in the increased likelihood of residual optionality even at the near-native L2 steady state. In fact, since TAM properties are relevant to both internal interfaces (i.e., the interaction between two or more grammar internal modules such as morphologysyntax, lexicon-syntax and syntax-semantics) and external interfaces (i.e., the interaction between a grammar internal module and cognition more generally such as syntax-discourse-pragmatics interface), examining various TAM domains in adult L2 acquisition can also test the most current instantiations of the Interface Hypothesis, claiming a di¤erence in formal complexity and processing-based expected outcomes between internal and external interfaces (e.g., Sorace and Serratrice 2009; Tsimpli and Sorace 2006; Sorace 2011). Although we adopt the position that L2 grammars continue to be constrained by an accessible UG, thereby proposing that functional categories and their features (see Section 3.3.) are in principle acquirable in adulthood, we are also careful to take into account cognitive factors which may conspire to keep L2 learners from being fully successful in the mapping of abstract features to the appropriate L2 surface morphology, presumably due to processing di‰culties, L1 transfer e¤ects in various domains such as prosodic transfer, and/or the inherent di‰culty of remapping and reassembling features (e.g., Goad and White 2008, Lardiere 2009; Slabakova 2008, but see Bley-Vroman 2009).

Generative perspectives

121

2. Generative Linguistics as a theory of representation and acquisition UG is an innate language faculty equipped with abstract principles of grammar and features that give rise to parametric di¤erences across languages. It is also a theory of the structure and acquisition of language that finds its genesis in the broader break within the cognitive sciences from behaviorism in the late 1950s and early 1960s (e.g., Chomsky 1959, 1965). UG theory is also known as the parameter-setting theory or as the Principles and Parameters theory (P&P) (Chomsky 1981), details of which are further developed below. Generative acquisition theory di¤ers from other cognitive-based linguistic theories such as connectionism (e.g., Bybee 2001; Ellis 2008) and emergentism (e.g., O’Grady 2005) despite the fact that all cognitive linguistic theories agree that language and its acquisition are unique byproducts of human cognition and experience with primary linguistic data (i.e., the input to which children and adults alike are exposed). Only UG theory maintains that language structure and its acquisition are constrained by innate knowledge specific to language in the sense of modularity; that is, the human mind is hypothesized to be highly specialized with inborn linguistic structure. As Valian (2009) describes it, nativist views take the position that language acquisition starts with inborn abstract entities, for example, innate knowledge of functional syntactic categories such as the Determiner Phrase (DP), Verb Phrase (VP) and Complementizer Phrase (CP). Details of how these functional categories work in particular languages of the environment are filled in via experience with primary linguistic data. Alternatively, the converse is true of other cognitive theories: language acquirers are said to use the details of the input whereby frequencies and general cognitive learning mechanisms combine to derive abstract categories such as DP, VP, and CP (see Chapter 3). The question, thus, is not one of linguistic description as most cognitive-based theories use similar grammatically descriptive tools, nor is it a debate on whether or not language acquisition entails mental representations specific for language. Linguistic nativist researchers who approach language acquisition from a cognitive science angle agree that ‘‘Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious e¤ort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more general abilities to process information or behave intelligently’’ (Pinker 1994: 18). Citing the logical problem of language acquisition (Chomsky 1965, 1981) for the case of children – the acquisition of complex

122

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

linguistic knowledge that is argued to be lacking in available input – UG theory maintains that associative (domain-general) learning alone insu‰ciently accounts for the entirety of acquisition.1 In Chomsky’s (1965: 58) original words, which hold true four decades later in the view of generative linguists: A consideration of the character of the grammar that is acquired, the degenerate quality and narrowly limited extent of available data, the striking uniformity of the resulting grammars, and their independence of intelligence, motivation and emotional state, over wide ranges of variation, leave little hope that much of the structure of language can be learned by an organism initially uniformed as to its general character.

Herein, we highlight what the generative perspective contributes to the understanding of how adult acquisition of TAM occurs, but also how examining these domains specifically contributes to a more complete understanding of how non-native language is represented in the mind/brain of individual learners. Some of the reviewed L2 TAM studies (e.g., Iverson, Kempchinsky, and Rothman 2008; Slabakova and Montrul 2003) provide evidence of a similar logical problem for L2 acquisition (e.g., Schwartz 1998), that is, evidence of L2 poverty of the stimulus knowledge related to target TAM systems. Such evidence strongly suggests a continued role for UG in adult language acquisition despite observable di¤erences in developmental sequence and ultimate attainment that are also amply exemplified in the studies we review below.

3. Linguistic theory and language acquisition Explanation in formal linguistic theory has at least two main goals. The first is to specify a model for a universal faculty of language (i.e., UG) and which of its properties come into play in defining the form of individual linguistic systems, that is, the particular languages that people speak. The second goal is to elucidate the course of linguistic development, isolat and 1. See a special issue of the journal The Linguistic Review (2002, volumes 1 and 2) entitled A review of the poverty of the stimulus argument for a collection of recent articles that address the debate inherent to this topic, as well as Rothman and Iverson (2008), who use the criteria set forth in Pullman and Scholz (2002) to demonstrate that poverty of the stimulus, at least for complex semantic entailments derived via the acquisition of syntactic derivation, robustly exists.

Generative perspectives

123

then explaining the steps through which individuals proceed from an initial state of underspecified structures through a series of consecutive states of more detailed specification. According to the UG approach, when exposed to su‰cient primary linguistic data, the child is able to identify in the input the triggers whose acquisition results in the sequential transition from the universal initial state to the ultimate attainment of a mature, arguably steady state particular language grammar (e.g., Guasti 2002; Snyder 2007). 3.1. Parameterization: explaining cross-linguistic variation As mentioned above, Principles and Parameters (P&P) is the general framework adopted by UG acquisition approaches (Chomsky 1981), of which the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1992, 1995, 2001) is the most recent instantiation. It maintains basic assumptions regarding language acquisition such as: ‘‘languages are based on simple principles that interact to form often intricate structures’’ (Chomsky 1993: 2); and UG continues to ‘‘[provide] a fixed system of principles and a finite array of finitely valued parameters. The language-particular rules reduce to choice of values for these parameters’’ (Chomsky 1993: 4). Universal principles are constraints on grammatical well-formedness, which by definition, are logistically simplistic (i.e., economic) and equally true of every natural human language. For example, the fact that all languages minimally require a subject referent for all verbal predicates is formally captured under the Extended Project Principle. However, in order to account for cross-linguistic variations, it is proposed that principles are associated with linguistic parameters assumed to present at least two di¤erent options, or settings, yielding di¤erent possibilities that languages can variably adopt. Setting relevant parameters to the appropriate value generates the core grammar of the language being acquired (but see Ayoun 2003 for a critical review of parameter setting theory). Let us take the Telicity Parameter as an example of such cross-linguistic di¤erences. A basic semantic feature along with dynamicity and durativity, telicity (from Greek telos meaning ‘‘limit’’, ‘‘end’’, or ‘‘goal’’) is an interpretable feature (i.e., it has semantic content): [þtelic] events have an inherent, natural endpoint in time, whereas [telic] events do not. Thus, following the widely used Mourelatos-Vendlerian classification of predicates, states and activities are atelic, whereas achievement and accomplishment predicates are telic (e.g., Smith 1997).

124

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

Bulgarian, English, and Spanish instantiate di¤erent settings of the Telicity Parameter as illustrated in the following examples:2 (1) a. b. c.

Zlatko ate pizza *in fifteen minutes / for fifteen minutes. Zlatko comı´a (la) pizza *en quince minutos/por quince minutos. Zlatko jade pizza *za petnajset minuti/petnajset minuti ‘Zlatko ate/was eating (some) pizza for fifteen minutes’.

(2) a.

Zlatko ate the pizza in ten minutes / for ten minutes. Zlatko comio´ la pizza en diez minutos/*por diez minutos.

b. c.

Zlatko iz-jade pizza-ta za deset minuti/*deset minuti. Zlatko prefix-ate pizza-DET in ten minutes/*for ten minutes3 ‘Zlatko ate up (all) the pizza in ten minutes/*for ten minutes’.

In examples (1) and (2), it can be seen that the three languages encode telicity di¤erently. Germanic and Romance languages require the morphosyntax of the Direct Object-Determiner Phrase (DO-DP) to encode an instance of the telicity feature; for example an article, a quantifier, or accusative Case. Conversely, Slavic languages require that telicity be assigned to the functional head by the perfective/imperfective morphology of the main lexical verb, which then binds the DO-DP in its specifier. As a result, perfective heads uniformly assign the [þtelic] feature (as in 2c), and imperfective ones [telic] in Slavic languages (as in 1c). This means, for example, that stative predicates can only be marked as atelic and thus imperfective (without a prefix); if a perfective prefix obtains, the meaning is inchoative for the state such as ‘‘to be in love’’ as opposed to ‘‘fall in love’’. Telicity/ perfectivity marking is only independent of tense in Slavic languages whereby overt morphological marking (i.e., the completive prefix) surfaces more than in the past as in Romance. Whereas Romance languages have dedicated perfective and imperfective morphology in the past, unlike English for example, telicity cannot be predictably calculated from such morphology reliably. This non-exhaustive discussion of the Telicity Parameter briefly exemplifies how parameterization is hypothesized to work in general. To sum up, as a universal semantic construct, telicity must be expressed in all 2. We thank Roumyana Slabakova for the Bulgarian examples and her helpful explanations. 3. The prefix is a completive prefix on the main verb. The verb with the prefix is perfective in (2), the one without the prefix is imperfective in (1).

Generative perspectives

125

languages. However, the way in which particular grammars encode telicity is left open to a specific, yet limited number of possibilities, or parametric values. Languages like Spanish, English, and Bulgarian, for example, differ on the surface in terms of how telicity is expressed because they have di¤erent settings of this parameter. Generative theory has always maintained that the task of converging on a specific syntactic system crucially involves the learning of the lexicon. Even early versions of the P&P framework argued that the locus of syntactic parameterization was found in the specification of features of individual lexical items (e.g., Borer 1984; Hyams 1986). The Minimalist Program holds close to this idea in that syntactic operations are significantly, if not completely, dependent on the interaction of features of lexical items. Under a feature-based approach as developed most recently in the Minimalist Program (see Section 3.3.), parametric variation can be defined in terms of the feature specification of (functional) lexical items that determine syntactic structure and variation. For instance, a prediction is that the telicity encoding contrast between Spanish and Bulgarian as seen above is determined by variation in the feature specification of the relevant inflectional head. 3.2. Empirical support: generative studies of language acquisition Generative studies in child language acquisition (see e.g., Hamann 2008 for a review) have shown over the past three decades how a P&P model best explains not only how individuals acquire the properties of specific grammars that distinguish them from others, but also how acquisition of individual grammars is constrained by domain-specific linguistic knowledge. Similar goals apply to adult L2 acquisition as well, although in this context, the direct role UG plays is less clear in light of the observable di¤erences in L1 and L2 acquisition for developmental route and ultimate attainment. For close to three decades, two core questions taking various forms have dominated the research program of generative L2 studies: (a) exploring the role UG and previous linguistic knowledge play in the development and ultimate attainment of non-native systems and (b) exploring what other variables conspire to explain L1/L2 di¤erences if one accepts that UG, in part or wholly, is accessible in adulthood (e.g., Ayoun 2005a, b; Hawkins and Hattori 2006; Lardiere 2009; Rothman 2008; Sorace 2005, 2011). Some researchers take L1/L2 disparity as evidence for inaccessibility to UG in its entirety (e.g., Bley-Vroman 1990; Clahsen and Hong 1995;

126

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

Meisel 1997) or in part (Beck 1998; Hawkins and Chan 1997). However, others maintain that children and adults have the same access to UG, but that previous linguistic experience, reduced processing resources, mapping problems, physiological di¤erences, and other extra-linguistic factors, to name just a few, play a role in determining how adult language acquisition proceeds di¤erently and results in accented speech, production errors, and possibly fossilization (see e.g., Lardiere 2009; Sorace 2005). As Slabakova (2009: 158) suggests, the absolute question of L1/L2 fundamental di¤erences must shift to understanding a more ‘‘elaborate picture of the SLA process’’. Even so, we take the position that there must be access to UG, since evidence from adult knowledge of poverty-of-the-stimulus properties exists, as reported in a significant number of studies across several L1/L2 language pairing combinations (see Slabakova 2008 and Rothman 2008 for reviews of this literature). Some of these studies, which we review in greater detail in what follows, involve the acquisition of new temporal and aspectual features (see Section 4). Taken together, these studies demonstrate that L1 properties transfer to the initial state of L2 acquisition creating an inevitably di¤erent state from the underspecified initial state for L1 acquisition, which alters the comparative learning task of arriving at the target grammar for child and adult acquirers. However, evidence from advanced learner grammars strongly favors the position that acquisition of new syntactic and semantic properties is nevertheless possible in adulthood (see Slabakova 2008). 3.3. Feature-based syntax As a general proviso, we find it prudent to point out from the outset that the construct of syntactic and semantic features, at least in the sense meant here, is a theory-internal notion, not an intuitive one. Yet, understanding what the label feature means is crucial to understanding the literature we review for generative SLA, and so we describe and defend its raison d’eˆtre in this section. Within the syntactic framework of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), it is argued that inflectional features correspond to functional heads that project phrases (in a traditional X-bar manner). A feature is a syntactic or semantic (abstract, but not always) element that correlates to its grammatical function. There are two types of formal or syntactic features: features that make a semantic contribution (e.g., [present] or [telic] as seen above) – hence referred to as interpretable features – and features with a purely syntactic function (e.g., Case on Nouns, or Agreement marking on verbs) – hence referred to as uninterpretable features.

Generative perspectives

127

Following earlier suggestions by Borer (1984) and Hyams (1986), Chomsky (1995) and Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) proposed a feature-matching approach under which functional categories (such as Determiner Phrase and Tense Phrase) are derived within a clause to meet the feature-matching needs of lexical items within a given sentence (numeration). Functional categories themselves, being derived out of feature-checking needs, are economical transports for (bundles) of morpho-syntactic and semantic features but not primitive formatives of the syntax itself. Features can be bundled in di¤erent ways depending on the language; however, features must abide by the linear checking order imposed on them. Cross-linguistic parametric di¤erences, as discussed above, are understood as language-tolanguage variation in the featural inventory of specific grammars. The checking of features has syntactic, semantic, and morpho-phonological reflexes such that cross-linguistic di¤erences and similarities are largely reduced to distinctions in the feature compositions of particular grammars. After acquiring the features relevant for any given language, the universal components responsible for the checking of these features give rise to the semantics of natural language and how the same universal system can have di¤erent outputs. Poverty-of-the stimulus knowledge is thus simply the consequence of feature checking. Tense, mood, lexical, and viewpoint aspect are understood within Minimalism as features (e.g., Borer 2005; Giorgi and Pianesi 1997; Kempchinsky 2009; Quer 1998; Smith 1997). Semantic and syntactic features such as [past], [telic], [mood], and [perfective] are hypothesized to be encoded in the lexicon of the world’s languages in di¤erent ways, yielding cross-linguistic di¤erences in TAM systems. Although all languages have means to encode TAM information, it is not the case that all do so syntactically or in the same syntactic manner. For example, by most accounts (e.g., Lin 2003, 2005), Chinese does not encode tense overtly, but di¤erentiates between present, past, and future temporality by relying on temporal adverbials (such as today and yesterday) and discourse pragmatics as well as aspectual markers (i.e., classifiers). So, it might be the case that Chinese does not project (or make use) of the functional category TP/IP since there is no feature-checking motivation for it. However, AspP must be projected given the system of lexical classifiers. Whereas Romance languages encode mood (e.g., indicative versus subjunctive) morpho-syntatically, it is not clear that English does at all, and certainly not always in the same way depending on what type of subjunctive is implicated, for example volitional or mandative subjunctive versus polarity subjunctive (Iverson, Kempchinsky,

128

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

and Rothman 2008).4 Yet, both languages have means to express and derive the same semantic computations subsumed under the subjunctive morphology of Romance languages; for instance, Spanish is assumed to project the functional category MoodP (e.g., Kempchinsky 2009). Two other important functional categories to account for the relationship between temporal arguments and lexical aspect are the Inner Aspect Phrase (Travis 1992), which represents lexical aspect (i.e., lexical perfectivity or telicity) and Outer Aspect Phrase (Zagona 1994), which represents syntactic aspect (i.e., perfective or imperfective). Regardless of how tense, mood, or aspect may be encoded in a language, empirical studies of L2 acquisition from a generative perspective ask whether learners can acquire the functional features within inflectional morphology and the aspectual semantic properties associated with the relevant functional categories. The current literature o¤ers two diametrically opposed views on the adult L2 acquisition of functional categories and their features. At one end of the spectrum is the view that (some) functional categories cannot be acquired because adult L2 acquisition is no longer constrained by UG in the same way as in childhood and/or is subjected to a critical period (see various ‘‘impairment hypotheses’’ proposed by Hawkins and Chan 1997, Hawkins and Liszka 2003 and ‘‘representational deficit hypotheses’’, e.g., Hawkins 2003, Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou 2007). At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe that adult SLA is constrained by UG and who support the Full Access/Full Transfer hypothesis (e.g., Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996), which proposes that the learner’s L1 grammar constitutes the L2 initial state (full transfer) but that parameter resetting to the L2 values is possible (full access)). Others believe that although adult SLA is constrained by UG, it is subjected to external factors (e.g., Missing Inflection Hypothesis, Haznedar and Schwartz 1997; Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis, Pre´vost and White 2000).

4. Iverson et al. (2008) tested whether or not American English speakers accept sentences of the following types: i) The doctor recommends that newborn children be fed every 3 hours. ii) The doctor recommends that newborn children are fed every 3 hours. They found that speakers in their late teenage years and early twenties either preferred sentences like (ii) or only accepted such sentences, whereas older individuals either highly preferred (i) or only accepted (i) as grammatical. They used this to argue that younger American English speakers might not have a MoodP instantiated at all in their grammar, at least in their nonformal, colloquial dialect.

Generative perspectives

129

The view that we adopt here is that adult L2 acquisition is constrained by UG, and thus features and associated functional categories are in principle acquirable (e.g., Ayoun 2005a,b; Rothman 2008). Learners have appropriate syntactic representations, but fail to consistently produce targetlike inflectional morphology due to di‰culties in mapping form to meaning or performance issues (e.g., Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis; Pre´vost and White 2000; Feature Reassembly, Lardiere 2009). In reviewing the generative L2 TAM literature below, one ultimate goal is to assess whether the current findings tend to support one theoretical stance against the other. 4. Review of the generative L2 literature The acquisition of TAM systems by L2 learners from a generative perspective has been a growing line of empirical research since the early 2000s. The first studies focused on the acquisition of L2 English by Bulgarian native speakers (Slabakova 2000, 2003), or both Bulgarian and Spanish native speakers (Slabakova 2001) to test the semantic-morphology interface, the acquisition of L2 Spanish by native speakers of English (Montrul 2002; Montrul and Slabakova 2002, 2003; Slabakova and Montrul 2000, 2002, 2003), as well as the di¤erences between Standard Russian and American Russian in Russian-English bilingual speakers (Pereltsvaig 2002). Then, a variety of studies started to target other L2 languages, such as French (Leung 2002; Ayoun 2005a,b), Spanish (Schell 2000) and Portuguese (Goodin-Mayeda and Rothman 2007; Rothman and Iverson 2008). Covering a wide range of L1 backgrounds, these studies investigate the L2 (or L3) acquisition of lexical aspect (telicity), grammatical or viewpoint aspect (perfectiveness and iterativity), and mood/modality (the indicative and subjunctive). The studies are reviewed in chronological order and by L2 target language (English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, as well as Russian and Spanish as heritage languages). 4.1. Tense and aspect in L2 English Slabakova (2000, 2001) tested the acquisition of the telicity marking parameter by Bulgarian-speaking learners of English. The telicity marking parameter subsumes three related constructions – verb-particle, resultative secondary predicates, and double objects – and presents two main contrasts: (a) the [þtelic] morpheme occupies a di¤erent functional category in English (i.e., AspP) as compared to Slavic (PerfP); and (b) the [þtelic] morpheme is null in English, and depends on the object’s cardinality, whereas it is

130

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

overt in Slavic, it is lexicalized as a pre-verb, and the object’s cardinality is irrelevant in establishing telicity. In Slabakova (2001), three groups of L2 English learners and two groups of native speaker controls performed four elicitation tasks: an aspect task, a translation task, a grammaticality judgment task, and a stories task. Group and individual results indicated that the learners’ ability and consistency in judging and distinguishing between telic and atelic sentences increased with their level of proficiency. In Slabakova (2000), the hypothesis of L1 transfer was supported in that the results of an aspectual interpretation task showed that both the English native speakers and the Spanish L2 learners recognized the contrast between telic and atelic sentences, because they preferred atelic sentences in combination with a habitual context to telic sentences in a habitual context, contrary to the Bulgarian L2 learners. The Bulgarian-speaking learners were significantly less accurate in their judgments of telic sentences than atelic sentences indicating that they initially transferred the L1 value of the aspectual parameter, maybe because they were still at beginning and intermediate levels of proficiency. Slabakova (2003) investigated whether Bulgarian-speaking L2 learners of English in instructional settings are able to acquire the functional category AspP with its semantic implications, none of which are part of the Bulgarian TAM system: (a) eventive English verbs are inherently perfective; (b) the present tense is associated with a quantificational feature and a generic operator; (c) progressive morphology has a continuous interpretation; and (d) statives may have a habitual interpretation in the simple past. Participants in low, high, and advanced levels of competence performed an elicited production task and a truth value judgment task (Crain and Thornton 1998; Grimshaw and Rosen 1990). The results of the production task revealed that learners had acquired the simple and progressive aspect inflectional morphology, whereas the results of the truth value judgment task indicated that the learners improved in their ability to accurately map inflectional morphology to appropriate semantic contexts with their proficiency level. Learners at the advanced proficiency level showed that they had acquired AspP and its semantic values. Testing the hypothesis that L2 learners cannot acquire new morphosyntactic features that are not instantiated in the L1, and examining the suppliance of past morphology in production, Hawkins and Liszka (2003) found that Chinese native speakers (n ¼ 2) performed worse than Japanese (n ¼ 5) and German (n ¼ 5) native speakers in a retelling task using a short extract from a Charlie Chaplin film and a personal recount of a happy experience. The Japanese and German native speakers produced regular simple past tense morphology in over 90% of the obligatory contexts,

Generative perspectives

131

whereas the Chinese native speakers supplied the regular simple past tense in about 62% of the obligatory contexts; however, they performed much better with irregular simple past morphology by correctly inflecting verbs for simple past in roughly 84% of the obligatory contexts. Hawkins and Liszka concluded that these results support the Failed Functional Features hypothesis (Hawkins and Chan 1997), since only Chinese does not morphosyntactically encode tense. However, it is very di‰cult to make any generalizable claims from such a small data set. Campos (2009) claimed that L1 prosodic transfer might provide a better explanation for Hawkins and Liszka’s results since Chinese, similarly to Spanish, does not allow for complex codas. Moreover, and although it is not framed in a generative perspective, Yang and Yuan Huang’s (2004) study provided contradictory evidence to Hawkins and Liszka’s study, showing that 10 year-old to 19 year-old Chinese ESL learners (n ¼ 453 at 5 di¤erent levels of proficiency, a much larger, and hence reliable, sample than in Hawkins and Liszka’s study) as instructed learners without exposure to English outside the classroom achieved very high success rates in marking past verbal morphology in the obligatory contexts (90.6% to 99.5%) of personal narratives. In Gabriele, Martohardjono, and McClure (2005) (based on Gabriele 2005), native speakers of Japanese (n ¼ 83) at di¤erent levels of proficiency in L2 English – intermediate (n ¼ 38) or advanced (n ¼ 45) – were administered an interpretation task (Klein, Martohardjono, and Valian 1999) designed to investigate whether Japanese learners’ interpretation of the English past progressive would interact with L1 lexical semantics. Japanese te-iru allows both progressive and perfective interpretations, depending on the predicate, whereas English be þ ing always denotes a progressive interpretation. Findings showed that the past progressive was more di‰cult than the simple past for both activity and change of state verbs, even for the advanced group learners. They allowed a perfective reading for the English past progressive even when the L1 Japanese interpretation is progressive, leading Gabriele, Martohardjono, and McClure (2005) to suggest that the perfective is a default interpretation in the mental representation of te-iru. Gabriele and Maekawa (2008) compared three groups of L2 English learners – native speakers of Chinese (n ¼ 32), Korean (n ¼ 18), and Japanese (n ¼ 55) – at di¤erent levels of proficiency. Contrary to Japanese and Korean, Chinese does not encode tense morpho-syntactically and presumably does not have a Tense projection (Lin 2005). The participants completed an interpretation task with short stories focusing on the present

132

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

and past progressive in English as well as regular and irregular past tense forms as distractors. The Chinese learners in the high proficiency group correctly distinguished the present from the past progressive, but the intermediate proficiency group was not as successful. The L1 Japanese and L1 Korean learners performed well as expected. Gabriele and Maekawa’s (2008) findings provide evidence against Hawkins and Liszka’s (2003) proposal of a permanent syntactic deficit in the L2 when a feature such as [epast] is not instantiated in the L1. In Gabriele (2009), Japanese speakers (n ¼ 101) – L2 English learners at low, intermediate, and high levels of proficiency – performed a story compatibility task which targeted telic predicated with simple past (as a control), present progressive, and past progressive morphology. Then, English native speakers (n ¼ 33) – L2 Japanese learners at two levels of proficiency (low and high) – performed the Japanese equivalent of the story interpretation task to test for the acquisition of the simple past marker -ta and the progressive marker te-iru with telic predicates. Both L2 Japanese and L2 English learners performed well on accomplishments with the progressive and on achievements with simple past, but not as well on achievements with the progressive -ing or imperfective marker te-iru. Moreover, the L2 English learners performed poorly on the preemption (i.e., L1 interpretations) context at all proficiency levels by accepting sentences in which the present progressive referred to complete events. Preemption was less di‰cult for L2 Japanese learners although some learners in the lowproficiency group allowed the imperfective marker te-iru to refer to ongoing events. Gabriele (2009) suggested that the complexity of the semantic computation and the (lack of ) transparency of input cues may explain why preemption appears to be so di‰cult. Liszka (2006) investigated the implications that a representational deficit approach may have on pragmatic processes from a Relevance theoretic perspective (Sperber and Wilson 1986/95) by asking French-speaking learners of L2 English (n ¼ 8) to perform one written task (a narrative to elicit events and states) and two oral tasks (description of a video and picture clip to elicit states and ongoing events and a contextualized dialogue). The focus was on the L2 acquisition of the distributional and interpretational properties of the English present simple and present progressive; the latter is not grammatically encoded in L1 French. Following AlHamad et al. (2002: 55), Liszka assumed that the ‘‘di¤erence in temporal interpretation between ‘habitual’ and ‘event in progress is directly connected to whether the verb raises overtly to T(ense) in the syntax’’. Strong uninterpretable features in French lead to overt verb raising whereas only auxiliaries raise to T in the present progressive English. Results show that

Generative perspectives

133

participants’ production of the simple present was native-like and they were successful in ‘‘assigning target-like meaning to present simple forms (100%) and present progressive forms (93.7%)’’ (92), but learners overgeneralized the present simple forms to present progressive contexts in the oral tasks. In Liszka (2009), the findings from a larger number of participants (n ¼ 16) showed very high accuracy scores on assigning target-like meanings to present simple forms (100%) and present progressive forms (92.7%) in the oral description task. In the video clip description tasks, whereas the accuracy scores for the present simple forms remained high (94.4%), the use of present progressive forms dropped to 52.8% of obligatory contexts which may not simply be a task e¤ect due the real-time processing pressure because a similar pattern was obtained for the contextualized dialogue task (94.2% for simple present and 54.8% for present progressive). 4.2. Tense and aspect in L2 Spanish L2 Spanish has been targeted by a large number of studies mostly with English-speaking learners presumably because the two languages instantiate partially overlapping TAM systems. In a rare longitudinal study of Englishspeaking university students (n ¼ 5) participating in a study abroad program in Spain, Schell (2000) assumed the existence of Inner and Outer Aspect Phrases to account for preterite and imperfect past tenses in Spanish (see also Ayoun and Salaberry 2005).5 This study focused on the interaction between morphosyntax and semantics by examining how L2 learners may acquire the form-meaning relationship of Spanish tense and aspect. It assumed the three stages of the constructionist approach (Herschensohn 2000): feature strengths are initially unset and learners end up mastering the lexical aspect of most verbs by the advanced stages, after the feature values at the Inner Aspect Phrase have been specified. High accuracy rates (85% to 100%) on three worksheets and a total of 4 written samples were collected (one every two months for nine months) indicate successful acquisition of past tense morphology. 5. In a personal communication (March 2011), Salaberry points out that Schell’s (2000) study may be taken as evidence against the strictly syntactic view in which adjuncts are considered as pragmatic in nature, adding that Schell specifically points out that ‘‘In an isolated monoclausal sentence in which there are no adjuncts or aspectual references, the grammatical aspect assigned will automatically match the perfectivity (or imperfectivity) of the Inner Aspect Phrase’’ (35–36).

134

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

In a series of studies based on the analysis of Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) for English and Spanish, S. Montrul and R. Slabakova investigated the acquisition of the interpretive properties of the preterite and the imperfect tenses in Spanish by English-speaking learners. First, in Slabakova and Montrul (2000), the results of a truth value judgment task indicated that intermediate learners were significantly more accurate with the imperfect than with the preterite when using state verbs such as poder ‘be able to’, whereas the advanced group showed greater accuracy with both tenses, suggesting that instructed L2 learners can learn properties that are usually not explicitly taught. In Slabakova and Montrul (2002), participants performed a sentence conjunction judgment task to investigate the interpretations L2 learners assign to preterite and imperfect past morphology. Group and individual results revealed a clear developmental trend with all advanced learners and some intermediate learners, demonstrating the ability to di¤erentiate between the semantic features associated with grammatical aspect.6 Montrul and Slabakova (2002) first used a morphology test to determine whether L2 learners could distinguish the morphological endings of the preterite and the imperfect in a narrative. They then administered a sentence conjunction judgment task designed to test the semantic implications of these two past tense forms. The group results showed that the L2 learners who had obtained accuracy scores of at least 80% on the morphology test seemed to have acquired the semantic interpretations of the preterite and the imperfect, whereas those who scored below 80% were still struggling with the semantic contrasts, particularly with state and achievement predicates. The individual results suggested that ‘‘the acquisition of morphology precedes the acquisition of semantics, and that both types of acquisition are gradual developments’’ (140), although Slabakova (2006) characterized this claim as premature considering later data indicating that acquisition of morphological forms may be preceded by acquisition of semantics. It was concluded that ‘‘the formal features associated with the functional category AspP are acquirable and ‘unimpaired’ in SLA’’ (141). Montrul and Slabakova (2003) compared the performance of Englishspeaking advanced learners and English near-native speakers of Spanish with native speakers of Spanish on two tasks. The sentence-conjunction judgment task did not reveal any di¤erences between the near-native 6. Salaberry (2008: 165–170) argues that by rejecting the e¤ect of adjuncts, the e¤ects of inner and outer aspect are conflated into one single construct that is methodologically di‰cult to tease apart.

Generative perspectives

135

speakers and the native speakers, whereas on the truth-value judgment task, only the near-natives performed like the native speakers in recognizing the generic restriction on the preterite and specific-generic ambiguity of the imperfect, the latter being clearly more di‰cult than the former for the advanced and superior learners. It was however concluded that nearnative competence is possible in the domain of aspectual interpretations. Following a proficiency test and an inflectional morphology recognition test (adapted from Salaberry 1997), Slabakova and Montrul (2003) asked an intermediate group (n ¼ 40) and an advanced group (n ¼ 29) of English-speaking learners of Spanish to perform a truth-value judgment task with 80 story-sentence combinations to test their knowledge of the preterite and the imperfect as well as the possible generic interpretation of pronominal subjects. In Spanish, the subject pronoun can be interpreted as having a generic meaning (‘‘people in general’’) or a specific meaning (‘‘we’’) only when the predicate is in the imperfect; in the preterite, the subject pronoun cannot have generic interpretation. Since this distinction is not explicitly taught in foreign language classrooms, it presents a case of poverty of the stimulus. It was found that the semantic properties of the Spanish preterite and imperfect, the universal semantic conditionals (a habitual clause reading implies a generic pronominal subject), and the negative constraint on the generic interpretation of the preterite were acquired by the advanced learners whereas the intermediate learners displayed a clear developmental trend toward the successful acquisition of these properties.7 The studies carried out by Montrul and Slabakova have been critically reviewed by Salaberry (2008: 177–184), who claims, for instance, that the methodologies in these studies do not consider possible coercion e¤ects that arise with endpoint adjuncts, thus confounding inner and outer aspect. However, it is not clear that Montrul and Slabakova reject a priori the e¤ects of adjuncts. In fact, some of their most robust findings are those with achievement predicates for which adjuncts are simply not relevant. For example, to sell the house and to reach the summit do not have adjuncts, as the objects are clearly arguments. In a later study, Slabakova and Montrul (2007) indeed examined the pragmatics of aspect and were able to replicate the findings from previous studies with achievements.8 7. But see Salaberry (2008: 177–184) for a critique of this study’s methodology. 8. ‘‘More generally speaking, in my view, lexical aspect can depend on anything that is in the VP, I mean the type of verb, arguments and adjuncts as in to go to the park versus to go toward the park’’ (Slabakova, personal communication).

136

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

Borgovono and Pre´vost (2003) tested the acquisition of polarity subjunctive triggered by the presupposition/lack of presupposition contrast by French-speaking learners of L2 Spanish (n ¼ 25) in two proficiency groups. Polarity subjunctive refers to a subjunctive licensed by an operator such as a negation or an interrogation (Stowell 1993). In Spanish, ‘‘polarity subjunctive is licensed with epistemic, perception and communication verbs’’, whereas in French ‘‘only negated epistemics license polarity subjunctive in embedded clauses’’ (153). However, the interpretations of the choice of mood are the same in the two languages. The participants performed a pen-and-paper truth-value interpretation task with 48 short scenarios in French followed by a test sentence in Spanish in either the subjunctive or indicative, depending on the presuppositional status of the lower clause. The learners were expected to correctly allow the subjunctive in Spanish perception and communication verbs (contrary to L1 French), while rejecting it when the lower clause does not contain a presupposition. Their performance depended on their proficiency level and revealed a gradual learning process. Although they were not always accurate in their mood selection, they displayed near-native accuracy in their performance. Rothman (2008) proposes the Competing Systems Hypothesis to explain why tutored L2 learners continue to produce non-target-like morphological forms in spite of their advanced proficiency: it is hypothesized that pedagogical rules create a separate system of learned knowledge that competes with generative competence. The hypothesis was tested by examining the performance of three groups of participants – native speakers of Spanish (n ¼ 20), advanced tutored L2 Spanish learners (n ¼ 20), and advanced naturalistic L2 Spanish learners (n ¼ 11) – on a binary-choice cloze test and a fill-in-the-blank production task targeting the [eperfective] contrast between the preterite and the imperfect. Findings reveal that half of the tutored learners and all the naturalistic learners performed within native speaker range on the cloze test. Overall, 25% of the tutored learners di¤ered from the native speakers on the production task, while there was no di¤erence between naturalistic learners and native speakers. It was concluded that the predictions of the Competing Systems Hypothesis were confirmed because whereas naturalistic learners consistently performed in a native-like fashion, the performance of the tutored learners (except for 4 participants who were native-like) revealed patterns traceable to the oversimplified pedagogical rules they had been taught, suggesting that natural positive evidence is most conducive to achieving a native-like grammar since it is devoid of oversimplified prescriptive explanation. To be fair, it is obvious that natural and classroom contexts represent complex environ-

Generative perspectives

137

ments that include several factors that can a¤ect the outcome in each context. That is, there may be interaction e¤ects with other variables at play (other than just pedagogical explanations). In fact, qualitative and quantitative di¤erences in the input that naturalistic and classroom learners are likely to have received, are variables that could be just as, if not more explanatory, for the di¤erences Rothman discusses. However, we should keep in mind that both groups of L2 learners are of highly advanced proficiency and although the classroom learners were instructed learners, they had more than mere classroom exposure over the course of time it took for them to achieve their high proficiency level. The point to be made is that the two experiments were designed to focus on uses where pedagogical descriptions do not conflict with naturalistic input and one where pedagogical simplification does. The results across the two groups show that it is reasonable to conclude that pedagogical rules play a role in the performance on the tasks. Thus, even if other co-occurring variables are at play, Rothman’s conclusions remain reasonable. Following impairment hypotheses according to which uninterpretable features not present in the L1 are not acquirable in the L2, Diaz, Bel, and Bekiou (2007) assume that only L2 Spanish learners whose L1 encodes the [eperfective] aspectual distinction morpho-syntactically are able to acquire the Spanish preterite-imperfect contrast. Specific learnability predictions are made for each L1 language background or type (Romance, Modern Greek, Chinese, Japanese, and Slavic). Seventy participants at intermediate and advanced levels of proficiency (but few participants per language group and proficiency level, from 5 to 12) completed three written stories by providing the appropriate verb form in the past. Findings show that: (a) the presence of the [eperfective] feature in L1 helps the Romance and Greek L2 learners; (b) e¤ects of morphological contrast with Spanish were found mostly for the Slavic group but also the Asian group; and (c) e¤ects of the Aspect Hypothesis (Aspect before Tense) are confirmed only for states and achievements. Finally, it is argued that ‘‘di‰culties encountered across language groups with activities and accomplishments, the two aspectual classes that are sensitive to the cardinality of the DP object, appear to spring from the interaction between interpretable and uninterpretable features’’ (507). Hsien-jen Chin (2008) is another study investigating the acquisition of the [eperfective] contrast between the Spanish preterite and imperfect by Chinese- and English-speaking learners. Both English and Spanish overtly mark tense morphology whereas Chinese uses aspectual markers for the per-

138

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

fective, experiencer, durative, and progressive. Three groups of participants – English-speaking (n ¼ 22) and Chinese-speaking (n ¼ 14) L2 Spanish learners, and Spanish native speakers (n ¼ 11) as controls – were administered a morphology test and an acceptability test (following Montrul and Slabakova 2002, 2004). The morphology test revealed significant di¤erences among the three groups (from 70.27% to 75.76% for the L2 learners) following L1 influences. The group results on the acceptability test show that overall, the English L1 learners distinguished contrasts on telic predicates but not on states, whereas the Chinese L1 learners did not appear to be sensitive to any of the contrasts. The individual results indicate that only a small number of English L1 learners recognized the contrasts, and that there was no clear proficiency e¤ect. However, these findings should be considered with caution because of the low proficiency level of the L2 learners, and also because the Chinese-speaking participants were actually L3 Spanish learners. Iverson, Kempchinsky, and Rothman (2008) focus on the syntaxpragmatics interface by testing the acquisition of two types of subjunctive complements in intermediate and advanced English learners of L2 Spanish: complements to volitional verbs (e.g., querer ‘to want’) – which exemplify a purely syntactic relationship between the matrix verb – and the subordinate clause compared to complements with negated epistemic verbs (e.g., no creer ‘to not believe’), which involve the syntax-discourse interface in the mood selection (indicative versus subjunctive). In English, volitional complements use the subjunctive only formal registers (the indicative and for-to indicative clauses are preferred) while negated epistemic verbs are only found in the indicative. The participants – a native control group (n ¼ 13) and two L2 groups, one advanced (n ¼ 18) and one intermediate (n ¼ 25) – performed a grammaticality judgment task testing indicative and subjunctive complement clauses with volitional and negated epistemic verbs whose results reveal significant di¤erences between groups on all sentence types. However, post hoc tests did not detect any significant di¤erences between the advanced learners and the native speakers in any rating of categories, nor did the intermediate learners di¤er significantly from the native speakers except in negated epistemics with subjunctive embedded clauses. Bruhn de Garavito and Valenzuela (2008) administered a grammaticality judgment task and a sentence selection task to an Anglophone group of advanced L2 Spanish learners (n ¼ 21) and a group of Spanish native speakers (n ¼ 21) to test the aspectual distinction between two types of passives: eventive passives are marked with ser, which is aspectually neutral,

Generative perspectives

139

while stative passives are marked with estar, which expresses the perfective. Both copulas mean ‘to be’. In English, the aspectual distinction between eventives and statives is not marked in any specific way, hence the di‰culty for Anglophone native speakers to make the appropriate selection between the two Spanish copulas. The findings are mixed in that the L2 learners’ performance on both tasks showed that they distinguished between the two copulas followed by adjectives, but on the sentence selection task, their performance with regards to the interpretation of the subject was random. It is likely that, as suggested by de Garavito and Valenzuela (334), ‘‘the problem is related to processing at the interface between semantics and syntax’’ (see also Sorace 2006). 4.3. Tense and aspect in L2 French and Portuguese Leung (2002, 2005) compared L2/L3 French learners – Vietnamese monolingual and Cantonese-English bilingual learners – at beginning and advanced levels of proficiency along with English and French controls to test the Full Access/Full Transfer hypothesis and Failed Functional Features hypothesis by administering four di¤erent elicitation tasks: two written production tasks (a composition task to elicit past tense morphology, a sentence completion task to elicit verbal agreement and adverbs) and two preference tasks (one to test for Case, finiteness, and agreement and the second to test for adverb placement). The findings, which reveal near-native-like performance on agreement and adverbs as well as finiteness and agreement, show L1 transfer at the initial stages, but also that features which are not present in the L1 are acquirable in the L2 contra the Failed Functional Features hypothesis, which claims the oppositive (i.e., L2 features that are not present in the L1 will not be fully acquired). Ayoun (2005a) investigated the acquisition of past temporality by Englishspeaking learners of French (n ¼ 37) as a foreign language in an instructed setting at three di¤erent proficiency levels (a group of French native speakers (n ¼ 14) served as controls) and Ayoun (2005b) investigated the acquisition of future temporality with the same participants. In Ayoun (2005a), the analyses of the personal narratives revealed that the interlanguage of L2 learners displayed well-formed sentences with correctly inflected verbs for tense, person, and number as well as appropriate negation and adverb placement. These findings indicate that the interlanguage of these L2 learners projects the appropriate functional categories associated with strong features. They also seem to have acquired semantic contrasts, but with varying degrees of mastery across the di¤erent lexical classes. The

140

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

results of the cloze test, however, revealed significant di¤erences between groups across all aspectual classes. Thus, the prediction that L2 learners of French would be successful in acquiring the semantic properties of the functional category AspP was only supported by the results of the personal narratives, which was explained as a task e¤ect. The second and third predictions (that learners would be successful in acquiring target-like use of inflectional morphology, and that they would be successful in acquiring the appropriate feature strength of AspP) appear to be supported, as evidenced by their productive use of perfective and non-perfective morphology in the personal narratives. Moreover, it was also found that the L2 learners did not seem to have di‰culties in the mapping of surface morphology: almost all past participles and lexical verbs were properly inflected for tense, number, and gender, with rare gender agreement errors. The tense/aspect system of these L2 learners is not yet target-like, but their current system shows contrasts and systematicity, signalling the appropriate feature strength of AspP and its semantic properties. In Ayoun (2005b), the two elication tasks produced mixed findings: the L2 learners performed better on the personal narrative task than on the cloze task: the latter revealed significant variations depending on the morphological forms and the predicates. There was also a clear proficiency e¤ect from the lowest to the highest levels of proficiency. Nevertheless, all three learner groups used a variety of morphological forms to express futurity in their personal narratives, indicative of the acquisition of temporal and modal values associated with the future. Iverson and Rothman (2008) asked advanced English learners of adult L2 Portuguese (n ¼ 17) to perform two sentence conjunction judgment tasks to test their knowledge of [eaccidental] interpretative nuances with preterite and imperfect adverbially quantified sentences. Results show a native-like performance of the advanced L2 learners in 10 out of 11 contexts, providing evidence that morphosyntactic features and phrasal semantics can be acquired by adult learners contra impairment hypotheses.9 In a 9. We should acknowledge that apparently some theoretical authors and even native speaker judgments shed some doubt on the extent to which the semantic distinctions being tested here are truly generalizable and/or accurate. Of course, we believe that the semantic nuances at play here are indeed generalizable, albeit extremely subtle. As it relates to the methodology in Iverson and Rothman (2008) and Rothman and Iverson (2008), there perhaps is a confound based on the people who were tested in that both groups represent highly educated speakers and it might be that they are able to get at these interpretations more easily given the inherent complexity of the tasks themselves.

Generative perspectives

141

related study, Rothman and Iverson (2008) tested 31 learners of L2 Portuguese focusing on other semantic entailments related to the aspectual distinction of adverbial quantification whereby only such perfective sentences lose the otherwise available kind-denoting reading of the subject DP, retaining only the group-denoting reading (e.g., Mene´ndez-Benito 2002). Rothman and Iverson (2008) showed that the same learners from Iverson and Rothman (2008), who demonstrated the target [eaccidental] interpretative nuances, were also successful in interpreting restrictions on DP interpretations, related to the same aspectual distinction (but see Chapter 6). 4.4. Tense and aspect and heritage learners Investigating the di¤erences between Standard Russian and American Russian (the variety of Russian spoken by second-generation Russianspeaking immigrants in the U.S.) led Pereltsvaig (2002) to claim that American Russian encodes lexical aspect, rather than grammatical aspect. She followed Travis (2000) in assuming a syntactic structure with two functional projections: InnerAspP to encode lexical aspect – located between the two VP-shells – and OuterAspP, to encode grammatical aspect, located outside the VP-shells in the I-I-domain. Pereltsvaig argues that in Standard Russian, aspectual morphology is associated with OuterAspo, whereas in American Russian it is associated with InnerAspo. Past/nonpast tense morphology is in To in both Standard and American Russian. She furthermore assumes that vP encodes agentivity/transitivity instead of lexical aspect (contra e.g., Pin˜on 1995; Verkuyl 1999; Slabakova 2001). The analysis is based on 150 verb forms extracted from a corpus representing the Russian spoken by English L2 dominant speakers for whom Russian is the first but clearly a secondary language that they use rarely, and in which they are illiterate. It appears that the American Russian aspectual system does not mark a clear preference for either the perfective or the imperfective aspect, and most predicates are always used in the same aspectual form, leading Pereltsvaig to conclude that in American Russian, ‘‘aspectual marking encodes a lexical semantic property of the verb’’ (7). She further observes that ‘‘American Russian should be characterized as lacking syntactic agreement altogether; in other words, American Russian speakers cannot do either subject-verb or DP-internal agreement through feature-checking or feature-matching’’ (15). Thus, with respect to functional projections, lexical aspect is marked by aspectual morphology, but grammatical aspect is not marked at all (i.e., OuterAspP is missing) whereas tense is marked correctly, but subject-verb agreement is not.

142

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

Pereltsvaig rejects the possibility of L2 transfer because it makes two predictions which are not borne out: imperfective morphology is not used similarly to English -ing, and perfective morphology does not mirror English perfect aspect. The loss of uninterpretable features is accounted for by L1 attrition, defined as incomplete L1 acquisition, because these speakers become English-dominant before puberty, and do not benefit from exposure to Standard Russian. Montrul (2002) compared bilingual speakers of English and Spanish as a heritage language with monolingual Spanish speakers to investigate whether the age of onset of bilingualism influences ultimate attainment. Assuming AspP to be a functional category where the [eperfective] features are checked, Montrul (2002) addresses the question of whether both the morphological features and the semantic features are a¤ected by language loss, or whether bilingual speakers display patterns of ‘incompleteness’ in the Spanish preterite/imperfect contrast. The results of the interpretation and production tasks revealed significant di¤erences between bilingual and monolingual speakers on achievement predicates in the imperfect, and stative verbs in both the preterite and the imperfect, whereas the early child bilingual speakers di¤ered from the monolingual speakers on stative verbs in the preterite. In other words, the simultaneous bilinguals displayed incomplete acquisition, whereas the early child bilinguals showed some evidence of attrition, mostly for stative verbs in the preterite. The wide range of proficiency shown by the bilingual speakers also contributed to the conclusion that, contra Toribio (2001), for many participants, the loss of morphological features is accompanied by the loss of the formal features, which provides support for the critical period hypothesis. Montrul (2007) examines the status of the subjunctive mood in heritage bilingual Spanish grammars. Adopting the basic tenets of Sorace’s (2005) Interface Hypothesis to make predictions on where heritage bilingual competence is more likely to match and diverge from monolingual competence, this study demonstrates that heritage speakers’ grammars clearly control the underlying syntax of the subjunctive mood, yet di¤er from native monolinguals in interesting ways. Heritage bilinguals productively use dedicated subjunctive morphology in appropriate contexts: they perform like monolinguals when the subjunctive is subcategorized by the matrix verb as complements of volitional predicates. However, heritage speakers di¤er from monolinguals significantly with respect to the distribution of the subjunctive in environments where both the indicative and subjunctive are possible. However, where the pragmatics favors the use of one or the other to signal a subtle shift in semantic interpretation, heritage

Generative perspectives

143

speakers di¤er from monolinguals significantly. For example, after phrases such as mientras que ‘‘while’’ or cuando ‘‘when’’, after which both indicative or subjunctive use are delimited for monolinguals depending on the discourse, heritage speakers default to using the indicative. We agree with Montrul that such evidence supports the Interface Hypothesis.

5. Discussion and conclusion Space limitations being what they are, we are unable to cover in absolute depth or even exhaustively all the available studies examining the L2 acquisition of TAM from a generative perspective. However, what we have been able to show in the selection of studies we have reviewed are the wide variety of language pairings and the depth of the questions that comprise the research of L2 TAM acquisition within the UG paradigm. As is true of all L2 studies from a UG perspective, in addition to their earnest attempt at documenting and explaining the developmental route of TAM acquisition in a way that meets descriptive and explanatory adequacy, these studies also contribute to theory internal questions of a larger remit as well as provide important data sets towards larger questions of great relevance to SLA research more generally. These studies combine to inform questions pertaining to the age-of-acquisition and critical period for L2 acquisition debates. They provide crucial evidence towards whether or not – and the extent to which – the same mechanisms implicated in child acquisition remain available to adult learners in the course of L2 acquisition. Because UG based studies on L2 TAM acquisition adopt formal theoretical proposals as their point of reference, they are also able to provide a unique testing ground for theoretical proposals of formal syntax and semantics. As it relates to the whole of the data that we have reviewed, there is a noticeable developmental trend showing that learners in foreign language instructed settings show gradual improvement from the beginning to more advanced proficiency levels to eventually successfully acquiring the tense/ aspect systems of their respective L2s. The studies that tested near-native speakers also arrived at the conclusion that ultimate attainment was possible, while stressing that TAM appears to be a sensitive domain of L2 language acquisition that may be subjected to some critical period and/or learnability e¤ects, be it for bilingual speakers of heritage languages (Montrul 2002, 2007), or for English-American Russian bilingual speakers who become dominant in English before puberty, and fail to be exposed to Standard Russian (Pereltsvaig 2002). Even studies which set out to test permanent

144

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

syntactic deficit proposals in the L2 when an L2 feature is not instantiated in the L1 did not find strong evidence that adult learners are inevitably impaired in their acquisition of functional categories and their features. Quite to the contrary, learners appear to arrive at a TAM system with well established contrasts and systematicity. If adult L2 acquisition were indeed permanently impaired for new feature acquisition, learners’ performance would not display such high accuracy rates in obligatory contexts and across a variety of elicitation tasks, as was seen in the majority of the research we reviewed. Although we are able to highlight the apparent success of some L2 learners in the domains of L2 TAM acquisition, there are obvious di‰culties inherent to TAM acquisition in adulthood. Such di‰culties seem to reside in the complexities of TAM systems and arise in di¤erent ways for various learners depending on the L1 and L2 pairing. Subcomponents of tense, aspect, and modality can be more or less formally complex and this is seen not only in the developmental sequencing of TAM in child L1 acquisition, but also echoed in the trends that obtain in L2 TAM studies as well. For example, studies on the acquisition of subjunctive modality in Spanish as a heritage language and as an L2 (e.g., Montrul 2010; Iverson et al. 2008) show di¤erential success in ultimate attainment and timing of convergence of sub-properties in interlangue developmental route depending on the interfaces implicated. Unlike other TAM properties, such as TAM-related morphological paradigms and their canonical distributional use, for example when subjunctive modality is strictly subcategorized by volitional predicates, interface-conditioned properties at the syntax-discourse interface (so-called polarity subjunctive with epistemic predicates) are more subject to vulnerability. Interestingly, these same properties are most often not systematically taught in the classroom. However, we do not take lack of instruction to be the source of L2 di¤erences because acquisition, as opposed to learning, is largely believed within the UG paradigm to be independent of instruction (see White 1991; Schwartz and Gubala-Ryzak 1992). As outlined in the empirical literature, it has been decidedly shown that many related properties that are not explicitly taught, come to be acquired and are part of the mental representation of the L2. In this regard, we highlight the studies by Slabakova and Montrul (2003) and Iverson et al. (2008), both of which exemplify L2 learners at advanced stages of Spanish proficiency who demonstrate native-like knowledge of untaught complex semantic entailments (properties at the syntax-semantics interface and even syntax-discourse pragmatics) related to L2 aspectual and modality features that are morphosyntactically di¤erent in the learners’

Generative perspectives

145

L1. In both these studies, as well as many others we reviewed, it did not seem to be the case that interface properties inevitably lead to nonconvergence (i.e., the learners’s L2 output in not target-like) or to residual optionality (i.e., the learners’ interlanguage incorrectly displays two forms as optional). In recent years, Sorace and colleagues (see Sorace 2011 for a review) have modified the Interface Hypothesis to claim that some interfaces are more complex and formidable for L2 acquisition than others. The most current instantiation of this hypothesis maintains that internal interfaces should be less problematic than external ones for L2 convergence, due to di¤erences in the attentional (processing) resource assignment needed (Sorace and Serratrice 2009; Sorace 2011). Dividing interfaces into internal and external interfaces still leaves the hypothesis amenable to the comparative examination of L2 TAM studies. An immediate consequence of the predictive di¤erences between L2 internal and external interfaces for TAM explains the general success that advanced and near-native L2 learners demonstrate in syntax-semantics and lexicon-semantics-syntax related to L2 TAM systems: these are internal interfaces (e.g., Slabakova 2001; Slabakova and Montrul 2003; Rothman and Iverson 2008) and the seemingly greater di‰culty (residual optionality) for TAM properties tend to appear at the syntaxpragmatics interface, an external interface (e.g., Iverson et al. 2008). However, whereas external interfaces might mean more protracted convergence in general, evidence from L2 TAM acquisition, namely some of the individual data from Iverson et al. (2008) do not seem to support the contention that residual optionality is an inescapable outcome of L2 acquisition. Future research that examines more TAM properties relevant to both internal and external interfaces will be in a privileged position to o¤er evidence in support of this general line of research or add empirical evidence towards its more precise refinement. Since the most recent instantiation of the Interface Hypothesis envisions the di‰culty in external interfaces to stem from limitations in processing capacity for learners who have more than one mental grammar in the same mind, more work using online methodologies (eye-tracking, fMRI, ERP, and other technologies) are needed and are to date largely non-existent within the UG tradition of L2 TAM acquisition studies. The dearth in empirical work is promising since it o¤ers the opportunity for new research that can go beyond what has already been shown in the well-studied area of generative SLA. Although there has been significant work examining L2 TAM systems under the generative paradigm over the past two decades, there is much room for more studies. Particularly welcomed will be those that expand

146

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

the L1/L2 pairings to include less commonly studied languages whose complexity will help us to take the L2 study of TAM to a di¤erent level, improving the methodologies used, the questions we ask, and the corpora of evidence that would allow us to draw more complete conclusions about SLA in general.

References Al-Hamad, Majed, Eidah Al-Malki, Gabriela Casillas, Florencia Franceschina, Roger Hawkins, James Hawthorne, Daniela Karadzovska, Kazue Kato, Sarah Liszka, Cristo´bal Lozano, Shiro Ojima, Natsumi Okuwaki & Emma Thomas 2002 Interpretation of English tense morphophonology by advanced L2 speakers. EUROSLA Yearbook 2. 49–69. Ayoun, Dalila 2003 Parameter setting in language acquisition. London: Continuum Press. Ayoun, Dalila 2005a The acquisition of tense and aspect in L2 French from a Universal Grammar perspective. In D. Ayoun & R. Salaberry (Eds.), Tense and aspect in Romance Languages: Theoretical and applied perspectives, 79–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ayoun, Dalila 2005b The development of the future in L2 French. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Teachers College, Columbia University. Ayoun, Dalila & M. Rafael Salaberry (Eds.) 2005 Tense and aspect in Romance Languages: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Beck, Maria 1998 L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement: English-speaking learners of German and the local impairment hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 311–348. Bley-Vroman, Robert 2009 The evolving context of the fundamental di¤erence hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31. 175–198. Bley-Vroman, Robert 1990 The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20. 3–49. Borer, Hagit 1984 Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Borer, Hagit 2005 The normal course of events. Structuring tense. Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Generative perspectives

147

Borgonovo, Claudia & Phillipe Pre´vost 2003 Knowledge of polarity subjunctive in L2 Spanish. In B. Beachley, A. Brown & F. Conlin (Eds.), Proceedings of BUCLD 27, 97–108. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Bybee, Joan 2001 Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Campos, Gonzalo 2009 L2 production of English past morphology in advanced Spanish natives: syntactic deficits or phonotactic transfer? In M. Bowles, T. Ionin, S. Montrul & A. Tremblay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2009), 210–219. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Chomsky, Noam 1959 A review of B. F. Skinner’s ‘‘Verbal Behavior’’. Language 35. 26–58. Chomsky, Noam 1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. Chomsky, Noam 1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam 1992 A minimalist program for linguistic theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1. 1–67. Chomsky, Noam 1993 A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 1995 The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 2001 Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clahsen, Harald & Upyong Hong 1995 Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: New evidence from reaction-time experiments. Second Language Research 11. 57–87. Crain, Stephen & Rosalind Thornton 1998 Investigations in Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dı´az, Lourdes, Aurora Bel & Konstantina Bekiou 2007 The role of morphological features in the acquisition of Spanish aspectual di¤erences. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition, 485–511. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

148

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

DeMiguel, Elena 1992 El Aspecto en la sintaxis del espan˜ol: Perfectividad e imperfectividad [Aspect in Spanish syntax: Perfectivity and imperfectivity]. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid. Ellis, Nick 2008 The dynamics of second language emergence: cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 92(2). 232–249. Gabriele, Alison 2005 The acquisition of aspect in a second language: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese. New York, NY: CUNY Graduate Center, Ph.D. dissertation. Gabriele, Alison 2008 Calculating telicity in native and non-native English. In R. Slabakova, J. Rothman, P. Kempchinsky & E. Gavruseva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2007), 37–46. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Gabriele, Alison 2009 Transfer and transition in the SLA of aspect. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31. 371–402. Gabriele, Alison & Alonso Canales 2011 No time like the present: Examining transfer at the interfaces in second language acquisition. Lingua 121. 670–687. Gabriele, Alison & Junko Maekawa 2008 Interpreting tense in a second language. EUROSLA Yearbook 8: 79–106. Gabriele, Alison, Gita Martohardjono & William McClure 2005 Evaluating the role of the L1 in the L2 acquisition of aspect. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad & J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, 808–826. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Giorgi, Alessandra & Fabio Pianesi 1997 Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goad, Heather & Lydia White 2008 Prosodic structure and the representation of functional morphology: a nativist approach. Lingua 118. 577–594. Goodin-Mayeda, Elizabeth & Jason Rothman 2007 The acquisition of aspect in Portuguese Spanish: Exploring native/ non-native performance di¤erences. In S. Baauw, F. Dirjkoningen & M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2005, 131–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grimshaw, Jane & Sara Rosen 1990 Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the Binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 188–221.

Generative perspectives

149

Guasti, Marı´a Teresa 2002 Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hamann, Cornelia 2008 The first language acquisition of French from a generative perspective. In D. Ayoun (Ed.), Studies in French Applied Linguistics, 135–181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hawkins, Roger 2001 Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hawkins, Roger 2003 Representational deficit’ theories of adult SLA: Evidence, counterevidence and implications. Plenary talk given at EUROSLA, Edinburgh, UK, September 2003. Hawkins, Roger, Gabriela Casillas, Hajime Hattori, James Hawthorne, Ritta Husted, Cristo´bal Lozano, Aya Okamoto, Emma Thomas & Kazumi Yamada 2008 The semantic e¤ects of verb raising and its consequences in second language grammars. In J. M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition, 328–351. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hawkins, Roger & Cecilia Yuet-hung Chan 1997 Partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The failed formal features hypothesis. Second Language Research 13. 187–226. Hawkins, Roger & Hajime Hattori 2006 Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research 22(3). 269–301. Hawkins, Roger & Sarah Liszka 2003 Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. In R. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken & R. Towell (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition, 21–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Herschensohn, Julia 2000 The second time around. Minimalism and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hsien-je Chin, Diana 2008 A cross-linguistic investigation on the acquisition of Spanish aspect. In J. Bruhn de Garavito & E. Valenzuela (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 36–50. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Hyams, Nina 1986 Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.

150

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

Iverson, Michael, Paula Kempchinsky & Jason Rothman 2008 Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish. EUROSLA Yearbook 8. 135–163. Iverson, Michael & Jason Rothman 2008 Adverbial quantification and perfective/imperfective interpretive nuances in L2 Portuguese. In R. Slabakova, J. Rothman, P. Kempchinsky & E. Gavruseva, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2007), 70–80. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Jackendo¤, Ray 2002 Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kempchinsky, Paula 2009 What can the subjunctive disjoint reference e¤ect tell us about the subjunctive? Lingua 119. 1788–1810. Klein, Elaine, Gita Martohardjono & Virginia Valian 1999 Learning and using a first and second language. CUNY Collaborative Grant. Lardiere, Donna 2009 Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 25. 173–227. Lardiere, Donna 2003 Second language knowledge of [ePast] versus [eFinite]. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition: L2 Links, 176–189. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Leung, Yan-kit Ingrid 2002 Functional categories in second and third language acquisition: a cross-linguistic study of the acquisition of English and French by Vietnamese and Chinese speakers. Montreal: Canada, McGill University, Ph.D. dissertation. Leung, Yan-kit Ingrid 2005 L2 versus L3 initial state: a comparative study of the acquisition of French DPs by Vietnamese monolinguals and Cantonese-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8. 39–61. Lin, Jo-wang 2003 Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12. 259–311. Lin, Jo-wang 2005 Time in a language without tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics 23. 1–53. Liszka, Sarah Ann 2006 Advanced grammars and pragmatic processes. Exploring the interface. EUROSLA Yearbook 6. 79–99.

Generative perspectives

151

Liszka, Sarah Ann 2009 Associating meaning to form in advanced L2 speakers. An investigation into the acquisition of the English present simple and present progressive. In N. Snape, Y. K. Leung & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Representational deficits in SLA: Studies in honor of Roger Hawkins, 229–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meisel, Jurgen 1997 The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: contrasting first and second language development. Second Language Research 13. 227–263. Mene´ndez-Benito, Paula 2002 Aspect and adverbial quantification in Spanish. In M. Hirotani (Ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd North Eastern Linguistics Society, Graduate Linguistic Student Association, 365–382. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Montrul, Silvina 2002 Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5. 39–68. Montrul, Silvina 2005 Second language acquisition and first language loss in adult early bilinguals: Exploring some di¤erences and similarities. Second Language Research 21. 199–249. Montrul, Silvina 2007 Interpreting mood distinctions in Spanish as a heritage language. In K. Potowski & R. Cameron (Eds.), Spanish in contact. Policy, social and linguistic inquiries, 23–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, Silvina & Roumyana Slabakova 2002 Acquiring morphosyntactic and semantic properties of preterite and imperfect tenses in L2 Spanish. In A. T. Perez-Leroux & J. Liceras (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax: The L1-L2 connection, 113–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Montrul, Silvina & Roumyana Slabakova 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. O’Grady, William 2005 Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pereltsvaig, Asya 2002 Aspect lost, aspect regained: Restructuring of aspectual marking in American Russian. Unpublished manuscript. University of Tromsø. Available at http://www.hum.uit.no/a/pereltsvaig/professional.htm.

152

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

Pe´rez-Leroux, Ana, Alejandro Cuza, Monika Majzlanova & Jeanette Sa´nchez Naranjo 2007 Non-native recognition of the iterative and habitual meanings of Spanish preterite and imperfect tenses. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), Formal features in second language acquisition, 432–451. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pinker, Steven 1994 The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Pin˜on, Christopher 1995 An ontology for event semantics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Ph.D. dissertation. Pollock, Jean-Yves 1989 Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 365–424. Pollock, Jean-Yves 1997 Langage et cognition. Introduction au programme minimaliste de la grammaire ge´ne´rative. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Pre´vost, Phillipe & Lydia White 2000 Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research 16. 103–134. Pullum, Geo¤rey & Barbara Scholz 2002 Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 19 (special issue, Nos. 1–2: A Review of ‘The Poverty of Stimulus Argument’, N. Ritter, Ed.): 9–50. Quer, Josep 1998 Mood at the interfaces. Utrecht, Amsterdam: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics, Ph.D. dissertation. Reinhart, Tanya 2006 Interface strategies. Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rothman, Jason 2008 Aspectual morphology use in adult L2 Spanish and the competing systems hypothesis: when pedagogical and linguistic rules conflict. Languages in Contrast 8(1). 74–106. Rothman, Jason & Michael Iverson 2008 Poverty-of-the-stimulus and L2 epistemology: Considering L2 knowledge of aspectual phrasal semantics. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 15(4). 270–314. Rothman, Jason & Roumyana Slabakova 2011 The mind-context divide: on acquisition at the linguistic interfaces. Lingua 121(4). 568–577.

Generative perspectives

153

Salaberry, M. Rafael 1997 The acquisition of aspect in past tense French among L2 classroom learners. In A. Melby (Ed.), The 1996 Twenty-Third LACUS Forum, 521–532. Chapel Hill, NC: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States. Salaberry, M. Rafael & Dalila Ayoun 2005 The development of L2 tense-aspect in the Romance languages. In D. Ayoun & R. Salaberry (Eds.), Tense and aspect in romance languages: Theoretical and applied perspectives, 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sanz, Montserrat 1999 Aktionsart and transitive phrases. In E. Trevin˜o & J. Lema (Eds.), Semantic issues in romance syntax, 247–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sanz, Montserrat 2000 Events and predication. A new approach to syntactic processing in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schell, Karyn 2000 Functional categories and the acquisition of aspect in L2 Spanish: A longitudinal study. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Ph.D. dissertation. Schwartz, Bonnie & Rex Sprouse 1994 Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra & B. D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, 317–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schwartz, Bonnie & Rex Sprouse 1996 L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research 12. 40–72. Schwartz, Bonnie 1998 The second language instinct. Lingua 106. 133–160. Schwartz, Bonnie & Magda Gubala-Ryzak 1992 Learnability and grammar re-organization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research 8(1). 1–38. Slabakova, Roumyana 2000 L1 transfer revisited: The L2 acquisition of telicity marking in English by Spanish and Bulgarian native speakers. Linguistics 38. 739–770. Slabakova, Roumyana 2001 Telicity in the second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Slabakova, Roumyana 2002 Review article. Recent research on the acquisition of aspect: An embarrassment of riches? Second Language Research 18. 172–188.

154

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

Slabakova, Roumyana 2003 Semantic evidence for functional categories in interlanguage grammars. Second Language Research 19. 42–75. Slabakova, Roumyana 2006 Is there a critical period for the acquisition of semantics. Second Language Research 22(3). 302–338. Slabakova, Roumyana 2008 Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Slabakova, Roumyana 2009 L2 fundamentals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(2). 1–19. Slabakova, Roumyana & Silvina Montrul 2000 Acquiring semantic-properties of preterite and imperfect tenses in L2 Spanish. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Boston University Conference on Language Development, 534–545. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Slabakova, Roumyana & Silvina Montrul 2002 On viewpoint aspect interpretation and its L2 acquisition: A UG perspective. In R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology, 363–395. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Slabakova, Roumyana & Silvina Montrul 2003 Genericity and aspect in L2 acquisition. Language Acquisition 11. 165–196. Slabakova, Roumyana & Silvina Montrul 2008 Aspectual shifts: Grammatical and pragmatic knowledge in L2 acquisition. In J. M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition, 455– 483. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Smith, Carlota 1997 The parameter of aspect (2nd ed.). Boston: Kluwer. Snyder, William 2007 Child language. The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Solt, Stephanie, Yana Pugach, Elaine Klein, Kent Adams, Iglika Stoyneshka & Tamara Rose 2004 L2 perception and production of the English regular past: evidence of phonological e¤ects. In L. Brugos, L. Micciulla & C. E. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 553–564. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Sorace, Antonella 2005 Syntactic optionality at interfaces. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, 46–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Generative perspectives

155

Sorace, Antonella 2006 Possible manifestations of shallow processing in advanced second language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics 27. 88–91. Sorace, Antonella 2011 Pinning down the concept of ‘‘interface’’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1). 1–33. Sorace, Antonella & Ludovica Serratrice 2009 Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13. 1–16. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson 1995 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Stowell, Tim 1993 Syntax of tense. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, Ph.D. dissertation. Tenny, Carol 1992 The aspectual interface hypothesis. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters, CSLI lecture Notes, 1–27. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Toribio, A. Jacqueline 2001 On Spanish language decline. In A. H.-J. Do, L. Domı´nguez & A. Johansen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 768–779. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Travis, Lisa 2000 Event structure in syntax. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, 145–185. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria & Maria Dimitrakopoulou 2007 The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 23. 215–242. Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria & Antonella Sorace 2006 Di¤erentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, BUCLD 30, 653–664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Valian, Virginia 2009 ‘‘Innate syntax – still the best hypothesis’’. Plenary address given at the Boston University Conference on Language Development 34. Verkuyl, Hans 1999 Aspectual issues: Studies on time and quantity (Vol. 12). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

156

Dalila Ayoun and Jason Rothman

White, Lydia 1991

White, Lydia 2011

Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some e¤ects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 7. 133–161.

Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua 121(4). 577–591. Yang, Suying & Yue Yuan Huang 2004 The impact of the absence of grammatical tense in L1 on the acquisition of the tense-aspect system in L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics 42. 49–70.

Part II.

Research design and methodology in L2 studies of tense and aspect

Chapter 5 Research design: A two-way predicational system is better than a four-way approach1 Paz Gonza´lez 1. Introduction This chapter presents the Predication-e¤ect Hypothesis, an approach to the issue of interpreting the particular distribution of the past aspectual morphology in interlanguage. More specifically, it argues that a two-way predicational system is more appropriate for the learning of Spanish as a second language (L2) than a four-way approach. On the theoretical side, a particular description of the Spanish aspectual system is given in Section 2. Following Verkuyl (1997) and Krifka (1998), a distinction is made between predicational and grammatical aspect. Section 3 discusses the intuitions of native speakers about the preferences of verb forms according to varying aspectual sentence information. It is shown that there is no correlation between predicational aspect and grammatical aspect according to native speakers. Section 4 analyzes the distribution of the two Spanish past tense forms in the learners’ interlanguage, the Aspect Hypothesis (AH) and the Default Past Tense Hypothesis (DPTH) are described, and an alternative approach to the L2 acquisition of grammatical aspect is presented; namely, the Predication-e¤ect Hypothesis, which takes as its theoretical starting point the cross-linguistic analysis of the first section. The chapter provides further evidence of what a number of previous studies on the matter propose: L2 research in the acquisition of grammatical aspect confirms the juxtaposition of grammatical aspect and inherent aspect. More specifically, evidence shows that the distinction terminative-durative of the 1. I am very thankful to Henk Verkuyl for his invaluable help with the clarification of the used terminology, and to Huub van den Berg for his help with the analysis of the findings of the two empirical studies presented here. I would also like to thank Rafael Salaberry and Llorenc¸ Comajoan and the external reviewer for their comments on earlier versions of this chapter. However, I am the only one responsible for any inaccuracies or shortcomings of this chapter.

160

Paz Gonza´lez

Predication-e¤ect Hypothesis is e¤ective because it maps not only into the perfective-imperfective contrast in number, but also in meaning, as will be demonstrated in Section 4.3. 2. Aspect 2.1. Two types of aspect The notion of aspect has been used to distinguish aspectual information from temporal information. This distinction, however, only captures part of the complexity, as there are two aspectual phenomena to account for: lexical and grammatical aspect. On the one hand, following well-known proposals (Verkuyl 1997; Borik 2002; and Krifka 1998, among others), a distinction will be made between predicational aspect (also known as inherent aspect) and grammatical aspect (also known as viewpoint aspect). On the other hand, although grammatical aspect and predicational aspect are two distinct linguistic categories, it is almost impossible to entirely exclude one from the discussion of the other. 2.2. Predicational aspect Predicational aspect is essentially the modern successor to the notion of Aktionsart as developed in the study of Slavic aspect. Aktionsart is a property of verbal predicates, and it concerns the internal temporal constituency of a (type of ) situation denoted by a given predicate (Bache 1985). The problem with the notion of Aktionsart is that it has been mostly used to describe a lexical property of the verb, instead of a property of the verb and its arguments. Nowadays, it has become clear that it is the verb and its arguments that provide the aspectual information about the aspectual nature of a predication (Verkuyl 1997, Krifka 1998), but the old distinction between Aktionsart and grammatical aspect is still under discussion as the distinction between predicational aspect and grammatical aspect. In order to understand the principle behind the Aspect Hypothesis (AH, Andersen 1989, 1991), a short description of Vendler’s well-known classification of verb classes is necessary. The verb classes in Vendler (1957) have become a well-established classification of verb meanings according to their inherent aspectual information. In this view, verbs can be states, activities, accomplishments, or achievements. State verbs do no encode either phases or endpoints (e.g., ‘‘to want’’); activity verbs encode situations consisting of phases but no endpoints (e.g., ‘‘to walk’’); accomplishment verbs have phases and an endpoint (e.g., ‘‘to walk a mile’’); and

Two-way predicational system

161

achievements have an endpoint which is instantaneous, and therefore without phases (e.g., ‘‘to discover’’). Predicational aspect is compositionally formed from the interaction between the verb and its arguments (as shown below), whereas grammatical aspect is said to express the perspective on the eventuality described, and it is encoded in the verbal morphology of many languages (e.g., in Spanish). By distinguishing grammatical aspect and predicational aspect, one can posit a tense-aspect triangle: tense, grammatical aspect, and predicational aspect. As shown below, each of the three concepts makes its own contribution to the expression of temporality within the sentence. For instance, the representation of (1a) given in (1b) expresses that the basic, first-level aspectual information comes from the tenseless predication; that is, [Noa drink a lemonade]. (1) a. b.

Noa drank a lemonade. past [Noa drink a lemonade]

In this sense, predicational aspect di¤ers crucially from the temporality contributed by tense. The notion of completion, which is intuitively associated with (1a), is already there before tense is taken into account, because the tenseless sentence expresses termination due to the choice of the verb and the arguments. The tenseless predication in (1b) is terminative (cf. Verkuyl 1972; Krifka 1989, who uses the term telic in this connection, among many others), because the information expressed by combining ‘‘a lemonade’’ and ‘‘drink’’ into a verb phrase such as ‘‘drink a lemonade’’, and by combining this verb phrase and ‘‘Noa’’ into ‘‘Noa drink a lemonade’’ expresses something that presents itself as a unit, as something that can be discerned as complete when compared to the rest of the domain of discourse. The terms terminative/durative are preferred to the terms telic/atelic, because the origin of telic is the Greek word telos, which means ‘‘target’’, and may be too closely associated with lexical meaning (Verkuyl 1972). A verb phrase like ‘‘write a letter’’ may contain something that can be called ‘‘target’’, but this notion does not really work for phrases such as ‘‘spilling three glasses’’, ‘‘begin a walk’’, or ‘‘pass away’’. In these examples, it is farfetched, impossible, or forced to speak of a target. To underline that the level of aspectual representation, corresponding to the tenseless part of a sentence, is in fact a predication (the verb and its arguments), the aspectual information collected at that level is named predicational aspect (Vet 1994).2 2. Some authors use the term eventuality description to refer to the same notion (De Swart 1998).

162

Paz Gonza´lez

Predicational aspect crucially concerns the information about the relationship between the verb and its arguments. If the speaker of example (1) had used as the direct object the mass noun ‘‘lemonade’’, the subject ‘‘nobody’’ or the verb ‘‘want’’, the aspectual value of the predication would have changed (as shown in sentences (2c)–(2e), which are all durative (or atelic)). (2) a. b.

Noa drank lemonade. past [Noa drink lemonade]

c. d. e.

Nobody drank lemonade. Noa wanted a lemonade. Nobody wanted lemonade.

In separating the tense information past from the tenseless predication as in (2b), it is assumed that the aspectual value of a predication determined at the tenseless level of representation remains intact. Therefore, its value is taken as independent of any specific tense information. The tense information has an e¤ect on the predication, but it will not change its aspectual value. This picture seems to hold for Germanic languages like Dutch and English (Verkuyl 1993), but in other languages the connection between tense and aspect is more intimate than in Germanic languages. For instance, Spanish (like other Romance languages) has two inflectional forms for the past tense sentence (1a); that is, ‘‘drank’’ can be translated as bebio´ or bebı´a (examples (3) and (4)). (3) Jari bebio´ una limonada. past perfective [Jari drink a lemonade] ‘Jari drank a lemonade’. (4) Jari bebı´a una limonada. past imperfective [Jari drink a lemonade] ‘Jari drank/was drinking a lemonade’. The di¤erence between the two past forms can only be understood by assuming that certain tense forms express aspectual information. This aspectual information is called grammatical aspect and is encoded between the tenseless level – where predicational aspect is determined – and the past temporal level. In particular, grammatical aspect characterizes the domain in which the eventuality of the predication takes place either as perfective as in (3), or imperfective as in (4). The notion of domain

Two-way predicational system

163

is semantic in the sense that sentences are interpreted in a domain of interpretation. A temporal domain concerns the temporal structure and temporal entities such as events. For instance, for French, there are several proposals in which the formula in (5) has been used to account for the di¤erent roles in the tense-aspect triangle (Vet 1994, de Swart 1998). (5) tense [aspect [predication]] The general idea connected with this formula is that the lowest level of the eventuality description is taken as expressing predicational aspect, that the next step is provided by aspectual operators expressing perspective (the perfective-imperfective distinction), and that the final step is the application of the tense operator. 2.3. The Plus Principle Using an event semantic framework, Verkuyl (1972, 1993) showed that in Germanic languages what has been called lexical aspect is in fact compositionally formed with the help of two aspectual features: [add-to] and [sqa]. To account for the non-stative nature of verbs like ‘‘write’’, ‘‘eat’’, ‘‘hit’’, etc., as opposed to stative verbs like ‘‘hate’’, ‘‘love’’, and ‘‘want’’, a verbal semantic feature called [add-to] is assumed as the contribution of the verb to the aspectuality at a tenseless level. This feature expresses the dynamicity of the verb. For dynamic verbs, such as ‘‘write’’, ‘‘eat’’, etc., the value of the feature is positive; whereas for stative verbs, such as ‘‘hate’’, ‘‘love’’ etc., the value of the feature is negative. The contribution of the NP internal argument to aspectual information can be accounted for in terms of an NP-feature [sqa], where sqa stands for ‘‘Specified Quantity of A’’, ‘‘A’’ being the denotation of the Noun of the NP. This feature expresses the quantification and delimitation of the arguments. Thus, delimited NPs like ‘‘an apple’’, ‘‘three beers’’, ‘‘a piece of bread’’, etc. are labelled [þsqa], whereas NPs like ‘‘apples’’, ‘‘beer’’, ‘‘bread’’, etc. are [sqa]. Predicational aspect thus involves a compositional amalgamation of lexical semantic information given by the verb and delimiting information given by the arguments. Only a combination of a [þadd-to]-verb with [þsqa]-arguments yields compositionally well-formed terminative aspect. All other cases are durative. This combination describes a bipartition of predicational values: terminative versus durative. This is what Verkuyl (1999) called the Plus Principle, since it refers to the requirement that all aspectual features ([addto] and [sqa]) involved in a terminative predication are plus values. As seen in the tenseless examples in (6), terminative predi-

164

Paz Gonza´lez

cations are the marked case, as opposed to the durative predications, which are unmarked and thus more common in language production. (6) a. b. c. d.

Teo [þsqa] Teo [þsqa] Children [sqa] Teo [þsqa]

write [þaddto] write [þaddto] write [þaddto] expect [addto]

Aspectual value a letter [þsqa] ! terminative letters [sqa] ! durative a letter [þsqa] ! durative3 a letter 4 [þsqa] ! durative

Gonza´lez and Verkuyl (2003) showed that the Plus Principle is also a valid tool to characterize Spanish predicational aspect and that both operators receive the same values regardless of the fact a sentence is produced in Spanish or in Dutch. In sum, the Plus Principle turns out to be a useful tool for drawing attention to the contribution of the predication as a whole to aspectual information, because it expresses the requirement that all atomic entities involved in the aspectual composition at this level have to have a positive value in order to derive a terminative predication. 2.4. Grammatical aspect Grammatical aspect concerns the representation of the completion of the temporal domain in which an eventuality is hosted in the past. If the domain is characterized as bounded, the perfective aspect results, whereas if the domain can be characterized as not necessarily complete or bounded, then the imperfective is called for (Gonza´lez 2003). Grammatical aspect is not a strict temporal notion, as it is not deictic. It merely modifies in some 3. In a sentence such as (6c), the denotation of the external argument is [-sqa], which also yields a compositionally formed durative aspect. Examples involving [-sqa] external arguments are not analysed here. This is a result or consequence of the fact that there is an asymmetry between the internal and the external argument; the verb and its internal arguments have closer ties as far as aspectual structure is concerned. 4. In a sentence such as in 6d, the denotation of the verb is [-add to], and therefore it yields a compositionally formed durative aspect.

Two-way predicational system

165

way a domain in the past in which the eventuality is located as to its being bounded or not, so that information can be obtained about the way which the eventuality is presented.5 Grammatical aspect in Spanish is morphologically marked in a systematic way by means of specific morphemes: it is visible in the alternation of aspects in the past, since the morphological encoding of grammatical aspect is only obligatory in the past tense (imperfective-perfective). The perfectiveimperfective distinction in Spanish is inflectional, which means that every verb has both a perfective and an imperfective past form. Spanish has two simple past tense forms, both of them introducing aspectual as well as temporal information together with the verb form itself. Table 1 provides examples of terminative and durative predications and shows how they interact with the two Spanish simple past tenses. The terminology used in Table 1 deserves some clarification. In 1931, the Real Academia Espan˜ola (o‰cial institution responsible for regulating the Spanish Language) reflected on the terminological problem of considering the perfective forms as perfect forms (see Rojo 1988). Spanish distinguishes the perfect verb forms from the non-perfect ones, and it has two parallel complete series of tenses to express them: the perfect and the imperfect. The correspondence could not be more exact: every simple tense or imperfect form corresponds in a one-to-one way to a compound tense or perfect form. To treat the past perfective as a past perfect form would completely break the system, because it would be a simple form but yet perfect in meaning. Because of this, the Academia resorted to considering the past perfective ‘‘a prete´rito indefinido’’ basing this nomenclature on the fact that it expresses sometimes the eventuality as incipient and sometimes as finished. However, to call it ‘‘preterite’’ was confusing, as it just means past. To solve the disputed point of whether the perfective forms should be treated as perfect or not, the following terminological proposal is suggested: the ‘‘prete´rito indefinido’’ or ‘‘prete´rito perfecto simple’’ is here called ‘‘prete´rito perfectivo’’; and the ‘‘prete´rito imperfecto’’ is in the same manner here called ‘‘prete´rito imperfectivo’’.

5. However, aspect is also been defined in deictic terms by Klein (1994) and Doiz-Bienzobas (1995). According to Klein, any given utterance is composed of two components, one finite and one non-finite. The non-finite component is what carries lexical content, the finite component is the Topic Time, which is the time for which the claim about the situation has been made.

166

Paz Gonza´lez

Table 1. Spanish simple pasts Prete´rito Imperfectivo (Past Imperfective)

Prete´rito Perfectivo (Past Perfective)

Durative

(7a) Luca cantaba. Luca sang þ imperfective

(7b) Luca canto´. Luca sang þ perfective

Terminative

(7c) Luca cantaba una cancio´n. Luca sang þ imperfective a song

(7d) Luca canto´ una cancio´n. Luca sang þ perfective a song

Put very simply, the imperfective forms in examples (7a) and (7c) in Table 1 imply that the period of time or domain hosting the eventuality described by the predication is of an incomplete nature (it does not have a right boundary), whereas the perfective forms in (7b) and (7d) imply that the domain hosting the eventuality described by the predication is closed o¤. This causes the process of Luca singing in example (7b) to be presented as bounded. In this sense, there are two sorts of completion in (7d). One is expressed by the terminative nature of the predication, whereas the other is the completion of the domain in which the eventuality is hosted. The di¤erence between imperfective and perfective taken in this sense is not stated in terms of the temporal location of the eventuality itself, which is, in both cases, the past tense, nor in terms of the aspectual properties of the eventuality. What matters here is the representation of the temporal domain where the eventuality takes place. The question of whether the di¤erences between perfective and imperfective forms are temporal or aspectual has attracted much discussion in Spanish linguistics. The idea that the di¤erence is temporal was first proposed by Bello (1847), who defined the imperfective form as a co-preterite, treating it as a present in the past. Therefore, the imperfective form, in Bello’s theory, had its own temporal characteristics. However, the aspectual description of the two simple past tenses in Spanish can be better described as, in accordance with Garcı´a Ferna´ndez (1998), a past imperfective (combination of past tense and imperfective aspect) and a past perfective (combination of past tense an perfective aspect) (Table 1). 2.5. Aspectual incongruence: Incompatibilities? In general terms, both aspectual levels (grammatical and predicational) interact without influencing each other. The following sentences illustrate that it is possible to obtain a sentence with perfective marking and a termi-

Two-way predicational system

167

native predication (8), a sentence with perfective marking and a durative predication (9), a sentence with imperfective marking and a terminative predication (10), and a sentence with imperfective marking and a durative predication (11). (8) Ayer leı´ dos artı´culos en media hora. Yesterday read þ 1stp þ past þ perfective two articles in half hour ‘Yesterday I read two articles in half an hour’. (9) Ayer comı´ porquerı´as todo el dı´a. Yesterday eat þ 1stp þ past þ perfective junk food the whole day ‘Yesterday I ate junk food the whole day’. (10) Cada man˜ana Diego compraba el perio´dico. Every morning Diego buy þ 3rdp þ past þ imperfective the newspaper ‘Every morning Diego bought the newspaper’. (11) Cada man˜ana Pablo compraba bizcochos. Every morning Pablo buy þ 3rdp þ past þ imperfective cakes ‘Every morning Pablo bought cakes’. All the sentences in (8)–(11) are grammatical, which indicates that the two levels of aspectual representation interact without transforming internal values in those languages where the distinction perfective-imperfective is formally present. Hence, aspect needs to deal simultaneously with the characterization of the predicational aspect and with the question of whether the period of time in which the predication is situated is left as open or closed o¤. This task of dealing with two aspectual levels may lead to aspectual combinations within sentences, which may look like incompatibilities, as is the case in sentences (9) and (10), in which the senses of completion of the sentence and the predication it contains are reversed. The possible incompatibilities with imperfective verbal forms are reviewed first (see Chapter 1). The combination of imperfective marking and durative predication, as the more natural combination of two incomplete levels, does not present any complications. That is, a sentence that features an imperfective form, implying that the temporal domain hosting the described eventuality is not complete, does not conflict with the fact that the eventuality is durative, because both aspectual levels are defined as non-complete

168

Paz Gonza´lez

(sentence (11)). However, sentences with an imperfective form, but with compositionally formed terminative aspect can create a problem, as in sentence (10). A quick overview of the di¤erent readings of the imperfective is needed to understand possible incompatibilities. Consider the following sentences: (12) Elin cantaba una cancio´n cada domingo. ‘Elin sang a song every Sunday’. Habitual reading (13) Ayer Elin cantaba una cancio´n porque estaba contenta. ‘Yesterday Elin sang a song because she was happy’. Episodic reading (14) Elin cantaba una cancio´n cuando me la encontre´. ‘Elin was singing a song when I found her’. Progressive reading A range of completion values at the predicational level can be traced between the three imperfective readings. In sentence (12), only the tenseless predication in Elin cantaba una cancio´n, with habitual reading,6 can be understood as terminative, since the eventuality of singing a song occurs several times but each time the eventuality is complete, it becomes, so to speak, an accumulation of terminative eventualities. Sentence (13) is not incompatible with whether in reality Elin finished singing that one song. However, this information is not given by the sentence itself. Finally, sentence (14) cannot express a terminative reading due to the presence of the when-clause and hence the sentence becomes durative: the imperfective form of the verb overrules and modifies the tenseless terminative meaning given by the internal structure of the verb and its arguments by preventing the whole predication from being actualised in real time. To be able to still consider this sentence with a progressive meaning as containing a terminative predication, the progressive could be understood as making a commitment to the process that is part of the event. In this way, the predication keeps its tenseless terminative value; but the focus is on its progress in real time, not on its termination or completion. 6. There is another reading of the imperfective in this sentence: if the verb is punctual, it is possible that it expresses that the event was about to happen but never happened. This is the imperfecto de conato (interrupted) (Ferna´ndez and de Miguel 1999).

Two-way predicational system

169

Imperfectivity, whether it is traditionally a property of a tense system or an aspect system, can be given a uniform analysis based on the notion of an incomplete temporal domain. The range of available interpretations is the same in the case of terminative and durative sentences in the imperfective. Imperfectivity is ‘‘stronger’’ in the sense that it is able to override the terminative-durative distinction. A terminative predication together with a progressive reading is the only case in which the two aspectual levels may not work independently (example 14). However, this problem is solved if the reading of progressivity is understood as focussing on the progress of the event rather than on its being presented as complete. The present approach suggests that an adequate analysis of the imperfective value of grammatical aspect cannot be given in terms of an eventuality description, whether it concerns the part versus whole relation (as in the progressive reading of the imperfective) or its durative versus terminative character. Such an analysis should be adopted in terms of a characterization of the temporal domain, hosting an eventuality. In other words, if the temporal domain in which an eventuality is hosted in the past is characterized as not necessarily complete or bounded, then the imperfective is called for. The perfective form allows for the other type of aspectual incompatibilities. The combination of perfective and terminative aspectual values, as the more natural combination of two complete levels, does not create a problem (as shown in sentence (8)). The other combination with the perfective, that is, a perfective verbal form and durative predication, in sentence (9), repeated here for convenience as (15), may be considered problematic for the idea of independency of aspectual levels. (15) Ayer comı´ porquerı´as todo el dı´a. Yesterday eat þ 1stp þ past þ perfective junk food whole the day ‘Yesterday I ate junk food the whole day’. One could say that intuition would direct the predication [I eat junk food] towards expressing an endpoint in this sentence, because of the perfective marker (in comı´ ), although from an inherent aspect point of view, it should be characterized as a durative predication, as junk food is [-sqa]. However, the eating of junk food by someone is known to end, not because it becomes a terminative predication, but because the period of time when the durative predication takes place is bounded (requirement of the perfective form). Sentence (15) does, therefore, not create a problem for the idea of independence of aspectual levels either.

170

Paz Gonza´lez

Another possible incompatibility may be found in those sentences with stative verbs (included in durative predications): (16) Olivia estuvo enferma. Olivia be þ 3rdp þ past þ perfective sick ‘Olivia was sick’. It can be a‰rmed in (16) that [estar enferma] (‘‘be sick’’) is a durative predication and that the domain accommodating the state of being sick is complete and bounded, as in cell (7b) of Table 1. There is, again, no real incompatibility of aspectual meanings. Thus, it can be concluded that none of the perfective durative combinations is a problem for a two-level aspectual description analysis.7 Nevertheless, there are ungrammatical cases with some types of predications and the perfective form, which turn out to be pragmatic incompatibilities.8 Permanent predications such as that in (17a) express qualities that cannot be subjected to variation (cf. Garcı´a Ferna´ndez 1999).9 In general, they cannot be modified by adverbial complements (17b), nor by temporal subordinated sentences as in (17c), nor can they, in languages with a perfective-imperfective distinction, appear with the perfective (17d). However, they are grammatical with the imperfective (17e). (17) a. b. c. d.

e.

[Julia to be from Barcelona] *Julia was from Barcelona since a couple of months. *Julia was from Barcelona since she was born. *Julia fue de Barcelona. Julia be þ 3rdp þ past þ perfective from Barcelona ‘Julia was from Barcelona’. Julia era de Barcelona. Julia be þ 3rdp þ past þ imperfective from Barcelona ‘Julia was from Barcelona’.

7. For another theoretical standpoint on the interaction of the two aspectual levels, see de Swart (1998). De Swart describes what she calls aspectual shifts and coercion, proposing the idea that perfectives only describe events, whereas imperfectives only describe states and processes. 8. In this context, a connection can be made again to Klein’s Topic Time (1986). According to Klein, the relationship between Topic Time and Time of the Situation (lexical aspect) represents imperfective aspect. 9. Examples (17a), (17b), and (17c) are in English to show that the quality of these predications is not language specific.

Two-way predicational system

171

This semantic incompatibility emerges also with the present perfect, as it is shown in (17f ). (17) f.

*Julia ha sido de Barcelona. ‘Julia has been from Barcelona’.

Sentence (17f ) exemplifies that the incompatibility is not aspectual in nature, as the predication is not only incompatible with the perfective aspectual marker, but also with the perfect temporal marker. In sum, the aspectual description of the Spanish language given in this section assumes a separation of two levels of aspectual information, each of them contributing its own particular interpretation of the semantic notion ‘‘completion’’: a) an interpretation at the predicational aspect level (terminative versus durative predications), and b) an interpretation at the grammatical aspect level (perfective versus imperfective forms) 3. Use of grammatical aspect in L1 The purpose of this section is to contribute to a better understanding of grammatical aspect as used by Spanish speakers. As argued in the previous section, there is a separation between predicational aspect and grammatical aspect, and each of the two levels can be characterized as expressing information about discrete or continuous temporal units: at the predicational level in the form of the bounded-unbounded opposition, and at the grammatical level in the form of the complete-incomplete opposition. The independency of the levels may be hard to recognize because the same type of features seems to characterize both. If the expectation of non-interference between levels is fulfilled, then speakers of Spanish will claim that any past sentence, no matter how the predicational level is being characterized (as bounded or unbounded), can accept both grammatical aspects. Gonza´lez (2003) empirically showed that, despite the influence of the lower lexical level, the final choice of grammatical aspect by native speakers of Spanish is made according to the contextual aspectual information, provided by adjuncts or sentential information. In other words, the predicational aspect that the sentence contains is not the only one influencing the grammatical aspect choice made by the native speakers. In the study, the informants were confronted with pairs of sentences whose only di¤erence was the form of the verb. A questionnaire for native speakers called for acceptance or rejection of 15 pairs of sentences with perfective and imperfective markings, and the results showed that native speakers’ intuitions

172

Paz Gonza´lez

varied, even though there were some patterns that stood out. Sentences including extra information pointing to some sort of repetitive, habitual, or progressive meaning were logically accepted with the imperfective form. For instance, sentences (18) and (19) only di¤er aspectually in the form of the verb. (18) Los barcos llegaban cada media hora. The ships arrive þ past þ imperfective every half hour ‘The ships arrived every half an hour’. (19) Los trenes llegaron cada media hora. The trains arrive þ past þ perfective every half hour ‘The trains arrived every half an hour’. These sentences have extra aspectual information that points to repetition (‘‘every half an hour’’). Thus, sentence (18) – with the imperfective form – was judged grammatical by the majority of the informants. On the other hand, nearly half of the informants found (19) also grammatical. The native informants seemed to have created a situation where the sentence is also acceptable with the perfective form, and this is achieved by (implicitly) adding another layer of aspectual information, in this case something like (20). (20) (Ayer) los trenes llegaron cada media hora. Yesterday the trains arrive þ past þ perfective every half hour ‘(Yesterday) the trains arrived every half an hour’. ‘‘Yesterday’’ limits the time, and it provides a beginning and an end to the event, making the temporal domain complete. Therefore, in this case, the perfective is also an acceptable form. This may lead us to think that aspectual choice is not only a predicational phenomenon, but also a sentential, even contextual, discourse phenomenon (Chapter 6; Fleischmann 1985; Silva Corvala´n 1983). Sentences including extra information pointing to some sort of limitation of time were logically mostly accepted with the perfective form. Sentences (21) and (22), again, only di¤er in the form of the verb. (21) Ayer por la man˜ana Ana compro´ el perio´dico. Yesterday in the morning Ana buy þ past þ perfective the newspaper ‘Yesterday morning, Ana bought the newspaper’.

Two-way predicational system

173

(22) Ayer por la man˜ana Ana compraba una revista. Yesterday in the morning Ana buy.past.imperfective a magazine ‘Yesterday morning, Ana bought a magazine’. These sentences have extra information regarding a specific point in time, with its own beginning and end (‘‘yesterday morning’’). Therefore, the sentence with the perfective form was judged grammatical by nearly all of the informants. However, a small percentage of the informants also considered sentence (22) acceptable. This is probably due to the fact that the imperfective simple past in Spanish may convey an ongoing or repetitive sense to the meaning of the sentence. That is, on the one hand, the imperfective form expressing ongoingness has the unusual property of always having to be in relation to another tense for the sentence where it occurs to fully function. On the other hand, the habitual/repetitive meaning of the imperfective form can function on its own, as long as the time domain is clearly specified, as in (22). Thus, sentence (22) can never express habituality, since it has been already fixed to only one time in the past. There is only one time domain, which means that a repeated temporal domain is out of the question.10 Therefore, the only way this sentence can be used with an imperfective marker is by understanding it as representing an episodic or progressive situation. And this can only be fulfilled if some context is added (in this case, if another tense is added for the sentence to function with imperfective marking). The informants who accepted (22) probably invented a whole extra situation such as in (23), where the imperfective can function adequately. (23) Ayer por la man˜ana Tom compraba una revista cuando se encontro´ con Luca. Yesterday during the morning Tom buy þ past þ imperfective a magazine when him find þ past þ perfective with Luca ‘Yesterday morning Tom was buying a magazine when he met Luca’. Doiz-Bienzobas (1995) has another explanation for the use of the imperfective with telic events, which can also explain why the informants 10. The repetition is not of the eventuality, but of the hosting domain. This is why Ayer por la man˜ana Ramo´n compraba tres revistas (‘‘Yesterday morning Ramo´n bought þ imperfective three magazines’’) is ruled out without the help of extra contextual information.

174

Paz Gonza´lez

accepted (22). In her view, the imperfective in this context is used to designate the concluding event of a series of events, to express emotions and make judgements, and to create a temporal setting. For sentences with no additional aspectual information, both options (perfective and imperfective) are equally acceptable. An example of this type of pair of sentences is given in (24) and (25). (24) Por la noche conta´bamos cuentos. During the night tell þ 1stp pl þ past þ imperfective stories ‘At night time we told stories’. (25) Por la noche contamos cuentos. During the night tell þ 1stp pl þ past þ perfective stories ‘At night time we told stories’. If aspect were an intra-sentential phenomenon, it would be expected that one of both sentences would be more acceptable than the other (according to the predicational aspect of the sentence). This is not the case. Both sentences were equally accepted because the predication in itself does not give enough information as to which aspectual form the verbs need to take. Thus, it was easy for the informants to imagine the two required contexts, one for the perfective form and another one for the imperfective form.11 In sum, from this section, two main conclusions can be reached. First, the predicational level o¤ers no aspectual information that may interfere with the choice of past tense for L1 speakers, and, therefore, predicational aspect and grammatical aspect do not interfere with each other. Second, sentential and contextual aspectual information is crucial to properly understand how grammatical aspect is used by native speakers (see Chapter 6).

4. The acquisition of grammatical aspect in L2 Spanish Several studies have investigated the challenging issue of interpreting the particular distribution of past aspectual morphology in interlanguage

11. A reviewer pointed out that ‘‘por la noche’’ is ambiguous, as it can mean ‘‘every night’’ or ‘‘during that period of time’’ and therefore both interpretations are possible.

Two-way predicational system

175

(e.g., Li and Shirai 2000; Bardovi-Harlig 2000; and Salaberry 2008). More specifically, Spanish has aspectual morphological verbal markers, which do not have a counterpart in languages from the Germanic family. This fact may have contributed to the interest in the study of the acquisition of tense and aspect by L2 learners of Spanish who have a Germanic languages as their L1, as the latter face one of the most significant challenges: the notorious distinction between the two simple past tense forms and the mismatch in aspectual representations between their L1 and L2 (Salaberry 2008). The goal of the present section is to characterize the initial stage(s) of the acquisition of the L2 Spanish aspectual system. Two theoretical views are discussed. First, the aspectual division on verb classes (Vendler 1957, described in Section 2.2) is applied to a description of the distribution of interlanguage past tense morphology of beginning learners. Second, a two-way predicational-aspectual analysis, that is, a division into terminative and durative predications, is considered as a possible tool for an optimal description of what happens in the interlanguage of Dutch L2 learners of Spanish. Moreover, other pragmatic-discourse factors will also be taken into account as they may add relevant clues to the characterization of the distribution of morphological markers in L2 Spanish. Following Salaberry (2008), several characterizations of the initial state of the acquisition of temporal systems in a L2 are discussed. Although these characterizations do not follow the same theoretical framework, reviewing them jointly can be important in building an adequate model of tense-aspect acquisition. The theoretical perspectives to be summarized are the following: Lexical Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen 1991), the Default Past Tense Hypothesis (Salaberry 2000), and the Predication-e¤ect Hypothesis (see Section 2). 4.1. The Aspect Hypothesis (AH) A number of acquisition studies have tackled the influence of aspectual classes (as defined by Vendler 1957) on the interlanguage tense-aspect morphology of L2 learners of Spanish. The main contribution to this line of research is the Aspect Hypothesis (or Lexical Aspect Hypothesis), which states that in beginning stages of language acquisition, only inherent aspectual distinctions, neither tense nor grammatical aspect, are encoded by verbal morphology. The hypothesis was first posited by Andersen (1986), who studied the acquisition of Spanish as a second language by two Englishspeaking children using Vendler (1957)’s four-way division: states, activities,

176

Paz Gonza´lez

accomplishments, and achievements. He presented a developmental sequence for encoding tense and aspect with past inflections containing 9 stages (Table 2). Table 2. Stages in the acquisition of perfective/imperfective forms in L2 Spanish. Stage

States

Activities

Accomplishments

Achievements

1

–

–

–

–

2/3

–

–

–

p

4

i

–

–

p

5

i

i

p

p

6

i

i

ip

p

7 8

i i

ip ip

ip ip

p ip

9

ip

ip

ip

ip

Note: A hyphen indicates that no past morphology is used, that is, present or base forms are used; i: imperfective forms; p: perfective forms; ip: imperfective and perfective forms.

The AH makes predictions about two acquisition features: firstly, the distribution of verbal morphology, and secondly, the development of aspect morphology. Both predictions behave according to inherent aspectual meanings. According to the AH,12 the perfective forms are used first with achievements, then with accomplishments, spreading later to activities and, finally, states. Imperfective forms appear later than perfective forms, and they appear first with states, spreading later to activities, accomplishments and, finally, achievements (Table 2). According to Andersen (1986), in the first stages of acquisition of verbal past morphology, the perfective form is only found with achievements, and the imperfective form only with states. Later on, the perfective is also found with those verbs referring to accomplishments and the imperfective with activities. That is, telic verbs (achievements and accomplishments) are used only with perfective forms and atelic verbs (states and activities) only with imperfective forms. 12. The Aspect Hypothesis makes two more claims that are not considered relevant for the purposes of this description (in languages with progressive aspect, it emerges in activities, then accomplishments and achievements; progressive markings are not incorrectly overextended to statives).

Two-way predicational system

177

The first atelic verbs that are found with perfective are activities; the first telic verbs found with the imperfective are accomplishments. Finally, both forms are found with the four types of predicates (Table 2). When verbal morphology emerges in the learners’ interlanguage, it appears as if it is in complementary distribution to the aspectual class of the verb. A number of studies have provided evidence in favor of the AH (Hasbu´n 1995, Bergstro¨m 1995, Cadierno 2000; for a review of studies see Bardovi-Harlig 2000 and Salaberry 2008). However, some important weaknesses qualify its claims. As Salaberry (2008: 104) pointed out, ‘‘the LAH does not o¤er a theoretical account for what happens after lexical aspect alone can no longer determine the choice of perfective or imperfective’’. Moreover, it also contains methodological limitations that prevent adequate generalizations (see Chapters 8 and 11). However, despite these weaknesses, as Shirai and Kurono (1998: 284) argued, ‘‘studies on the acquisition of verb morphology that systematically investigated the relationship between verb morphology and inherent aspect have consistently indicated that (. . .) adults acquiring an L2 are strongly influenced by the inherent aspect of the verb to which the morphology is attached’’. 4.2. The Default Past Tense Hypothesis (DPTH) Salaberry (1999, 2000, 2008) described the particular distribution of the past aspectual morphology at various stages of development. Salaberry (1999) studied the distribution and development of past tense markers in three sets of data: movie narratives, cloze and editing tasks, and speakaloud protocols. The languages involved in his study were English (L1) and Spanish (L2). At the very beginning (stage 1, 2nd semester students following Spanish academic instruction), the learners in Salaberry’s study relied on a single marker of past tense verbal morphology: the perfective (see also Wiberg, 1996 for similar findings with L2 Italian data with adolescents). This finding was explained as being an under-application of the rule of past tense formation in Spanish. By not using both forms, which are necessary to have a complete system in Spanish, according to Salaberry, the learners were under-applying the rules of past tense use in Spanish. In sum, Salaberry argued that the learners of his study used the perfective as a default marker of past tense. In stage 2, students may realize that they need to use two di¤erent markers of past tense, and they use them according to the inherent lexical semantics associated with verb types (lexical aspect). In stage 3, students are more proficient, and they unexpectedly

178

Paz Gonza´lez

overgeneralize the use of past tense markers associated with specific lexical aspectual classes (the prototypical cases). Salaberry’s explanation for this unexpected overgeneralization was that the degree of association between lexical aspectual classes and inflectional morphology increases with time to the point that it overgeneralizes to a level that surpasses the target language distribution. Finally, in stage 4, students were able to focus on language-specific discursive-pragmatic factors that provided them with information about when to use both markings of verbal morphology. There are two main di¤erences between Salaberry’s stages of acquisition of L2 tense-aspect morphology and those presented by Andersen’s original AH. First, Salaberry’s first stage, which presents the perfective as the default past tense in beginning stages of interlanguage, was not predicted by the AH. Second, studies supporting the AH have not found data where the more proficient students over-generalized the prototypical associations of verbal morphology and aspectual category (Salaberry’s overgeneralization stage). Finally, a few studies have disputed the claims of the DPTH arguing that it is not clear that beginners use perfective morphology across all aspectual categories (Comajoan 2009) and that beginners do not only use perfective morphology (Bergstro¨m 1995; Camps 2002; and Comajoan 2001). 4.3. The Predication-e¤ect Hypothesis A two-way predicational aspect division, based on the information depicted by the verbal predication, portrays the use of the interlanguage past tense morphology from a di¤erent perspective than a four-way inherent verbal semantic distinction. As argued in Section 2.2, predicational aspect crucially concerns the information about the relationship between the verb and its arguments. Durativity and terminativity are the two aspectual values characterizing predicational aspect and recognized at the tenseless level of the bare eventuality. The four-way distinction (states, activities, accomplishments, and achievements) is based on allegedly verbal meanings, whereas the two-way distinction (the two-way predicational aspect division) is based on predicational meanings. The distribution of aspectual classes in Andersen (1986) was primarily based on verb meanings, and Salaberry (1999) also based his second stage on lexical aspect according to Vendler’s classification. However, Salaberry considered three categories, as achievements and accomplishments were combined as telic events, and the contribution of internal arguments and external arguments was also considered.

Two-way predicational system

179

In contrast, the Predication-e¤ect Hypothesis postulates that it may be su‰cient to distinguish two opposite types of predicational aspect: as in Salaberry’s study, both achievements and accomplishments can be defined as pertaining to discrete units, therefore terminative; and activities and states can be defined as predications that are left open, therefore durative. The theoretical analysis described in Section 2 has argued for the existence of two levels of aspectual information within the sentence: predicational aspect and grammatical aspect. Each of the two levels can be characterized as expressing information about its completion: at the predicational level, it is in the form of the opposition terminative-durative; whereas at the grammatical level, it is in the form of the opposition perfective-imperfective. In other words, both oppositions reflect a distinction in completion, on the one hand terminative-durative and on the other hand perfective-imperfective. In this view, the challenge for L2 learners (no matter how you divide verbal aspectual classes) seems to arise when the sense of completion of both levels does not match. If this situation arises, the predicational level may take over, influencing the choice of verb form; that is, when both verbal forms emerge, the completion value of the predication may be responsible for the choices in interlanguage, and not the meaning of the verb on its own. The independency of the levels (predicational and grammatical) may be hard to identify because the same type of feature seems to characterize them both: the completion feature. Nevertheless, the learner has to become aware that the two levels can interact. Only then can learners broaden their interlanguage aspectual system to accommodate those options that at first seem unorthodox. In this sense, it is to be expected that learners will first use the grammatical aspectual completion marker (perfective) with those predications that are also marked as complete, that is, with terminative predications; and they will use the grammatical aspectual non-completion marker (imperfective) with durative predications. The less expected combinations are perfectives with durative predications and imperfectives with terminative predications, and as argued by Salaberry (2008), it is the task of the learner to discover that those options are as valid and as common as those where both completion levels match. Having a two-way distinction at the predicational level allows for a simpler and more straightforward comparison with the two opposites at the grammatical level: terminative-durative versus perfective-imperfective. It may very well be that this juxtaposition of aspectual levels (predicational and grammatical) allows for some complementary distribution in interlanguage. That is, during beginning stages of acquisition, perfective

180

Paz Gonza´lez

morphology will be clustered with terminative predications, whereas imperfective morphology will occur more often with durative predications (Gonza´lez 2003). However, there may be other factors that can interfere with this proposed complementarity of aspectual meanings. First of all, narrating a story in Spanish typically calls for the perfective (for a review of studies defending a discursive approach to grammatical aspect, see Salaberry 2000), and therefore, the perfective is the most prominent past tense marker. Secondly, the durative value is the unmarked predication in language production, and as unmarked, it appears more often. Most sentences in L1 and L2 language production contain durative predications.13 These two factors together (namely, perfective as the most used past tense form and durative as the most common predication type) pose a problem to the hypothesis as presented so far, because it predicts perfective markers to appear with verbs in terminative predications and imperfectives with verbs in durative predications. Therefore, the Predicatione¤ect Hypothesis is reformulated as follows: 1) Perfective will appear first and with all types of predications; and 2) imperfectives will appear later, and, when present, will occur more often with durative predications. Even though the perfective is expected to appear only with terminative predications, this will not be the case. This is because the perfective is the semantically prominent past tense marker and will appear everywhere, irrespective of the type of predication (claim 1 above). On the other hand, the inherent aspect of the predication also plays a role in interlanguage. This entails that when the imperfective emerges, it will be more often than not with durative predications (claim 2 above). The di¤erence with the DPTH is found in the second claim, as the second stage in the DPTH relies on the inherent aspectual meaning of the verb, and the second claim of the Predication-e¤ect Hypothesis relies on the compositional aspect of the predication. Further research needs to substantiate the claims of the Predicatione¤ect Hypothesis, but evidence from a study of 17 Dutch classroom L2 learners of Spanish following a beginner’s course shows that a two-way distinction can prove fruitful for the study of the L2 acquisition of Spanish tense and aspect (Gonza´lez 2003). The participants in the study wrote a number of compositions, and the analysis of data showed that it was not the lexical semantics of the verb what partly influenced the verb choice but 13. This is where the Discourse Hypothesis or the interaction of the Aspect and Discourse hypotheses come into play (see Chapter 9; Comajoan 2000; Salaberry 2008; and Rosi 2009, among others).

Two-way predicational system

181

rather the predicational aspect. The two-way distinction of the Predicatione¤ect Hypothesis was more clarifying than the four-way distinction used for the Aspect Hypothesis, because it mapped not only into the perfectiveimperfective opposition in number but also in meaning (both presenting their own understanding of completion (see Section 2.4.)). In sum, the Predication-e¤ect Hypothesis states that the durativeterminative distinction for the description of the development of aspectual systems of L2 learners proves more relevant than Vendler’s four-way classification or the intrinsic meaning of the verb, because the imperfectiveperfective choice that learners make at the beginning stages of acquisition is related to the predicational aspect of the eventuality they aim to describe. In other words, the four-way distinction is not enlightening to learners because a pattern in the use of the Spanish past tenses according to the four-verb types of Vendler may not exist.

5. Conclusion This chapter has covered a range of research on various issues related to grammatical aspect. On the theoretical side, a particular description of the Spanish aspectual system has been provided in Section 2 according to which Spanish can encode completion at the tense level and at the predicational level. In the tenseless aspectual analysis, every predication receives its tenseless aspectual meaning from the combination of the lexical meaning of the verb and the delimiting information of the arguments. In this sense, Spanish grammatical aspect is a sort of lubricant between tense and the tenseless predication, between the tense level and the predicational level; as it provides aspectual information but uses tense forms as the carriers of such information. The analysis presented in Section 2 allows for predictions at theoretical and empirical levels. Section 3 has discussed the intuitions of native speakers about the preferences of verb forms according to varying aspectual sentence information and how their intuitions on the acceptance of the grammatical aspect forms depends on other aspectual information contained in a simple sentence. The results have showed that there is no correlation between predicational aspect and grammatical aspect in the eyes of native speakers, which means that when choosing between the perfective-imperfective verb forms, natives are not influenced by the lower aspectual level of completion (predicational). In other words, in Spanish, the terminative-durative distinction does not play a role on the native’s choice of simple past tense verb form, and native speakers choose

182

Paz Gonza´lez

between the two inflected aspectual forms according to the contextual discourse information, not according to the atemporal predicational information. Section 4 has analyzed the distribution of the two past tense forms in Spanish in the learners’ interlanguage. The AH and the DPTH have been described and a di¤erent approach to the L2 acquisition of grammatical aspect has been proposed, namely, the Predication-e¤ect Hypothesis. Second language acquisition research involving the acquisition of grammatical aspect confirms the juxtaposition of grammatical aspect and inherent aspect. According to most studies on the matter, L2 verbal morphology is closely related to lexical aspect, as when L2 verbal morphemes emerge in interlanguage, they are not uniformly distributed across all verbs, but rather are distributed according to the lexical aspectual categories of verbal predicates (AH). Nevertheless, although the line of thought started with the AH has definitely hinted in the right direction, it could be more accurate. Considering the lexical meaning of the verb as the carrier of all inherent aspectual information is a first step, but it does not cover the relevance of the semantics of internal arguments for the overall meaning of the bare aspectual level. Thus, it is not the lexical semantics of the verbs what partly influences the verb choice but predicational aspect. The two-way distinction of the Predication-e¤ect Hypothesis is e¤ective because it maps not only into the perfective-imperfective division in number but also in meaning (both presenting their own understanding of completion). To sum up, essentially, it makes more sense having two types of aspect, at a predicational level and at a grammatical level, which can have conflicting meanings in the minds of the learners if each level has the same division type, namely a two-way partition. If an aspectual system is described with two levels (one predicational, one grammatical) and in each level only one opposition, it seems to provide a more powerful explanation to imagine the two levels conflicting than when one of the levels contains four values and the other one only two. References Andersen, Roger 1989 La adquisicio´n de la morfologı´a verbal. Lingu¨´ıstica 1. 90–142. Andersen, Roger 1991 Developmental sequences: the emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition. In T. Hueber & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in SLA and linguistic theories, 305–324. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Two-way predicational system

183

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1999 From morpheme studies to temporal semantics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21. 341–382. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 2000 Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: form, meaning and use. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bergstro¨m, Anna 1995 The expression of past temporal reference by English-speaking learners of French. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University, Ph.D. dissertation. Bello, Andre´s 1988 Grama´tica de la lengua castellana destinada al uso de los americanos. Revised edition of Bello (1947). Madrid: Arco. Borik, Olga 2002 Aspect and reference time. Utrecht: The Netherlands: University of Utrecht, Ph.D. dissertation. Cadierno, Teresa 2000 The acquisition of Spanish grammatical aspect by Danish advanced language learners. Spanish Applied Linguistics 4. 1–53. Camps, Joaquim 2002 Aspectual distinctions in Spanish as a foreign language: The early stages of oral production. IRAL 40. 179–210. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ 2009 The early L2 acquisition of past morphology: Perfective morphology as an aspectual marker or default tense marker? In D. Eddington (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages, 31–43. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Dietrich, Rainer, Wolfgang Klein & Colette Noyau (Eds.) 1995 The acquisition of temporality in a second language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Doiz-Bienzobas, Aintzane 1995 The preterite and the Imperfect in Spanish: Past situation versus past view point. San Diego, CA: University of California-San Diego, Ph.D. dissertation. Doiz-Bienzobas, Aintzane 2002 The preterite and the imperfect as grounding predications. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 299–347. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. Ferna´ndez Lagunilla, Marina & Elena de Miguel 1999 Relaciones entre el le´xico y la sintaxis: adverbios de foco y delimitadores aspectuales. Verba 26. 97–128. Fleischman, Suzanne 1985 Discourse functions of tense-aspect oppositions in narrative: Toward a theory of grounding. Linguistics 23(6). 851–882.

184

Paz Gonza´lez

Garcı´a Ferna´ndez, Luis 1998 El aspecto gramatical en espan˜ol. Cuadernos de lengua espan˜ola. Madrid: Arco. Gonza´lez, Paz & Hans Verkuyl 2003 E¤ects of inherent aspect on the use of Spanish grammatical aspect. Manuscript. Gonza´lez, Paz & Hans Verkuyl 2003 Aspects on aspect. Theory and applications of grammatical aspect in Spanish. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT. Hasbu´n, Leila 1995 The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of the tense/aspect system in L2 Spanish. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation. Klein, Wolfgang 1994 Time in language. London: Routledge. Krifka, Manfred 1998 The origins of telicity. In R. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Krifka, Manfred 1989 Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthemand & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Dordrecht: Floris Publications. Li, Ping & Yasuhiro Shirai 2000 The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rojo, Guillermo 1988 Temporalidad y aspecto en el verbo espan˜ol. LEA. Lingu¨´ıstica Espan˜ola Actual 10. 195–216. Rosi, Fabiana 2009 Learning aspect in Italian L2: Corpus annotation, acquisitional patterns, and connectionist modelling. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Salaberry, M. Rafael 1999 The development of past tense verbal morphology in classroom L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics 20(2). 151–178. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2000 The development of past tense morphology in L2 Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2008 Marking past tense in second language acquisition. A theoretical model. London: Continuum. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Atsuko Kurono 1998 The acquisition of tense-aspect marking in Japanese as a second language. Language Learning 48. 245–279.

Two-way predicational system

185

Silva-Corvala´n, Carmen 1983 Tense and aspect in oral Spanish narrative: Context and meaning. Language 59. 760–780. von Stutterheim, Christiane & Wolfgang Klein 1987 A concept-oriented approach to second language studies. In C. W. Pfa¤ (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes, 191–205. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. de Swart, Henriette 1998 Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 347–385. Vendler, Zeno 1957 Verb and times. Philosophical Review 66. 143–160. Verkuyl, Hans 1972 On the compositional nature of the aspects. FLSS 15. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Verkuyl, Hans 1993 A theory of aspectuality. The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verkuyl, Hans 1999 Aspectual issues. Studies on time and quantity. California: CLSI Publications, Stanford University. Vet, Co 1994 Petite grammaire de l’Aktionsart et de l’aspect. Cahiers de Grammarie 19. 1–17. Weist, Richard 1986 Tense and aspect. In P. Fletcher & M. Garman (Eds.), Language acquisition: Studies in first language development, 356–374. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiberg, Eva 1996 Reference to past events in bilingual Italian-Swedish children of school age. Linguistics 34. 1087–114.

Chapter 6 Research design: Operationalizing and testing hypotheses M. Rafael Salaberry 1. Introduction To investigate aspectual knowledge among both native speakers and second language (L2) learners, it is important to define and circumscribe: (a) the specific theoretical construct that defines aspect, and (b) the methodological procedure to gain access to the selected theoretical representation of aspect. More specifically, the wide range of definitions of tense-aspect knowledge, and the variety of procedures to assess such knowledge are directly reflected on distinct ways to operationalize and assess research hypotheses. In the present chapter, I will analyze how both theoretical descriptions and methodological procedures in the study of tense-aspect knowledge may lead to divergent outcomes (under similar experimental conditions) or, alternatively, divergent outcomes even when sharing theoretical descriptions. For reasons of space, I will restrict my analysis to one particular component of aspectual knowledge (iterativity) as realized in the Romance languages (i.e., Portuguese and Spanish). More specifically, I will analyze various empirical studies which seem to provide contradictory findings to the extent that (a) studies using decontextualized prompts match the findings from other studies using sentence-level prompts, while at the same time (b) a study with contextualized prompts is not replicated with another one using discursive prompts. 2. Aspectual representation of iterativity 2.1. Iterativity as a distinct aspectual concept Aspect refers to the temporal structure of situations (Smith 1997: 3). The most commonly discussed aspectual contrast brought about by the use of perfective and imperfective past tense morphology is the notion of boundedness (e.g., Depraetre 1995; de Swart 1998; Klein 1986; Smith 1997).

188

M. Rafael Salaberry

There are, however, other aspectual notions that have an impact on the native-like selection of past tense morphology. For instance, Filip (1999: 119, emphasis added) specifically states that ‘‘(p)luralities of eventualities, which are expressed by iterative and habitual sentences, belong to a dimension of conceptualization that is orthogonal to the classification of verbal predicates and sentences into states, processes and events’’.1 Bertinetto (1994) makes a similar argument stating that habituality belongs to the subdomain of aspect, whereas lexical aspectual classes belong to the subdomain of actionality. Overall, situations that are repeated in time (cf. iterated eventualities) are represented as either iteratives or habituals.2 Comrie (1976: 27) justifies the theoretical contrast between habituality and iterativity, because the repetition of an event is not enough to make it a habitual.3 That is, all of the repeated instances of the event ‘‘can be viewed as a single situation, albeit with internal structure, and referred to by a perfective form’’. Binnick (1991: 155) proposes further that the imperfective may convey habituality (‘‘repetitive episodes somewhat distantly spaced in time are viewed as a unit’’) whereas the perfective conveys iterativity (‘‘repetitive episodes rather closely spaced in time and viewed as a unit’’). For instance, in Spanish and Portuguese, both single and iterated telic events can be conveyed with the use of Preterite (PRET) in (1a), whereas habituality is typically expressed with the use of the Imperfect (IMP) in (1b). On the other hand, the concept of iterativity is expressed with the Preterite in (1c).

1. In Filip’s nomenclature, processes correspond to activities, whereas events correspond to telic eventualities. 2. Note that the term iterative may refer to the overall concept of iterated eventualities in general, or it may refer to the more specific concept that stands in contrast with the correlated concept of habituality (e.g., Langacker 2000; Lenci and Bertinetto 2000). 3. One reviewer points out that the distinction between iterative and habitual from Shirai (1991) should be considered for the present analysis. However, Shirai’s contrast between iterative and habitual is predicated on the contrast of repeated actions on a single occasion (iterative) versus repeated actions on di¤erent occasions (habitual). A similar position is advanced by Klein (1994). As is clear from the examples to be reviewed, such definition is not necessarily the one represented in the the uses of the Spanish Preterite and Imperfect.

Operationalizing hypotheses

(1) a.

189

Ayer el cartero llego´ tarde. Yesterday the mailman arrived (PRET) late.

b.

Cuando era nin˜o, el cartero llegaba tarde. When I was a child, the mailman arrived (IMP) late.

c.

Durante muchos meses, el cartero llego´ tarde. For months the mailman arrived (PRET) late.

English native speakers are very familiar with the contrast of single events versus habitual events (1a versus 1b), both through high frequency representations of such contrast in L2 input data, along with explicit instruction on such contrast. Less well known among these learners is the contrast between single and iterated events (1a versus 1c). 2.2. Interpretations of findings on the L2 acquisition of the concept of iterativity Previous studies carried out with Spanish L2 data (e.g., Pe´rez-Leroux et al. 2007; Salaberry 2012; Salaberry and Scholes to appear; Slabakova and Montrul 2007) consistently show that whereas both English native speakers learning Spanish and Spanish native speakers consistently accept the use of the Preterite with sentences depicting a single event (1a), only Spanish L2 learners tend to reject the use of the Preterite depicting an iterated telic event (1c). Despite the analysis of the apparently consistent findings about the rejection of the Preterite as an iterativity marker in Spanish L2 data, there is at least one recent study based on L2 Portuguese data that reveals that non-native speakers are arguably capable of correctly assigning the use of the perfective form to iterated events (i.e., Rothman and Iverson 2008). This study brings up the distinct possibility that the selection of L2 (i.e., Spanish or Portuguese) makes a di¤erence in the acquisition of the concept of iterativity among English speakers. However, as I will discuss below, it is also possible that both the theoretical framework and the type of language input will have an e¤ect on the outcome of the assessment. It is important to note that, despite the fact that the studies with Spanish L2 data cited above have provided similar results with regards to the reactions of learners to the linguistic prompts (cf. Spanish L2 learners’ rejection of the Preterite to mark iterated eventualities), the researchers’ interpretations of the findings are not the same. For instance, Slabakova and Montrul (2007) argued that L1 English speakers are not able to transfer knowledge of how iterated events are marked in L1 English to L2 Spanish. Slabakova

190

M. Rafael Salaberry

and Montrul note, however, that this shortcoming is not to be regarded as a limitation on the acquisition of the L2 grammar per se. That is, Slabakova and Montrul propose that the type of aspectual information provided by adverbials is outside of the scope of grammatical representation, and more properly, part of the realm of pragmatics knowledge.4 In contrast, Pe´rezLeroux et al. propose that knowledge about iterativity remains within the realm of the L2 grammar. That is, whereas Montrul and Slabakova depict acquisition as feature activation, for Pe´rez-Leroux et al., acquisition is theoretically represented as lexical development, ‘‘where learners must bootstrap the selectional features of each functional head independently’’ (443–4). Thus, L2 learners learn the semantic selectional restrictions associated with the perfective first (the Imperfect is acquired later). As Pe´rezLeroux et al. point out (443), within Slabakova and Montrul’s position, ‘‘variations from the target depend solely on performance factors’’, whereas within the framework adopted by Pe´rez-Leroux et al. students’ responses ‘‘leaners could in principle determine the s(emantic)-selectional features of each head independently’’.5 Finally, Salaberry (2012) argues that the development of a representation of aspectual meanings among adult L2 learners is determined primarily through L1 transfer of aspectual representations. For instance, through transfer from their native language, L1 English speakers may initially assume that the category Simple Past corresponds to the Preterite and that uses of the periphrastic progressive are largely equivalent to the Imperfect. Learners would of course use these generalizations as rules of thumb, quickly realizing there are exceptions to them. The use of these basic generalizations is eventually complexified with the use of additional mostly lexically-based ‘‘patches’’ (cf. lexical aspectual categories or specific verbs) that help learners reconcile their overly simplified system with the available data from the L2. 3. Theoretical descriptions: Operationalizing hypotheses In this section, I review three distinct theoretical perspectives on the representation of the iterative-habitual contrast in the most recent L2 acquisition 4. This is a valid methodological decision that can help us circumscribe the theoretical analysis of data within a limited contextual space (i.e., adverbial information is left out of the picture so to speak). Being a methodological decision, however, it cannot circumvent the fact that native speakers’ intuitions about aspectual interpretations are contextualized. 5. The position advocated by Pe´rez-Leroux is compatible with the argument advanced by the Default Past Tense Hypothesis (Salaberry 1999, 2003, 2008).

Operationalizing hypotheses

191

literature: Smith’s basic versus derived-level interpretations, Mene´ndezBenito’s accidental versus non-accidental generalizations, and Langacker’s actual versus structural plane. Each position to be described will progressively expand the range of discourse contexts available for the interpretation of aspectual meanings. I argue that aspect cannot be properly understood without reference to a level of contextualization above the verb phrase. In essence, it is not possible to define or assess the construct of aspect without adopting a ‘‘discursively-distributed’’ definition of aspectual meanings (cf. Salaberry 2008). That is, aspect, by its very nature, can neither be understood nor explained if its theoretical construct is defined out of context. Within this perspective, the dichotomy of core-peripheral grammar or syntactic-pragmatic representations of aspect can be reconceptualized as invariant and contextualized meanings (cf. Binnick 1991; Doiz-Bienzobas 1995, 2002). 3.1. Basic-level versus derived level of interpretation The e¤ect of contextual information beyond the e¤ect of internal and external arguments has generated a multitude of theoretical accounts. Some researchers have approached this problem by way of expanding on the basic aspectual distinctions they have proposed. For instance, Smith makes a distinction between ‘‘basic-level verb constellations’’ and ‘‘derivedlevel verb constellations’’ (1997: 54–56). The former are determined by compositional rules that include the e¤ect of the main verb and its arguments (both internal and external), whereas the latter includes not only the basic-level verb constellation, but also the e¤ect of adverbials (e.g., for an hour), superlexical morphemes (e.g., to begin, to finish) and verbal morphology (e.g., progressive). For the purpose of this chapter, I will focus on the e¤ect of adverbials only. Smith (1997: 4) argues that the following examples (originally from Verkuyl) ‘‘show very clearly that situation type meaning is compositional: it is built up with the verb, arguments and adverbs of a sentence’’.6 Smith points out that the combined meaning of the external argument (the subject of the sentence), and the adverbial ( for years in 2a) entails that sentence (2a) is atelic and (2b) is telic.

6. Examples (2a) and (2b) are numbered (39a) and (39b) respectively in Smith (1997).

192

M. Rafael Salaberry

(2) a. b.

[Famous movie stars] discovered that little spa for years. [atelic] [A famous movie star] discovered that little spa. [telic]

Note that if we added the same adverbial phrase used in (2a) to sentence (2b), we would be shifting the telic nature of that sentence (without changing the external argument) to an atelic one. (2) c. A famous movie star discovered that little spa [for years]. [atelic] That is, in (2c) one single movie star visited the same spa over several years (metaphorically ‘‘discovering’’ it each time). Smith does not make a principled distinction among di¤erent types of iteration of eventualities (for a discussion of the problem of subsuming perfectivity within habituality, see Lenci and Bertinetto 2000).7 Essentially, Smith proposed that ‘‘in the context of a frequency adverbial, almost all verb constellations can be taken as habitual’’ (35, emphasis added). And, in the case of sentences without an explicit frequency adverbial, Smith argued that our world knowledge leads us to interpret sentences as habitual. For instance, Smith states that ‘‘[g]etting up and reading the newspaper are ordinary and likely to be taken as habitual’’.8 (3) a. (4) a.

Eva got up at noon last summer. Mary read the newspaper last summer.

Interestingly, however, the Spanish translations of the sentences above are more naturally expressed with the imperfective and perfective forms respectively. (3) b.

Eva ?se levanto´/se levantaba al mediodı´a el verano pasado. Eva got up (PRET/IMP) at noon last summer.

(4) b.

Marı´a leyo´/?leı´a el perio´dico el verano pasado. Mary read (PRET/IMP) the newspaper last summer.

7. Lenci and Bertinetto (2000: 251) surmise that ‘‘it might be straightforward to include the perfective sentence in the domain of habituality’’. However, the consequence of this solution is that we would lose the correlation between habituality and imperfectivity. 8. These examples are presented in Smith (1991: 41), but not in the (1997) edition. The overall argument, however, is the same in both editions.

Operationalizing hypotheses

193

The almost complementary distribution of the perfective and imperfective markers in the above sentences in Spanish (and other Romance languages for that matter) brings up two important theoretical issues. First, the use of contrasting morphological markers shows that Spanish speakers are aware of meaningful aspectual distinctions that are, for that reason, signaled through morphosyntactic means. That is to say, Smith’s conclusion that the notion of repetition or iteration belongs to the realm of pragmatics (cf. world knowledge) – based on examples from English – appears to be unsatisfactory, or at a minimum, incomplete given the above examples from Spanish. Second, the possible complementary distribution shown above is a tendency that can be easily reversed if we added some relevant context (in the form of additional adverbials) as in (3c) and (4c) below. Thus, the strong tendency of the Preterite to convey punctuality (default meaning) in association with a telic event (prototypical match) cannot be easily overcome with the addition of the durative adverbial (last year) in sentence (3b).9 If, however, another adverbial were to be added, in particular one that signals the notion of repetition more clearly (todos los dı´as in 3c), then the Preterite shifts meaning from punctuality to iterativity and the sentence is acceptable. (3) c. El verano pasado, Eva se levanto´ al mediodı´a [todos los dı´as]. Last summer, Eva got up (PRET) at noon [every day]. (4) c. Marı´a leı´a el perio´dico [con regularidad] el verano pasado. Mary [regularly] read (IMP) the newspaper last summer. Similarly, the preference for the selection of the Preterite in (4b) above may possibly be associated with the fact that reading the newspaper (leer el perio´dico) is an atelic event. That is, the strong tendency of the Imperfect to convey background information (default meaning) in association with an atelic event (prototypical match) cannot be easily overcome with the addition of the durative adverbial (last year) in (3b). If, however, another adverbial that further specified the notion of repetition (con regularidad in 4c) were to be added, then the Imperfect would shift meaning from signaling background information to conveying habituality. As a consequence, sentence (4c) becomes acceptable. In sum, despite Smith’s assertion, the

9. An equivalent association is the one between lexical aspect and grammatical aspect, which Michaelis (2004) describes as isomorphic characterization.

194

M. Rafael Salaberry

iterativity-habituality contrast appears to belong to the realm of grammatical conceptualization, and, more importantly, such contrast seems to be dependent on a broad level of contextualization. 3.2. Accidental versus non-accidental A more encompassing perspective of the role of adjuncts within an overall composition of aspectual meanings is provided by Mene´ndez-Benito (2002: 365), who argues that ‘‘[i]t is clear that to ultimately be considered successful, an account of the perfective/imperfective contrast should lead to an explanation of how these aspects interact with adverbs . . .’’ Mene´ndezBenito underlines that, at a basic level, the Imperfect focuses on the fact that eventualities are generalizable (5a), whereas the Preterite serves to focus on the episodic nature of particular eventualities (5b).10 (5) a.

b.

Cuando venı´a a mi casa, Juan fumaba. When he used to/came (IMP) to visit, Juan used to/smoked (IMP). Cuando vino a mi casa, Juan fumo´. When he came (PRET) to visit, Juan smoked (PRET).

She notes, however, that when our descriptions of eventualities set in past tense contexts include adverbial quantifiers (e.g., siempre), both the Preterite and Imperfect convey the notion ofgeneralizations of particular episodes (366) as shown in sentences (6a) and (6b) below.11 (6) a.

b.

Siempre que venı´a a mi casa, Juan fumaba. Whenever he used to/came to visit (IMP), Juan used to/smoked (IMP). Siempre que vino a mi casa, Juan fumo´. Whenever he came to visit (PRET), Juan smoked (PRET).

That is, both sentences above make reference to the iteration of the eventuality of smoking. Thus, in principle we should ‘‘predict imperfective and perfective forms to be interchangeable when the sentence contains an adverbial quantifier’’ (369). 10. The following examples (5–14) are from Mene´ndez-Benito. 11. Bonami (1997) points out that aspectual morphology is associated with a default quantifier, which can be overriden by an overt adverb of quantification.

Operationalizing hypotheses

195

Nevertheless, Mene´ndez-Benito adds that ‘‘this prediction is not borne out: even when an adverbial quantifier is present, imperfective and perfective forms do not have the same distribution . . . (372). That is, Spanish perfective and imperfective behave di¤erently with respect to generic adverbs (e.g., normalmente ‘normally’) and durational phrases (e.g., durante dos an˜os ‘for two years’). In essence, the imperfective can combine with generic adverbs (7a), but the perfective does not render a felicitous sentence (7b). In contrast, Mene´ndez-Benito argues, the perfective is acceptable with durational phrases (8a), but the imperfective is not (8b).12 (7) a. b. (8) a. b.

El an˜o pasado Juan normalmente iba al cine. Last year, Juan normally went (IMP) to the movies. *El an˜o pasado Juan normalmente fue al cine. Last year, Juan normally went (PRET) to the movies. Durante dos an˜os Juan fue al cine. During two years, Juan went (PRET) to the movies. *Durante dos an˜os Juan iba al cine. During two years, Juan went (IMP) to the movies.

To solve the dilemma about the distinct distribution of past tense forms, Mene´ndez-Benito argues that Goodman’s (1947) contrast between nonaccidental (9) and accidental (10) statements posits an interesting correlation with iterated eventualities. (9) All dimes are silver. (10) All the coins in my pocket are silver. More specifically, Mene´ndez-Benito argues that ‘‘[w]hile the generalizations made by the imperfective sentences pattern with sentences like (9), the generalizations made by perfective sentences pattern with sentences 12. Mene´ndez-Benito mentions a third category: exceptive temporal phrases that denote a particular time interval. For instance, in the sentence Siempre que le hice/hacı´a una observacio´n, se lo tomo´/tomaba bien excepto el lunes dos de abril de 1998, [‘Whenever I made/used to make an observation, he accepted/used to accept it, it except on Monday April 2, 1998’] Mene´ndez-Benito argues that the use of the perfective form is probably more acceptable than the imperfective. This judgment of unacceptability is, however, questionable. In fact, Mene´ndezBenito recognizes that the use of the imperfective is not necessarily ungrammatical given that she does not categorize the use of the imperfective form as ungrammatical, but rather unlikely (She marks it with ?? Instead of *).

196

M. Rafael Salaberry

like (10) (373, emphasis added). That is, sentences with the imperfective (11) convey the notion of non-accidental generalizations (law-like) and sentences with the perfective (12) convey the notion of accidental generalizations. Mene´ndez-Benito’s argument leads us to conclude that accidental generalizations are exceptional in the sense that they are restricted to the specific time frame in which they happened: they are equivalent to the exceptional circumstance that all coins in my pocket happen to be made of silver. (11) Siempre que venı´a a mi casa, Juan fumaba. Whenever he used to/came to visit (IMP), Juan used to/smoked (IMP). (12) Siempre que vino a mi casa, Juan fumo´. Whenever he came to visit (PRET), Juan smoked (PRET). To substantiate the proposed correlation with Goodman’s proposal, Mene´ndez-Benito argues that accidental generalizations make reference to stage-level predicates, whereas non-accidental generalizations make reference to kind-denoting subjects.13 For instance, she states that (13a) conveys the meaning that the price of the book was $40, whereas (13b) conveys the meaning that, for instance, someone bought the book and it cost $40. (13) a. b.

El libro costaba $40. The book cost (IMP) $40. El libro costo´ $40. The book cost (PRET) $40.

This argument is problematic given that Mene´ndez-Benito concedes that there are contexts in which a perfective verb may get an individual-level interpretation as in (14). 13. Mene´ndez-Benito specifically states that ‘‘Non-accidental generalizations are law-like statements, and make reference to kind-denoting subjects, thus they support the truth of counterfactuals’’ (372–374). For reasons of space, I will not discuss this argument in detail. Nevertheless, I believe this assertion is tautological, thus it is impossible to disambiguate the referential meaning of the counterfactual statement. For instance, Mene´ndez-Benito provides no independent evidence to demonstrate that the counterfactual makes reference to the imperfective sentence, but not the perfective one (cf. En la Repu´blica, siempre que alguien era/fue acusado de un crimen, tenı´a/tuvo un juicio justo, ‘In the Republic, when someone was accused of a crime, he always had (IMP/ PRET) a fair trial’).

Operationalizing hypotheses

197

(14) Juan supo france´s hasta que se mudo´ a los EEUU.14 Juan knew (PRET) French until he moved to the US. Even though Mene´ndez-Benito disregards such example as exceptional (‘‘I believe that the tendency noted above is strong enough to still count as evidence for my claim’’, 376–377), there are many examples that uphold the notion that the perfective form can be used with individual level predicates. For instance, Gu¨ell (1998: 99) points out that the perfective may be used with the same stative verb saber (‘to know’) in contexts that are even more puzzling to non-native speakers than the previous one, as shown in (15). (15) Lo supo/*sabı´a durante mucho tiempo. (S/he) knew (PRET/IMP) it for a long time. Indeed, we can easily find contextual support to convey an individual-level interpretation of the main example used by Mene´ndez-Benito and conclude that the verb costar (‘to cost’) in the perfective should be given an individuallevel interpretation as well: (16) El libro siempre costo´ $40, hasta que Amazon lo puso a la venta. The book always cost (PRET) $40, until Amazon started selling it. In sum, the proposal to characterize the types of iterativity brought about by the use of perfective and imperfective Spanish past tense markers in terms of accidental versus non-accidental sentences (Goodman 1947) has notable shortcomings. Nevertheless, Menendez-Benito’s argument serves to make a compelling case to consider the information provided by adverbial phrases (adjuncts) as part of grammatical knowledge, and more importantly, to advance the argument that such (contextually-based) knowedge has to be incorporated to any model of grammatical competence.

14. One reviewer questioned the grammaticality of sentence (14). I believe that Mene´ndez-Benito is right to consider it grammatical/acceptable in the context of a non-prototypical interpretation. For instance, one possible context that would license this sentence is one in which the time-frame that serves as background information is one in which Juan spoke French as a second or third language, and then, after a long period of absence from the French-speaking scene, he is no longer able to keep up with a language that he no longer uses regularly.

198

M. Rafael Salaberry

3.3. Actual versus structural plane A third theoretical perspective on the contrastive meaning between iteratives and habituals is the one advanced by Langacker (2000, 2009). Langacker conceptualizes the information provided by adverbials as part of grammatical knowledge. More specifically, he draws a distinction between the actual plane comprising ‘‘event instances that are conceived as actually occurring’’, and the structural plane in which ‘‘event instances [have] no status in actuality’’ (2000: 251). Langacker argues further that repetitive sentences (iterative) are part of the actual plane, whereas habitual sentences belong to the structural plane. For instance, the repetitive in (17) shows the component events of individual instances of cats and birds anchored to particular points in time (expressing actual, episodic, events). In contrast, in a habitual sentence as in (18), the component events are not anchored to any particular points in time (thus, conveying a habitual meaning). (17) Repetitive: My cat repeatedly stalked that bird. (18) Habitual: My cat stalks that bird every morning. In essence, iterated-event predications express actual events like other kinds of episodic predications. In contrast, habitual sentences express structural events similar to the meanings expressed by generic sentences.15 Langacker’s proposal is not unique given that other researchers have made similar arguments. For instance, Bhatt (1999: 53) contended that the ‘‘habitual di¤ers from iterative and frequentative crucially by the fact that the former is inductive whereas the latter are deductive’’. Inductive refers to the fact that an event is habitual upon the observation of only one occurrence of the event. In contrast, for iteratives, we need to observe several occurrences of the event. For instance, frequency adverbials such as once, twice, ten times are relevant for iteratives but not for habituals. That is, the anchoring/deductive nature of iterated events is felicitous in the context of durational phrases (e.g., durante dos an˜os ‘for two years’), an argument advanced by Mene´ndez-Benito as well.

15. Interestingly, the contrast proposed by Langacker is also made by several other researchers working within very di¤erent theoretical models. For instance, Lenci and Bertinetto (2000: 25) express that ‘‘. . . language represents series of events in two di¤erent modes: as normative habits or simply as accidental pluralities of occurrences . . . Perfective sentences can represent series of events or the frequency of events, but always remaining the vehicles of episodic propositions’’.

Operationalizing hypotheses

199

Doiz-Bienzobas (1995: 107) extended Langacker’s conceptualization of iterative and habitual sentences to analyze the meaning contrasts of Spanish Preterite and Imperfect. Doiz-Bienzobas and she concluded that habituals are represented with the Imperfect (19a) whereas iterated meanings are represented with the Preterite (19b): (19) a. b.

El an˜o pasado iba a nadar todos los dı´as. Last year I used to go (IMP) swimming every day. El an˜o pasado fui a nadar todos los dı´as. Last year I went (PRET) swimming every day.

Doiz-Bienzobas argues that the di¤erent instances of the event of swimming depicted in (19a) are not anchored to particular points in time (structural plane); thus, any one of them may fail to be present without necessarily a¤ecting the interpretation of the habitual meaning of the sentence. In contrast, all of the instances of the event of swimming depicted in (19b) are anchored to particular points in time. Thus, sentence (19b) implies that the speaker went to swim every day last year.16 In sum, Smith’s contrast between basic and derived level interpretations leaves out of the representation of aspectual meanings the inherently essential component of adverbials. Thus, Smith’s proposal leads to an incomplete and decontextualized representation of aspect that fails to account for the apparent contrasts between iterative and habitual sentences in Spanish. Mene´ndez-Benito’s proposal solves this problem by explicitly recognizing the e¤ect of adjuncts on aspectual interpretations. However, Mene´ndez-Benito’s claim introduces certain restrictions: the perfective form is associated with exceptional, accidental cases only. Some of the data we reviewed above seem to raise doubts about the generalizability of her contention. Finally, Langacker’s proposal (actual versus structural plane) is the most open to the encompassing e¤ect of context on the representation of aspectual contrasts; thus it seems to capture the fact that both iterative and habitual sentences may be used to refer to the same eventuality in reality. In other words, Langacker’s definition captures the fact that

16. Comrie (1976: 29) argues that habituals no longer hold only as a result of an implicature, which is weaker than an implication: if denied, the situation no longer holds, ‘‘but if not denied, or suspended by an explicit remark from the speaker to the e¤ect that he does not know whether or not it holds, then it will be taken to hold’’.

200

M. Rafael Salaberry

there is an aspectual meaning contrast (i.e., grammatical) introduced by the use of the perfective or imperfective form. The notion of the anchoring of eventualities in association with the use of specific adverbial phrases (cf. Mene´ndez-Benito’s generic adverbials versus durative phrases) and the selection of either Preterite or Imperfect is more apt to capture the iterative-habitual contrast in meaning.

4. Methodological procedures: Testing hypotheses Evaluating speakers’ knowledge about aspectual distinctions within the scope of broad contextualization of the construct is complex because there are multiple variables to consider for the selection of the actual linguistic prompts to study aspect. This is even more of a challenge in cases when linguistic prompts are longer than a single sentence, a necessary ‘‘inconvenience’’ of methodological design given the discussion on the theoretical representation of aspect presented above. 4.1. Language prompts Assessing speakers’ knowledge about theoretical constructs that do not have a high frequency of use in most speech tasks used in L2 research presents an important challenge for the research design of any study. In particular, the representation of iterative and habitual meanings will be distinctly represented through various levels of contextualization language of prompts that need to be carefully analyzed given the conclusions gathered in the previous section with respect to the contextual scope of the definition of iterative-habitual. In this section, I first present a brief review of the basic experimental set-up of relevant previous studies. Then, I o¤er a more detailed discussion of one of the studies that has used a more encompassing and necessary discursive frame of analysis and yet, it has o¤ered contradictory findings with reference to previous studies. Slabakova and Montrul (2007) analysed data from 60 English native speakers and 27 native Spanish speakers. The English native speakers were divided into two groups according to their proficiency in Spanish: 27 advanced learners and 33 intermediate learners. The test instrument was a grammaticality judgement test that consisted of 49 pairs of sentences testing six conditions of shifted aspectual interpretations and one set of seven distractor sentences. The sentences were presented in pairs to test

Operationalizing hypotheses

201

the meaning contrast of verbs with a basic and a shifted interpretation brought about by grammatical or pragmatic means. The grammatically based shifted interpretations of our interest were the ones in which achievements were shifted into habituals with the addition of an adverbial (sentences 20a and 20b) (20) a. b.

Durante muchos meses, el tren del mediodı´a llego´ tarde. For months, the 12 o’clock train arrived (PRET) late. Ayer, el tren del mediodı´a llego´ tarde. Yesterday, the 12 o’clock train arrived (PRET) late.

Informants judged all sentence pairs on a five-point scale from 1 (unacceptable, ‘I would never say this’) to 5 (perfect, ‘I would say this’). The results of the study revealed that learners failed to distinguish the di¤erence in meaning represented by telic events that had been iterated (20b). Further substantiation of these results comes from the study carried out by Salaberry and Scholes (to appear), who replicated the findings from Slabakova and Montrul with the inclusion of participants who had even more advanced knowledge of the L2 than the ones used in the original study of Slabakova and Montrul. Pe´rez-Leroux et al. (2007) expanded on the previous results by focusing on the e¤ects of explicit versus implicit markers of iterativity. Thus, they analysed data from 41 L2 Spanish students and 10 native Spanish speakers on the e¤ects of unique, habitual, and iterated situations with the use of a 50-item grammaticality judgement task and an 18-item translation task. The learners were divided into two levels of proficiency based on course enrollments in second or third year. There were two di¤erent conditions that triggered an iterative interpretation: explicit with the use of what they call ‘‘iteration adverbial’’ (e.g., repetidamente, ‘repeatedly’) as shown on (21a,b) and implicit with the use of a duration adverbial (e.g., por dı´as, ‘for days’) as depicted in (22a,b). The unique situation was acceptable with the Preterite, the habitual with the Imperfect, and both iterated situations were acceptable with the Preterite only. (21) a. b.

El terremoto sacudio´ la ciudad por dı´as. The earthquake shook (PRET) the city for days El terremoto sacudı´a la ciudad por dı´as. The earthquake shook (IMP) the city for days.

202

M. Rafael Salaberry

(22) a. b.

El terremoto sacudio´ la ciudad repetidamente. The earthquake shook (PRET) the city repeatedly. El terremoto sacudı´a la ciudad repetidamente. The earthquake shook (IMP) the city repeatedly.

The results revealed that the L2 learners accepted the prototypical combinations of the Preterite with punctual eventualities and the Imperfect with habitual eventualities. However, learners failed to reject the (ungrammatical) use of the Imperfect with both implicit and explicit iterated events (21b and 22b). Pe´rez-Leroux et al. attribute the outcome of their study to the e¤ect of instruction. They argue that ‘‘[g]rammatical instruction does not distinguish between these senses, it merely states that ‘repetition in the past is expressed in the Imperfect form’ ’’ (434). Finally, Salaberry (2012) expanded the analysis of previous studies based on sentence-based prompts with the use of more extended discourse-based prompts that contextualized the aspectual choices, thus maximizing the probability that participants would focus their attention on the target aspectual construct. His findings replicated the results of previous studies pointing to a clear dissociation in the interpretation of iterative and habitual choices. That is, advanced L2 speakers (cf. teaching assistants) paralled the choices of native speakers with regards to the preferred aspectual marker to signal habituality, but failed to mark the contrast signalled by iterative sentences as distinct from habitual choices. 4.2. Analysis of contradicting data Despite the apparent consistency in the outcome of studies that investigated knowledge about iterativity and habituality among L2 learners, there is one study that has failed to replicate such findings. More importantly, such an outcome has been used to substantiate a strong argument for the existence of ultimate attainment in aspect (see Chapter 4). In this section, I analyze the research design of the study carried out by Rothman and Iverson (2008). This is justified for three reasons. First, their study is framed within Mene´ndez-Benito’s (2002) theoretical proposal about accidental and non-accidental generalizations, a proposal that explicitly incorporates the e¤ect of adverbials to the composition of aspectual information. Second, their study uses linguistic prompts longer than single sentences, and thus it provides for a more complex and accurate assessment of (discourse-based) aspectual knowledge. Third, the findings from Rothman and Iverson di¤er from the outcome revealed by the other studies focused on the assessment of iterativity with Spanish L2 data as described in previous sections.

Operationalizing hypotheses

203

4.2.1. Research design and outcomes of the study The study carried out by Rothman and Iverson (2008) used language prompts that provided participants with a broad discursive context to help them decide their choices of aspectual meanings.17 The participants were 31 non-natives and 19 native speakers of Portuguese from Brazil. The non-natives were recruited among undergraduate and graduate American university students enrolled in a study-abroad program in Salvador, Brazil. They were divided into two groups of proficiency: intermediate (14 learners) and advanced (17 learners).18 Rothman and Iverson used three tests: two sentence-conjunction tests and one context-sentence matching test. One of the two sentence-conjunction tests and the context-sentence matching test primarily focused on the assessment of the distinction between accidental versus. non-accidental meanings conveyed by the use of the imperfective and perfective in Portuguese (see examples below). The remaining sentenceconjunction test was focused primarily on the contrast between kinddenoting and group-denoting readings.19 All tests were contextualized with a short paragraph. The main di¤erence between each type of test was that the sentence-conjunction tests had one sentence after the short paragraph that had to be rated on a 5-point scale ranging from semantically odd (2) to perfectly acceptable (þ2). In contrast, in the contextsentence matching test, participants read a short paragraph that served as context for two follow-up sentences essentially identical except for the fact that one of the two sentences contained the imperfective form and the other one the perfective form. Participants in the study were asked to choose which sentence was better according to the given context provided in the paragraph.

17. Iverson and Rothman (2008) is a smaller study that precedes and is subsumed by the one published in Rothman and Iverson (2008). 18. Of the 17 advanced learners, three were not part of the main pool of participants (i.e., American university students studying in a summer language program), but rather natural learners who had acquired Portuguese while living in Brazil. Rothman and Iverson do not justify why they added these learners to their pool of subjects, especially considering that the proficiency tests had already divided the participants into an equal number of intermediate and advanced learners (i.e., 14 and 14). 19. Mene´ndez-Benito (2002) proposes that the imperfective allows both types of subject DP readings, whereas the perfective allows only group denoting readings.

204

M. Rafael Salaberry

The statistical analysis of the findings of the study conducted by Rothman and Iverson revealed that the advanced group performed like the control group of native speakers, but that the intermediate learners failed to produce native-like results.20 Nevertheless, both groups showed ‘‘a much stronger preference for preterite in both episodic and accidental generalization sentence types’’ (302). Rothman and Iverson ultimately conclude that these results – along with similar findings from the other tests used in their study – constitute ‘‘evidence in favor of adult UG-continuity theories’’ (307). As stated before, however, these findings with Portuguese data stand in contrast with the results from the studies carried out with L2 Spanish speakers. How can we reconcile the distinct outcome? In the following section, I analyze the language prompts used in this study to assess the possibility that the responses provided by native speakers may have been unreliable due to methodological factors. 4.2.2. Language prompts I will restrict my discussion to the analysis of the outcome of the contextsentence matching test.21 Rothman and Iverson describe the first context below as an example of an accidental generalization. Arguably, an accidental generalization would trigger the use of the sentence with the perfective form (option b, in bold is the expected response). 1. Tem uma garota na minha classe que conversa muito. O nome dela e´ Jimena. O problema com ela e´ que, como fala tanto, ela nunca me deixa prestar atenc¸a˜o. Enta˜o, trato de ir a´ biblioteca em hora´rios na˜o muito comuns para na˜o encontrar ela. Mesmo assim, a`s veˆzes nao dou sorte e na semana passada . . .

20. This was true across all three tests, with the only exception of contexts showing non-accidental generalizations presented in the first sentence-conjunction test. 21. Not only are all three types of tests focused on assessing the same type of knowledge (cf. the grammatical marking of iterated eventualities), but they also use variations of the same linguistic triggers. In particular, most contexts are represented with variations of the use of the adverbial sempre (‘always’) with a limited number of time frames (last year, last week, etc.).

Operationalizing hypotheses

205

‘‘There’s a girl in my class who talks a lot. Her name is Jimena. The problem with her is, as she talks so much, she never lets me pay attention. Therefore, I try to go to the library during unusual times so I don’t see her. Even so, sometimes I don’t have luck and last week . . .’’ a. empre que eu ia a´ biblioteca, eu encontrava com ela. every time I went-IMP to the library, I saw-IMP her. b. sempre que eu fui a´ biblioteca, eu encontrei com ela. every time I went-PRET to the library, I ended up seeing-PRET her.

In contrast, the context of the second sentence below is described as an example of a non-accidental generalization, and as such it is expected to trigger the use of the sentence with the imperfective form (option a, in bold is he expected response). 2. Lorenzo ama produtos la´cteos. De fato, ele os cosome todos os dias. Ele gosta desde o queijo camembert ate´ o iogurte sem sabor. No ano passado ele ficou na minha casa para uma visita e . . . ‘‘Lorenzo loves dairy products. In fact, he has them every day. He likes everything from camembert cheese to unflavored yogurt. Last year he stayed in my house while visiting and . . .’’ a. sempre que eu servia pa˜o, ele pedia queijo. every time I served-IMP bread, he asked for-IMP cheese. b. sempre que eu servi pa˜o, ele pediu queijo. every time I served-PRET bread, he asked-PRET for cheese.

The analysis of the selected language prompts brings up important questions. First, it is open to debate whether answer (a) for context 1 would not be regarded as acceptable. Indeed, in another study, Salaberry and Martins (2012) showed that native speakers consider both options acceptable. In fact, this problem is acknowledged also by Rothman and Iverson in a footnote (297), in which they point out that a reviewer claimed that s/he was not convinced that answer (a) in the imperfect should be regarded as ungrammatical. Rothman and Iverson concur with the reviewer’s concern sating that ‘‘[they] had some reservations as well’’. Nevertheless, what is puzzling is that the native speakers in their study categorically favored answer (b) over (a).22 How can we reconcile this contradiction? The only apparent answer would be the potential e¤ect of the distinct linguistic context that accompanies each option. 22. Rothman and Iverson (2008: 297) underline that ‘‘this is exactly what Mene´ndezBenito claims’’. However, as discussed above, these data can also be reanalyzed from a di¤erent theoretical perspective, in which case the data are not easily accounted for as stated above.

206

M. Rafael Salaberry

Indeed, the context that precedes the target sentences provides linguistic cues that may generate unintended artifacts. That is, options (a) and (b) in the text prompts (1) and (2) above are di¤erentiated according to factors other than the intended independent and dependent variables. In particular, I note two linguistic contrasts that may lead to inconsistent results: (a) the type of adverbial, and (b) the recency of the time period. First, the use of the adverbial sempre (‘always’) is not as conducive to triggering the notion of iterativity, as the use of the adverbial cada vez (‘each time’) would be. In fact, Mene´ndez-Benito (2002: 374) explicitly makes this point when she argues that the use of cada vez in sentence (23b) below ‘‘sounds more natural’’ than sentence (23a) in which sempre replaces cada vez. Mene´ndez-Benito argues further that the adverbial cada vez in sentence (23b) ‘‘puts emphasis on the accidental character of perfective sentences’’. (23) a.

b.

En la clase de ayer, siempre que un chico hizo una pregunta, una chica le dio la respuesta. In yesterday’s class, whenever a boy asked (PRET) a question, a girl gave (PRET) him the answer. En la clase de ayer, cada vez que un chico hizo una pregunta, una chica le dio la respuesta. In yesterday’s class, every time a boy asked (PRET) a question, a girl gave (PRET) him the answer.

Second, the contexts that accompany the sentences that are expected to be marked with the imperfect (non-accidental) consistently use adverbial phrases firmly placed in a more remote past tense than is the case for the ones that are expected to be marked with the preterite (accidental): no ano passado (‘last year’) versus na semana pasada (‘last week’) respectively. For instance, notice that in the following pairs of sentences, the selection of the more remote past tense period in (24) favors the use of the Imperfect in (24a). In contrast, the use of a more recent time period in (25) favors the use of the preterite (25b). (24) a.

Cuando Julia´n era estudiante universitario, cada vez que le preguntaban sabı´a la respuesta. When Julian was a university student, each time they asked (IMP) him a question, he knew (IMP) the response.

b.

?*Cuando Julia´n era estudiante universitario, cada vez que le preguntaron supo la respuesta. When Julian was a university student, each time they asked (PRET) him a question, he knew (PRET) the response.

Operationalizing hypotheses

207

(25) a.

?En la clase de ayer, cada vez que le preguntaban sabı´a la respuesta. In yesterday’s class, each time they asked (IMP) him a question, he knew (IMP) the response.

b.

En la clase de ayer, cada vez que le preguntaron supo la respuesta. In yesterday’s class, each time they asked (PRET) him a question, he knew (PRET) the response.

Given that the study by Rothman and Iverson was framed within Mene´ndez-Benito’s theoretical proposal, the inconsistent use of types of adverbials raises important questions. That is, Mene´ndez-Benito’s argument is prompted by the very fact that, even when both the Preterite and the Imperfect convey the notion of iterated eventualities, their distribution varies in association with di¤erent types of adverbials (such as durative and generic). A possible solution to this dilemma is to assess the e¤ect of adverbials on the acceptability of various uses of past tense markers not as generic or durative, but rather as constructions (Michaelis 2004) embedded in specific contextual frames, above and beyond the e¤ect of morphological markers and adverbials on their own. Alternatively, it is possible to analyze the previous prompt sentences from the perspective of Doiz-Bienzobas’ account (i.e., the anchoring of events on the timeline). Thus, in context (25) above, answer (b) seems to indicate that the specific times when the speaker bumped into Jimena can be linked to non-generic specific times. In contrast, answer (a) in the context of (25) signals that the request for cheese is not anchored to any specific time. 5. Discussion Thus far, I have described various definitions about the representation of iterated eventualities. Furthermore, I have summarized and critiqued the implementation of one particular proposal (Menendez-Benito’s) as represented in the linguistic prompts used to assess judgments of grammaticality of iterativity and habituality in one particular L2 empirical study (Rothman and Iverson). The previous analysis shows the importance of assessing the e¤ect of adjuncts (e.g., adverbial phrases) and the ever-broadening discursive contexts (grounding, text type, world knowledge, etc.) on the overall composition of aspectual meanings. In this last section, I bring together

208

M. Rafael Salaberry

the analysis of the role of theoretical frameworks and the empirical implementation of the tenets of such theoretical models through research design (e.g., the design of linguistic prompts) for the purpose of understanding the process of theorization about the acquisition of aspectual knowledge. The focus of this section is restricted to the analysis of three theoretical conclusions that one may, arguably, draw from the previous analysis of selected theoretical and empirical studies. First, the representation of aspectual knowledge is distributed across several layers of information spanning a broad discursive continuum. Second, among the most immediate layers of meaning that have an e¤ect on aspectual composition, the e¤ect of some frequently used adverbials (e.g., durante, ‘during/for’, siempre, ‘always’) seems to be among the strongest and most obvious ones. Third, there seems to be some default selections of morphological markings in association with adverbial phrases to mark iterativity and habituality. 5.1. Layering of meaning As early as 1973, Verkuyl explicitly stated that aspect is not a phenomenon that can be restricted to the analysis of the lexical predicate alone, but one that requires the computation of at least internal and external arguments, and possibly more layers of information. For instance, how can we assess the grammaticality/acceptability of the following pair of sentences? (26) a. b.

Lucas siempre supo la respuesta. Lucas always knew (PRET) the answer. Lucas siempre sabı´a la respuesta. Lucas always knew (IMP) the answer.

Clearly, as discussed in detail in previous sections, to make a decision we need more contextual support than the one provided in the bare sentences above. On the other hand, it would not be impossible for both native and non-native speakers to make a decision if they were required to make one (e.g., as required by an experimental study). That does not mean, nevertheless, that context would be left out of the assessment even if it is not explicitly detailed in the sentences discussed. In such experimental conditions, whatever response participants provide will be a¤ected by the contexts they conjure up to make sense of such decontextualized sentences (Coppieters 1987). The problem with this type of analysis is that we intro-

Operationalizing hypotheses

209

duce a variable (i.e., expanded context) that we cannot assess or control because it is hidden and implicit. This is a potential problem that was present in some of the studies reviewed above that used decontextualized sentences as prompts (Pe´rez-Leroux et al. 2007; Salaberry and Scholes to appear; Slabakova and Montrul 2007). Despite the fact that we cannot ascertain what contextual information speakers bring to the task of assessing the grammaticality of decontextualized utterances, the available evidence shows that native speakers seem to be more attuned to the complex meanings of successive layers of contextual information than non-native speakers are (e.g., Coppieters 1987; Garcı´a and van Putte 1988; Gu¨ell 1998). Moreover, whereas in some cases this sensitivity to broader pieces of discourse leads native speakers to make categorical and homogeneous judgments (e.g., Coppieters 1987, Garcı´a and van Putte 1988), in other cases, it leads to uncertainty. For instance, let us analyze one sentence (27) from Gu¨ell (1998) in which the main predicate (atelic pasear, ‘to take a stroll’) has been iterated with an adverbial (cada dı´a, ‘every day’), which has been further circumscribed within a specific time period (la semana pasada, ‘last week’). (27) La semana pasada Antonio paseo´/paseaba por el parque cada dı´a. Last week Antonio strolled (PRET/IMP) in the park every day. Given the two choices of Preterite and Imperfect, non-native speakers categorically selected the Imperfect. That is, they preferred the morphological marker that correlates most distinctly with the atelicity of the verbal predicate (thus, confirming a narrow reading of aspectual interpretation: they confirmed/maintained the meaning of the verbal predicate). Native speakers, on the other hand, displayed great variation in their responses splitting in half their preferences between the Preterite and Imperfect. In other words, the consideration of three layers of aspectual information triggered some uncertainty among native speakers about which component(s) of the overall composition of the aspectual meaning of the sentence to favor. That is, native speakers were a¤ected in their responses by the addition of a higher level of contextualization of the basic sentence. How far down the discursive continuum can we go to assess the aspectual value of a proposition? At what point have we broadened the context to the point that world knowledge becomes the critical factor that determines whether a sentence is grammatical or not? Brisard (2010: 489), for one, argues that aspectual contrasts may be more likely a pragmatics issue rather than simply morphosyntax:

210

M. Rafael Salaberry

. . . much work in interpreting the concrete (temporal or modal) values of this tense depends on pragmatic inferences on the basis of contextually provided information and is, as such, not to be attributed to the semantics of the imparfait proper.

Against this theoretical claim, however, the empirical data show that native speakers, as a group, seem to have distinct responses that di¤er from the ones that non-native speakers select as a group (or various groups depending on proficiency). Clearly, there is some type of knowledge that consistently underlies the decisions that each population of speakers makes. Ultimately, this knowledge is systematic, and that systematicity requires some type of representation in the overall grammatical system of both native and non-native speakers. 5.2. Constructions As mentioned above, among the layers of meaning that have an e¤ect on aspectual composition, some frequently used adverbials seem to be strong predictors of aspectual selection. For instance, in the following variation of the sentence reviewed above, the durational adverbial (durante dos an˜os, ‘during two years’) triggers the use of the perfective. (28) Durante dos an˜os, fui a nadar todos los dı´as. During two years, I went (PRET) swimming every day. Michaelis (2004: 7) argues that the adverbial in (28) coerces the basic meaning of ‘‘one time event’’ associated with the use of the Preterite, shifting it to several, many instantiations of the event. Thus, Michaelis states that ‘‘[c]oercion e¤ects, rather than representing a special form of composition are by-products of the ordinary significations of constructions’’. As a consequence, ‘‘constructions can alter what words (and their syntactic projections) designate’’ (30). That is, the specific meanings of lexical items (from the verbal predicate to the adverbial adjunct) cannot overcome the combination of meanings of all lexical units above and beyond each one of those meanings separately (cf. the construction). More specifically, Michaelis proposes the Override Principle: ‘‘If a lexical item is semantically incompatible with its syntactic context, the meaning of the lexical item conforms to the meaning of the structure in which it is

Operationalizing hypotheses

211

embedded’’ (25). Thus, aspectual encoding is, by its very nature, an ad hoc categorization of aspectual meanings.23 It is important to note that, within Michaelis’ model of constructions, the e¤ect of adjuncts (adverbials) on the aspectual interpretation of eventualities is not to be regarded as pragmatic, but rather as part of the grammatical representation of the language. That is, coerced meanings ‘‘will never contain anything that the rule of morphosyntactic combination does not’’ (30). In line with Michaelis’ proposal about constructions, we have seen that Mene´ndez-Benito (2002) shows that Spanish perfective and imperfective behave di¤erently with respect to generic adverbs (e.g., normalmente ‘normally’, tı´picamente ‘typically’) and durational phrases (e.g., durante dos an˜os ‘for two years’). For instance, as argued by Mene´ndez-Benito, generic adverbs are more likely to combine with the imperfective, but not with the perfective: (29) a. b.

?El an˜o pasado, Lucas normalmente fue al cine.24 Last year, Lucas normally went (PRET) to the movie theater. El an˜o pasado, Lucas normalmente iba al cine. Last year, Lucas normally went (IMP) to the movie theater.

Note, however, that given the right contextualization, generic adverbs are actually quite felicitous with the use of the perfective form in Spanish, as shown in (29c). (29) c. El an˜o pasado, Lucas normalmente fue al cine de la calle Montevideo. Last year, Lucas normally went (PRET) to the movie theater of Montevideo Street. A second problem with the argument about the incompatibility of the use of generic adverbials with the Preterite is that not all generic adverbials are the same. Some of these adverbials, such as normalmente ‘normally’,

23. For reasons of space, I will not discuss any specific type of constructions. Michaelis discusses in detail constructions with frame adverbials and frequency adverbials. 24. Although Mene´ndez-Benito qualifies sentences like (29a) as ungrammatical with an asterisk, it is probably more accurate to use a question mark to signal the apparent preference for the use of the Imperfect. That is, we cannot necessarily reject the possible use of the version with the Preterite.

212

M. Rafael Salaberry

generalmente ‘generally’, usualmente ‘usually’, a veces ‘sometimes’, and de vez en cuando ‘from time to time’, convey the meaning that some, but not all, episodes actually happened. In contrast, other types of generic adverbials, such as repetidamente ‘repeatedly’, perio´dicamente ‘periodically’, and constantemente ‘constantly’, convey the meaning that all episodes actually happened. Sentence (29d) shows that the Preterite is indeed perfectly acceptable with such adverbials. (29) d.

El an˜o pasado, Lucas fue repetidamente al cine. Last year, Lucas repeatedly went (PRET) to the movie theater.

In this regard, according to Langacker’s definition, all episodes of the described eventuality (i.e., going to the movie theater) are anchored in time. Thus, the description of the eventuality is part of the actual plane. In these cases, the use of the Preterite is likely to be acceptable, as in (29d), and also by the following example borrowed from Pe´rez Leroux et al.’s (2007) test: (30) Los nin˜os se cambiaron de asiento repetidamente. ‘The children exchanged seats repeatedly’. Finally, and, in consonance with the argument made in the previous section regarding the multilayering of aspectual representation, if the second layer of adverbial phrases is conducive to the use of the perfective form, the adverbial normalmente (‘normally’) will not block the use of the Preterite. (31) Durante muchos meses, el cartero normalmente llego´ tarde. For months, the mailman normally arrived (PRET) late. The above discussion about the problems with the variability of aspectual meanings brought about by the use of adverbials that are supposed to convey a consistent interpretation (i.e., generic adverbials are incompatible with the Preterite) leads us to the analysis of correlated problems with the design of linguistic prompts in acquisition studies. One such problem is the possible influence of the selection of one particular adverbial as opposed to another one. For instance, Mene´ndez-Benito notes that the adverbial sempre (‘always’) is likely to trigger the use of the imperfective (non-accidental or habitual depending on the chosen theoretical framework of reference), whereas the use of the adverbial cada vez que (‘each

Operationalizing hypotheses

213

time’) would trigger the use of the perfective (accidental or iterative).25 That is to say, we are compelled to understand what specific type of knowledge is exhibited by native speakers to make the selections according to the outcome correctly specified by Mene´ndez-Benito. 5.3. Default meanings and constructions The concept of constructions (Michaelis 2004) is not incompatible with the notion that the morphological markers of tense-aspect in Spanish and Portuguese have some basic, default meanings that become more nuanced in the presence of various (additional) layers of contextual information (i.e., the constructions). Let us review in more detail one example that was discussed in previous sections herein reproduced as (32a). (32) a.

El verano pasado, Marı´a leyo´ /?leı´a el perio´dico. Last summer, Mary read (PRET/IMP) the newspaper.

As previously described, in sentence (32a) reading the newspaper (leer el perio´dico) is an atelic event. Thus, the association of the Imperfect (a marker of background information) with an atelic event generates a prototypical match that highlights the function of backgrounding of the Imperfect. A background scene, however, requires the specification of another event to be profiled against that background. The absence of the other event to be profiled in the foreground makes the sentence unacceptable. Indeed, through an analysis of past tense French, Brisard (2010: 507) proposes that ‘‘a scene-setting use of the imparfait creates certain expectations . . . because the notion of backgrounding that is involved only make sense interactionally relative to a situation occurring in the foreground’’. The following example provided by Brisard demonstrates the apparent ‘‘incomplete meaning’’ of sentence (33a) given the lack of a foregrounded element: (33) a. b.

L’anne´e derniere, je passais mes vacances en Suisse. ‘Last year, I spent my holidays in Switzerland’. Et qu’est-ce qui s’est passe´ alors? ‘And what (has) happened then?’

25. I should note, however, that these are tendencies, and thus, it is possible that these selections are somewhat interchangeable.

214

M. Rafael Salaberry

Let us now analyze the e¤ect of additional adverbial information on the aspectual interpretation of the overall composition of the original utterance in (32a). (32) b.

El verano pasado, Marı´a ?leyo´ /leı´a el perio´dico por la man˜ana. Last summer, Mary read (PRET/IMP) the newspaper in the morning.

c.

El verano pasado, Marı´a ?leyo´/leı´a el perio´dico durante dos horas por la man˜ana. Last summer, Mary read (PRET/IMP) the newspaper for two hours in the morning.

Sentences (32b) and (32c) provide a more proper visualization of background information, thus making the use of the Imperfect more felicitous.26 In the case of (32b), the adverbial phrase further specifies the atelic nature of the verbal predicate (homogeneous eventuality) making it less likely that the Preterite could be used to make reference to anchored eventualities in the past. Sentence (32c) shows that even the addition of the durational adverbial is not enough to counteract the e¤ect of the main adverbial that determines that the eventuality is a homogeneous one, thus more properly described (in the context of the overall construction) as a habitual. Similarly, the unacceptability of the Preterite in (33a) is possibly related to the fact that getting up (levantarse) is a telic event. Thus, the strong tendency of the Preterite to convey punctuality (cf. default meaning) in association with a telic event (prototypical match) cannot be easily overcome with the addition of the durative adverbial (i.e., last year). (33) a.

Eva ?se levanto´/se levantaba al mediodı´a el verano pasado. Eva got up (PRET/IMP) at noon last summer.

Once again, however, if we were to add an adverbial that signals the notion of repetition more clearly (todos los dı´as), then the Preterite is placed within the bounds of a construction that shifts the predicate’s

26. The analysis of the (mis)use of the Preterite can be done along similar lines: the Preterite, as a basic tense marker that conveys that specific instances of reading happened in the past (cf. Doiz-Bienzobas 1995, 2002) is now incompatible with a mostly homogeneous, non-quantized event (cf. Michaelis 2004).

Operationalizing hypotheses

215

meaning from its default interpretaion of punctuality to the meaning of iterativity; thus the sentence becomes more acceptable. (33) b.

Eva se levanto´ [todos los dı´as] al mediodı´a el verano pasado. Last summer, Eva got up (PRET) at noon [every day].

In sum, we can argue that there are some invariant aspectual meanings (Salaberry 2008) associated with the Spanish Preterite and Imperfect that may trigger incompatibilities with constructions that would otherwise convey consistent meanings. The Imperfect has a strong and invariant meaning associated with the discursive function of backgrounding narrative information. Thus, it may clash with the use of constructions that do not allow to convey the notion of background information. Similarly, the Preterite has a strong and invariant meaning associated with the function of conveying episodic narrative information. Thus, its default meaning may clash with the use of constructions that trigger habitual meanings as opposed to iterative meanings.

6. Conclusion The study of the acquisition and development of tense-aspect knowledge among second language learners is notoriously complex. One of the most important reasons for this complexity is the fact that tense-aspect knowledge spans a range of domains including syntax, semantics, discourse, and pragmatics. Not surprisingly, previous research on tense-aspect knowledge provides contradictory findings on central theoretical constructs (e.g., ultimate attainment in tense-aspect). Given the above claim, it is not surprising that even minor rearrangements of information may trigger fundamental changes in the intepretation of aspectual meanings. The operationalization of the theoretical concept of aspect and the methodological procedures to be used to assess the broad meanings conveyed by aspectual markers presents a challenge. However, despite the challenges posed by the multilayered nature of aspectual knowledge, or perhaps precisely because of them, one can argue that research on the acquisition and development of tense-aspect represents one of the promising areas of L2 research to assess the validity of various models and hypotheses of second language acquisition in general.

216

M. Rafael Salaberry

References Bertinetto, Pier 1994 Stative, progressives, and habituals: Analogies and di¤erences. Linguistics 32. 391–423. Bhat, D. N. Shankara 1999 The prominence of tense, aspect and mood. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Binnick, Robert 1991 Time and the verb. Oxford: Blackwell. Bonomi, Andrea 1997 Aspect, quantification and when-clauses in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 17. 57–108. Brisard, Franc 2010 Aspects of virtuality in the meaning of the French imparfait. Linguistics 48(2). 487–524. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coppieters, Rene´ 1987 Competence di¤erences between native and near-native speakers. Language 63. 544–573. de Swart, Henriette 1998 Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(2). 347–385. Depraetre, Ilse 1995 On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18. 1–19. Doiz-Bienzobas, Aintzane 1995 The preterite and the imperfect in Spanish: Past situation versus past viewpoint. San Diego, CA: University of California-San Diego, Ph.D. dissertation. Doiz-Bienzobas, Aintzane 2002 The preterite and the imperfect as grounding predications. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 299–347. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Filip, Hannah 1999 Aspect, eventuality types and nominal reference. New York: Garland Publishing. Garcı´a, Elvira & Florimon van Putte 1988 The value of contrast: Contrasting the value of strategies. IRAL 26. 263–281. Goodman, Nelson 1947 The problem of counterfactual conditionals. Journal of Philosophy 12. 607–653.

Operationalizing hypotheses Gu¨ell, Lourdes 1998

217

La adquisicio´n del tiempo verbal en el aprendizaje del espan˜ol como lengua extranjera. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat de Barcelona, Ph.D. dissertation. Iverson, Michael & Jason Rothman 2008 Adverbial quantification and perfective/imperfective interpretive nuances in L2 Portuguese. In R. Slabakova, J. Rothman, P. Kempchinsky & E. Gavruseva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2007), 70–80. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Langacker, Ronald 1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical perspectives. Stanford, California: Standford University Press. Langacker, Ronald 2000 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald 2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lenci, Alessandro & Pier Marco Bertinetto 2000 Aspects, adverbs and events: Habituality versus perfectivity. In J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi & A. Varzi (Eds.), Speaking of events, 245–287. New York: Oxford University Press. Mene´ndez-Benito, Paula 2002 Aspect and adverbial quantification in Spanish. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd North Eastern Linguistics Society, Amherst, MA. Michaelis, Laura 2004 Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15. 1–67. Pe´rez-Leroux, Ana, Alejandro Cuza, Monika Majzlanova & Jeanette Sa´nchez Naranjo 2007 Non-native recognition of the iterative and habitual meanings of Spanish preterite and imperfect tenses. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), Formal features in second language acquisition, 432–451. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rothman, Jason & Michael Iverson 2008 Beyond morphological use: What semantic knowledge tells us about aspect in L2 Portuguese. Language Acquisition 15(4). 270– 314. Salaberry, M. Rafael 1999 The development of past tense verbal morphology in classroom L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics 20(2). 151–178. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2003 Tense aspect in verbal morphology. Hispania 3(86). 559–573.

218

M. Rafael Salaberry

Salaberry, M. Rafael 2008 Marking past tense in second language acquisition: A theoretical model. London: Continuum Press. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2012 Contrasting preterite and imperfect use among advanced L2 learners: Judgments of iterated eventualities in Spanish. International Review of Applied Linguistics. Salaberry, M. Rafael & Custo´dio Martins 2012 Di¤erential distribution of Spanish Preterite and Imperfect with iterated eventualities among native speakers. In E. Labeau & Qiaochao Zhang (Eds.), Cahiers Chronos. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Salaberry, M. Rafael & Joe Scholes to appear The e¤ects of instruction on the development of knowledege about iterativity in L2 Spanish. Slabakova, Roumyana & Silvina Montrul 2007 L2 acquisition at the grammar-discourse interface: Aspectual shifts in L2 Spanish. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), Formal features in second language acquisition, 452–483. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Smith, Carlota 1997 The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Chapter 7 Research design: From text to task Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig 1. Introduction In the study of second language (L2) tense and aspect – as in other areas of research – the best task is the task that best addresses the research question. In the absence of a specific research question, it is di‰cult to weigh the costs and benefits of particular approaches because the costs that a researcher is willing to incur depend heavily on what benefits are to be gained in the context of a given problem. Nevertheless, in the spirit of addressing the most general question of how we study development in L2 tense-aspect systems, this chapter discusses the use of open-ended tasks. Open-ended tasks are designed to encourage learners and native speakers to produce the kind of language that they produce naturally, that is, to tell stories and recount events, to describe and to argue, to predict and hypothesize, and to have conversations. Compared to other elicitation tasks, researchers exert only a light touch on language production, guiding learners subtly to the construction of texts. Because di¤erent types of texts have di¤erent tense-aspect profiles, understanding the di¤erence among text types and what they can contribute to tense-aspect research is a necessary first step to determining method. To that end, this chapter is organized by types of spoken and written discourse. Open-ended tasks can be contrasted with controlled production tasks such as cloze passages and other tasks (see Bardovi-Harlig 2000, for a discussion of the range of tasks used in tense-aspect research). As in other areas of investigation in second language acquisition (SLA) research, the study of communicative language may need to be supplemented by planned elicitation to assure the balance and contrast of verb types, tenses, grammatical aspect, lexical aspect, and adverbials (to name a few linguistic devices used in the expression of temporality; see Bardovi-Harlig 2000, 2005 for a discussion of the distribution of aspectual categories in di¤erent types of texts and tasks). After reviewing general considerations in SLA research that favor the selection of communicative production (Section

220

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

1.1), task characteristics (1.2), and talk and text (1.3), this chapter considers conversations as dyadic discourse (Section 2) and extended monologic discourse. Narratives are discussed in Section 3 and nonnarratives in Section 4. Nonnarrative texts are further divided into description, argument, and hypothetical or future-oriented texts. Each section ends with specific elicitation tasks that have been used successfully in the literature. 1.1. Communicative production tasks in SLA The decision to employ open-ended tasks in the study of the development of L2 temporal expression stems from the interest in observing interlanguage at work in the act of communication. Communication gives learners an opportunity to build their contributions in speech or writing from the linguistic devices that they have available. The use of world knowledge, text structure, lexicon, lexical temporal expressions, and verbal morphology come together in rich and varied discourse that reflects the voices of individual learners and their current level of development. Communicative texts provide fertile grounds for both hypothesis-testing and functional approaches and for form-oriented and meaning-oriented studies (Bardovi-Harlig 2000, 2007). In addition, temporal reference is pervasive (unlike some other linguistic constructs) and in some languages obligatorily marked in every finite clause making it a particularly good candidate for investigation by relatively open-ended production. However, not every form-meaning association is found in every text, and that is where a familiarity with text type proves invaluable to the researcher. In addition, research in SLA more broadly suggests that the greater the focus on communication, the less likely the learner is to employ explicit knowledge (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen 1982; Ellis 2008). Whereas not all facets of language are explicitly taught, tense-aspect morphology is generally a high priority of grammar-based instruction, and most classroom learners are likely to have had exposure to explicit instruction. Avoiding learned knowledge is a relevant factor in L2 task construction, and one which the use of communicative tasks directly addresses. Moreover, open-ended tasks are also well-suited to longitudinal studies over a given period of time. Because learners construct their own text, such tasks avoid the problem of learners learning the test as they might with various cloze passages or other item-focused tasks which have target responses. In addition, topics which allow learner creativity and avoid repetition increase learners’ interest in participating in a study.

Text to task

221

1.2. Task characteristics The conditions under which L2 production data are collected are not unique to the study of temporality, but they are worth reviewing here. Language samples may be oral or written; they are also increasingly computer-mediated. Oral production can be either monologic (produced by one speaker) or dyadic or multi-partied (produced by two or more speakers). Written production is generally monologic, although computermediated communication may result in more cases of written dyadic communication. Oral communication is the most likely to be spontaneous, but is not exclusively unplanned. Whereas turns in conversation can be completely spontaneous, personal narratives, for example, can be repeated across conversations (see, for example, the concept of discourse domains which learners perfect through multiple tellings; Douglas and Selinker 1994; Selinker and Douglas 1988). The degree of comparability is a result of research design. The more similar the task completed by all learners, the more comparable the resulting language samples. Beyond spontaneous conversations, tasks may range from an interviewer asking every learner the same question to showing a film for the purposes of eliciting a film retell, but since text construction is up to the informant, comparability in open-ended tasks is always relative and will never achieve the level of comparability that results from highly controlled tasks. 1.3. Talk and text This chapter divides dyadic and multi-partied discourse, or conversation, from extended monologic discourse (Berman and Verhoeven 2002), which includes both narrative and nonnarrative discourse.1 Relevant characteristics of texts include time frame, person, personal viewpoints, and whether they occur in a real world or not. Of primary concern in the study of temporality is the time frame of the text. For example, narratives are past-oriented whereas conversations and nonnarrative texts may be past-oriented, but may just as likely be present- or future-oriented. Person determines use of verbal morphology, and among the texts considered here, conversation is the only likely source of second person usage (in addition to first and third), whereas narratives and nonnarrative are not. In contrast, the variable 1. Although Smith (2003) explicitly excludes conversation from her discourse modes, conversation (whether spontaneous or elicited through interviews) has been a very important source of unmonitored expression both in SLA and sociolinguistics and is included here.

222

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

personal refers to the speaker’s relationship to the text. A personal text draws on a learner’s experience (and may be in first or third person), whereas as impersonal texts do not, and instead respond to an external stimulus from the researcher. A personalized text is a hybrid, and is discussed in Section 3.3. Realis/irrealis refers to whether the text reports events that are real in their discourse world. Irrealis refers to unrealized events, including hypothetical, future, and imagined events in both actual and fictional worlds. What links inquiry into di¤erent discourse types, and studies of L2 tense and aspect, is the observation that the dominant temporal relation is determined by the discourse type (Caenepeel 1995; Smith 2003, 2005; Ragnarsdottir et al. 2002, for developmental L1 research; von Stutterheim 1991, for L2). The following sections explore conversation and extended monologic texts (Berman and Verhoeven 2002). Within extended monologic texts, narrative and nonnarrative texts are discussed. Nonnarrative texts are further divided into description, argument, and irrealis texts. Before embarking on a discussion of these categories, it is important to note that any type of text may contain another type of text. Text, like other linguistic structures, is recursive and exhibits textual embedding. A narrative may appear within a narrative, a narrative within an argument or a description, a description within a narrative, or a narrative in a conversation. For example, the narrative in (1) opens with a description (Bardovi-Harlig 1992a); the narrative begins with the first event ‘‘Punia’s mom said’’ labeled [1]. (Oral features of language such as lexical searches and repetitions have been deleted for illustration purposes). (1) In Kohala there were ten sharks. And then nobody can go to the beach. So they just eat potato and some food. But, the lobsters were in the water and nobody can reach it. [1] One day, Punia’s mom said ‘‘I wish that I have a lobster with my potato’’ [2] And when Punia heard that, he decided to go to the beach [3] He went there [4] He throw a rock in the sea. . . . Texts have main structures and side structures (or foreground and background) and these too may be recursive. Main structures attend to the main function of the text, and side structures allow for elaboration which results in a richer language sample. Thus, rather than considering a text to be exclusively of one type or another we will consider a text to

Text to task

223

be predominately one type. The presence of passages within a text that contrast with the main function of the text provides additional contexts for the study of how tense-aspect interacts with text structure. The following sections are organized by major category of discourse. A general definition is provided, variations are considered, and specific means of elicitation are discussed; these are followed by practical considerations that might be useful for researchers planning to elicit the type of text under consideration.

2. Conversation and conversational interviews Conversation constitutes the most familiar form of authentic unplanned discourse. Conversation is oral, interactive, and either dyadic or multipartied. In conversation, speakers take turns, introduce and maintain topics, negotiate meaning, and attend to face concerns. Participants generally have a social connection that leads them to talk in the first place and those relationships are further enhanced by talk. Conversations exhibit a variety of local temporal frames in a single encounter and constitute a rich source of data. Because they are unique, spontaneous conversations are generally low on comparability for specific linguistic contexts or ideas, although they are somewhat more comparable in turn-taking and other discourse features not of immediate concern to temporal reference. In tense-aspect research, conversational data generally derive from conversational interviews (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Dietrich, Noyau, and Klein 1995; Giacalone Ramat 2002; Kihlstedt 2002; Salsbury 2000). When learners and interviewers get to know each other well, as in the case of a longitudinal study, the interviews can be increasingly conversational with almost equal exchanges of turns where either interlocutor may initiate a topic. However, the expressed purpose of many conversational interviews is not to produce equal turns, but rather to elicit extended language samples from the learner-participant. Conversational interviews generally give learners fewer opportunities to negotiate topics than conversations. Nevertheless, interlocutors also often encourage learners to say more than they would on their own, thus creating more contexts for temporal reference. Conversations can exhibit a full range of temporal frames at the level of individual topics. Although corpus studies characterize conversations as exhibiting nonpast verb forms (e.g., Biber 1989), that is a general characterization that does not preclude the use of past (as will become obvious in the case of conversational narratives discussed in the following section). A range of temporal frames occur spontaneously in conversation, especially

224

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

when initiated by a learner. However, even in conversational interviews there are both planned and unplanned questions. Because no single time frame is associated with conversation it should be a good source of adverbials and other explicit time framing devices. These shifts also provide contexts for a range of tense-aspect morphology (see also Wiberg 2002), and as a result the literature reflects the use of conversational interviews to study a range of tense-aspect forms including future (Bardovi-Harlig 2004a; Howard 2012; Wiberg 2002), pluperfect (Bardovi-Harlig 1994; Howard 2005), past (Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Bayley 1994; Howard 2009; Kihlstedt 2002; inter alia), and present perfect (Bardovi-Harlig 1997a, 1997b). The flexibility of conversations in allowing for a variety of temporal frames is illustrated in the following excerpts in which learners initiate a new temporal frame. In Example (2) the interviewer follows the learner’s use of tense-aspect. In (3), when the interviewer supplied a frame which did not match what the learner wanted to say, he supplied his own, last weekend as an example.2 (In the transcripts of oral production, slashes show overlapping speech). (2) Present perfect (Bardovi-Harlig 1997b; L1 Arabic) I (Interviewer): . . .Thank you for doing that. L (Learner): You’re welcome. So, where have you been, Kathleen? I haven’t see \\ \\ you. I: \\Well, since I’ve. . .\\ seen you, I went to, California. (3) Past reference (Bardovi-Harlig 1992b, L1 Arabic) I: Do you guys, do you n’ your friends go someplace on the weekends? MA: Yeah, last weekend I went to Ohio, King Island. One concern of assessing underlying competence from dyadic interactions is the contribution of the interlocutor through modeling or sca¤olding. Wiberg (2002) briefly discussed this concern when describing how she prompted learners in order to elicit additional future-oriented responses when their contributions either strayed from the established time frame

2. Unattributed examples come from my longitudinal data, consisting of 1,576 written texts and 175 oral texts, from 16 learners of English as a second language. Examples that were previously published or that come from other sources are cited.

Text to task

225

Table 1. Usage patterns across speaker turns and likely knowledge sources Usage pattern across speaker turns

Interpretation

The learner uses the target tense-aspect form independently (no use by the interviewer, no prompting)

The learner demonstrates the tenseaspect form-meaning association

The learner uses the target tense-aspect form after the interviewer or a prompt

The learner knows the tense-aspect form and usage well enough to accommodate, but does not demonstrate independent use.

The learner does not use the target tense-aspect form in an environment which the interviewer creates, but instead uses the appropriate adverbials in a short answer

Learner demonstrates comprehension and in some cases co-occurrence restrictions

The learner does not use the target tense-aspect form in an environment which the interviewer creates, but uses an alternative verb form

Two interpretations are possible: the learner under-uses the tense-aspect form or the interlocutor has set up a time-frame that the learner overrides

The learner does not use the targeted tense-aspect form in an environment which the interviewer creates and furthermore indicates noncomprehension of the form.

The learner demonstrates lack of comprehension of the form-meaning correspondence

or when their responses were very short. She also noted that this standard interview procedure was also used with native speakers. Bardovi-Harlig (1997b) explored the relation of interlocutor turns to learner production in conversational interviews. Learner production of a tense-aspect form can be evaluated vis-a`-vis interlocutor turns in at least five ways (Table 1): independent production by the learner (Examples 2–3), repetition (Examples 4–5), use of relevant adverbials (Example 6), use of an alternative form (Example 7), and nonuse with noncomprehension (Example 8). Examples (4–6) and (8) are from Bardovi-Harlig (1997b). (4) Repetition [SA, L1 Arabic] L: It’s uh, I think small city. I: From what I hear. // // I mean I don’t, I’ve never been. L: //Yeah.// L: Me too. I’ve never been there.

226

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

(5) Apparent Repetition [TZ, L1 Arabic] I: Have you uh seen magic shows, is that, is that uh common? L: In Saudi Arabia? no, but I’ve seen others. Other countries, like Egypt. (6) Relevant adverbials [WS, L1 Korean] I: Mm-hm. That’s good. How long have you been here in Bloomington? L: Oh, maybe since March. I: That’s right. Cuz you started in level 2, right? (7) Alternative form [LU, L1 Spanish, Bardovi-Harlig 2004b] I: What are you going to do for Christmas Break? L: I will go back to my country on December 8. (8) Nonuse [TO, L1 Japanese] I: Have you traveled anywhere else in the United States? L: Travel? I: Uh-huh. Have you been to any other cities in the United States? L: Uh, have you been? Uh. . . I: Have you visited other places in the United States? L: No. I: No? Only Bloomington? L: Ah no no no no. St. Louis. Of the five outcomes, the most challenging for analysts to interpret is imitation, but one thing to keep in mind is that repetition of morphology and syntax requires a certain level of grammatical development. Learners cannot repeat what they have not already produced or are on the verge of being able to produce (for L1 acquisition, see Dale 1975; for a review of elicited imitation in L2 acquisition, see Bley-Vroman and Chaudron 1994). Moreover, the learner’s language sample can be checked for independent use in other contexts or, if a longitudinal study, in earlier or later texts. Such a check revealed that the learner in (4) had used only one present perfect successfully in the oral sample and three widely spaced written tokens up to that point, suggesting the likelihood of a repetition. In contrast, the learner in (5) had shown many previous correct and independent uses of present perfect in both oral and written samples prior to the

Text to task

227

conversation from which the example was excerpted, making repetition without understanding the form-meaning association unlikely. Furthermore, the use of the will-future in response to the going to future used by the interviewer in Example (7) shows that comprehension of the framing is not su‰cient for repetition; the go-future had not been used by the learner at the time of the example. Even though interlocutors may suggest temporal frames, learners may also override the context set up by the interviewer. In Example (9), the interviewer asked her question as though the learner’s musical career in his country had ended (using the simple past). The learner’s reply (with the present perfect) indicates that he intends to play in an orchestra in his home country after graduation (and this accords with what he reported elsewhere in his longitudinal data). (9) Present perfect override (LU, L1 Spanish, Bardovi-Harlig 1997a) L: . . . . And also I like to play recital in marimba, like a solo . . . player. I: Did you uh, give any concerts . . . in Puerto Rico? L: \\yeah: I,\\ I, . . . I have played abou-:: six concerts in Puerto Rico in di¤erent part of my country. And the last: abou- two weeks ago, I play at one concert I: mm-hmm L: at university too The widespread use of conversational interviews for both learners and native speakers speaks to its value as a source for temporal expression. Means of collecting conversation and implementing conversational interviews for research on temporal reference are discussed next. 2.1. Eliciting conversation Conversation may be elicited in various settings. Learners could record their target language encounters resulting in truly spontaneous conversations. Classroom activities can be recorded, and depending on the time frames or tense-aspect forms being investigated may include pair and group work, discussions, problem-solving activities, and event planning such as class picnics, skits, service activities, or other class events. Conversations during co-curricular activities such as language tables, conversationpartner meetings, or other target language opportunities may also be recorded.

228

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

The recording of truly spontaneous authentic conversation is always somewhat of a challenge, which is why researchers often resort to conversational interviews. Conversational interviews are the most common type of elicited conversations in L2 tense-aspect research, although they frequently lack the turn taking characteristics of unplanned conversations, since the goal of the interviewer is to elicit uninterrupted language samples from the informant. A number of things can be done to increase conversational features in conversational interview data. Researchers can get to know their participants, suggest topics of interest to learners in order to promote learner participation, and let learners take the lead on topic nomination when possible. Conversational interviews with two learners and a single interviewer (Bardovi-Harlig and Salsbury 2004; Bayley 1994) maximize learner participation and allow the interviewer to play a lesser role. Conversational interviews generally explore a number of topics and last for about an hour (but some are shorter, see for example, Kihlstedt 2002). Howard’s (2005, 2012) interviews of Irish learners of French included topics such as hobbies and pastimes, holidays, university studies, employment, Franco-Irish relations, as well as Labov’s ‘danger of death’ and ‘premonitions’ modules. Shirai’s (2002) interviews of Chinese learners of Japanese covered daily activities, past experience in China and Japan, and future plans. Clements’s (2003) interview of a Chinese learner of Spanish asked the informant about her birth place, education and professional life in China, her family, reasons for emigrating, likes and dislikes of Spanish society, food, professional life in Spain, and her future in Spain. The choice of topics was controlled by the interviewers in order to include topics about the present, past, and future. 2.2. Practical considerations Conversations and conversational interviews allow the greatest flexibility in tailoring a task to an individual. Interlocutors or interviewers can follow up on answers by learners and ask for clarification or elaboration. In conversations, negotiation of meaning also allows analysts to observe understanding in action. Moreover, a variety of topics can probe a range of time frames. Conversations and conversational interviews can be used with speakers at all literacy levels. Training interviewers (including ourselves) to allow longer silences than they would normally encourages more talk from learners; asking wh-questions rather than Yes/No questions increases turn-length.

Text to task

229

3. Extended monologic discourse: narrative In contrast to conversation which is characterized by turn-taking and thus co-construction of texts by two or more speakers, extended monologic texts (Berman and Verhoeven 2002) are constructed by a single speaker or writer. This section follows the binary division into narrative and nonnarrative discourse (Georgakopoulou and Goutsos 2000). Within nonnarrative discourse, description, argument, and irrealis texts are considered in terms of their contribution to understanding the development and use of tenseaspect by L2 learners. As noted by Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (2000), the study of narrative and nonnarrative discourse has often been separated, with the study of nonnarrative discourse lagging behind. In contrast, they observe, ‘‘Narrative analysis, by contrast, is one of the best and most extensively researched areas of multi-disciplinary study of discourse’’ (117). The study of narrative – whether viewed methodologically as a vehicle for tense-aspect or as structured by tense-aspect – benefits from rich traditions of analysis (see also Chapters 9 and 11). In contrast, as Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (2000) point out, there is no uniformly accepted definition of nonnarrative (except in contrast to narrative, as its name suggests) nor is there a generally accepted further division of nonnarrative into text types (see Georgakopoulou and Goutsos 2000, for a history of analysis of nonnarrative, and Smith 2003, for discourse mode, which is beyond the scope of this chapter). In his article ‘‘A Typology of English Texts’’, Biber (1998) uses five sets of binary features to distinguish texts: involved versus informational production; narrative versus, nonnarrative concerns; explicit versus. situational dependent references; overt expressions of persuasion; and abstract versus. nonabstract. In her book Modes of Discourse, Smith (2003) distinguishes five discourse modes that commonly appear in written texts: narrative, description, report, information, and argument.3 In addition to the division of narrative and nonnarrative on the basis of discourse analysis (see, for example, Biber 1998; Georgakopoulou and Goutsos 2000), there are also acquisitional distinctions. Narrative structure is acquired relatively early by children (Berman and Slobin 1994; Berman and Verhoeven 2002) and requires no specific formal education. In contrast, some nonnarrative types, such as argument and expository texts, are mastered much later and may be influenced by formal education 3. The five domains are not exhaustive; conversation and procedural texts are excluded (Smith 2005: 223–237).

230

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

as suggested by the multi-national, cross-linguistic, and cross-sectional study of the production of text reported in two thematic volumes of Written Language and Literacy 55(1–2). Berman and Verhoeven (2002: 6) reported the following: even the youngest children, the 9–10 year old grade-schoolers, make a clear distinction between the two types of texts [narrative and expository] in content and linguistic means of expressions. . . . But the mastery of expository text production – in the sense of a coherent set of core propositions, expressing key ideas elaborated by relevant illustrative and motivational material – is not manifested until much later, usually only in high school.4

These considerations contribute to the fact that narratives are the more frequently studied type of extended monologic text in tense-aspect research. 3.1. Narrative discourse A narrative is a text in which ‘‘the speaker relates a series of real or fictive events in the order in which they took place’’ (Dahl 1984: 116). Narrative has also been defined as ‘‘one method of recapitulating past experience by matching a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events which actually occurred’’ (Labov and Waletzky 1967: 20). Narratives are past oriented by definition.5 Smith (2003: 19) characterizes narrative as dynamic and located in time. Narratives are typically monologic, they can be oral or written, may be personal, impersonal, or personalized, first or third person, and can occur spontaneously in conversation or be elicited. They exhibit main and side sequences. Narratives can be highly individual and have low comparability or they can relate the same or similar events for greater comparability. In addition, producing a narrative is something that every speaker can do; it is not culturally specific or learned in school; and it can be done by very low level learners as well as advanced learners, with skilled narrators in both groups. The chronological order of events in a narrative provides a temporal anchor against which learners’ use of temporal expression can be evaluated. Narratives have internal structure, often referred to as foreground and background. The foreground relates events belonging to the skeletal structure of the discourse (Hopper 1979) and consists of clauses which move time 4. For a crosslinguistic developmental study that includes even younger children, see Berman and Slobin (1994). 5. Other texts such as recipes, instructions, and play-by-play sports commentaries are also organized by chronological order, but do not constitute narratives according to Dahl’s definition.

Text to task

231

forward (Dry 1981, 1983). The temporal point of reference of any one event in the foreground is understood as following that of the event preceding it. So important is the concept of sequentiality that foreground clauses may be defined by the interpretation of their order: ‘‘if a change in the order of the two clauses results in a change in the interpretation of what actually happened, then those two clauses are narrative [i.e., foreground] clauses’’ (Schi¤rin 1981: 47; see also Labov 1972; Labov and Waletzky 1967; Fleischman 1985; Hopper and Thompson 1980; Reinhart 1984; von Stutterheim 1991) Narrative foreground will carry perfective past.6 Narrative excerpts (10) and (11) show a sequence of events reported as foreground in narratives by learners of English as a second language (Bardovi-Harlig 1995). The numbers in the square brackets represent the order of the foregrounded events. (Learner spelling in written narratives has been preserved.)7 (10) Oral Modern Times narrative excerpt (L1 Japanese) Foreground

Background

[1] Then she, stole the bread. [2] And the- she ran away [3] and she . . . hit the Chaplin . . . I:

Mm-hm.

[4] . . . and uh, and cried, [5] and chased her, [6] and the employer caught her, [7] and, but Chaplin said, ‘‘I did it, you know, I . . . stole . . . the breads’’.

S:

. . . and uh, di¤erent woman saw the, she stole the, uh, bread . . .

I:

Mm-hm.

(11) Written Modern Times narrative excerpt (L1 Arabic) Foreground [1] [2] [3] [4]

she stol abread and they cutch her she met charlie when he said

Background

the nice man who was trying to helpe her

‘‘she didn’t sleel the bread I did that’’

6. For a discussion of tense switching in narrative see Schi¤rin (1981). 7. For a detailed discussion of grounding, see Chapter 9 and Bardovi-Harlig (1995, 1998, 2000).

232

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

All narratives have a foreground. Depending on the purpose of the narrative, the skill and level of engagement of the speaker (or writer), and the context in which the narrative is told, many narratives also have a background. In narrative excerpts (10) and (11) there is one background clause each. The background of a narrative supports its foreground. In contrast to the single function of the foreground to move time forward, the background may support the foreground in a variety of ways. Crucial to research on temporality, the background has no set time frame. For example, a background clause may reveal a prior event (located before the narrated event on the time line), make a prediction about the outcome of an event (located after the event on the time line), or refer to a simultaneous event (located at the same point or interval on the time line), for example, where the stealing of the bread and the viewing of it coincide as in Excerpt 10. The background also sets the scene (called orientation) as in (12) and (13) which in turn often includes description, and provides evaluation as in (12), or explanation/identification as in (13) (BardoviHarlig 1995). Scene setting promotes the use of stative predicates and imperfect. (12) Oral, L1 Spanish Foreground

And then, in another situation, in another place, there is a old lady that is really hungry is starving- She is starving. She is starving and so a- a business of bread, loaf of bread, [. . .] [. . .] to support it.

Orientation

Foreground Evaluation

Background

[1] And she decided to hope to take out the the loaf of bread.

And although this was a wrong thing.

Text to task

233

(13) Written, L1 Arabic Foreground

This movie talk about the man and the women. One day the women was too hungre,

Orientation

Action

Background

[1] so she stole a big piece of bread [2] but when she was ranning [3] she hit the man who is Charlie Chaplin.

Identification Although the man

who is a Baker

Identification [4] he said to the policeman that there is women who stole his bread, [5] so the policman go after the women.

From a storytelling perspective, the background enhances the narrative. From the perspective of research on temporal expression, the background provides contexts in which learners use a variety of temporal devices including adverbials, lexical devices, and a range of tense-aspect morphology making it the ideal context for imperfective verb forms, including progressive (Bardovi-Harlig 2005). This is further enhanced because departures from chronological order are generally indicated explicitly (Bardovi-Harlig 1992b, 1994; Klein 1986). On the one hand, all narratives share the same basic structure, and on the other, there are characteristics of narratives that are amplified in specific contexts of production. Because these characteristics are relevant to the study of L2 tense-aspect, the following sections consider conversational and elicited narratives and within elicited narratives, personal, impersonal, and personalized narratives. 3.2. Conversational narratives Narratives occur naturally in conversation. They may be the main focus of a conversation as when a speaker says, ‘‘Guess what happened at school today!’’ or the result of a topic like ‘‘getting speeding tickets’’ in which friends all contribute a story from their own experience. Just as likely, a narrative may occur in conversation to illustrate a point. Investigating situated narratives reveals how they are used in spontaneous communication. Like all narratives, a conversational narrative has a single primary speaker. Conversation accommodates narratives by suspending the typical turn-taking dynamics, and allowing the narrator to have an extended turn.

234

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

As an illustration, consider the narrative in (14) told by a male learner to a male interviewer with whom he had developed a rapport. Fahad, the learner-narrator of this narrative, uses the narrative to illustrate his claim that not having a car would allow him to study, but that owning a car leads to distraction, and when he sees it he thinks ‘‘Where are we going?’’ Before considering the narrative, first consider a point of geography: At the time of the narrative, the learner lived in Bloomington, Indiana, 218 miles to the southeast of Bloomington, Illinois. The two are often confused even by American travelers, and faculty members who are scheduled to give a talk at Indiana University have been known to call from the Bloomington, Illinois airport asking for directions to Bloomington, Indiana. The excerpt opens with the conversational exchange that frames the narrative which begins on line 20. (14) Lost in America, Conversational narrative (Excerpt from Fahad, L1 Arabic) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

S: Yeah, but I, I bought the car for [ol] reason because I, my apartment’s far \\ \\ from here. I: \\uh\\ I: Mmm hmm S: But, I don’t like to buy a car and I don’t like to have a car, cause the car will, will make me like I don’t like to study and I want go just around. ((laugh)) I: Mmm hmm, where all, where have you gone in your car? You went to Cincinnati and Indianapolis, where else? S: yeah, I ((laugh)), Uh, just [xxx], I mean, now I can’t I can’t go a freeway, if I have I: mm hm S: car, but if if I don’t have car just I can study and I don’t care about anything. Yeah but but now, if you can just I think ‘‘Where are we going, I: \\oh you have\\ S: Cincinnati, San Louis or Chicago, [a]-on freeway’’, and like for three weeks ago, [1] I went with my friend to s-uh to San Louis, [2] and, we uh we slept there, and when we uh when we back from there, [3] I said to him ‘‘Do you want us go to Chicago’’

Text to task

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 S:

[4] he said uh ‘‘OK’’, [5] I said ‘‘OK’’, and [6] then that way we found uh Bloomington. [I: ((mu¿ed laugh))] Uh, I mean, I don’t know I-uh, we-we-we don’t know, we didn’t know [I: mmm hmm] this is for I don’t know, [7] we-we said this is Bloomington. [8] And he said, ‘‘Do you want us go to change our clothes, and uh continue the way?’’ [9] I said him ‘‘OK’’. [10] And we entered the, we entered the, Bloomington, Illinois, [11] and there, we found everything is changed! ((laugh)) [I: ((laugh))] One, ((laugh)), [12] I said uh ‘‘One one day, the one day changed everything’’. ((laugh)) [I: ((laugh))] [13] Yeah and I I ask-ed the someone there, the gas station, I asked I said to him ‘‘Excuse me, do you know where the nineteenth street is?’’ [14] he said ‘‘I don’t have a nineteenth street’’. [15] I said ‘‘Oh, when did they take that ((laugh)) nineteenth street?’’ [16] Yeah uh, and we just we enter from here and we, uh we [I: ((laugh))] exit I mean we uh go from uh I mean uh back, and we we lost, we [ ] lost in the in America and just go around we don’t know where are going. [17] And I ask uh someone about the way [18] he said ‘‘Take uh fifty-five south’’. [19] And we took uh fifty s-uh fifty-five south, [20] and the fifty-uh fifty-five uh south took me to Indianapolis. And from Indianapolis to Bloomingtons, we we [sta] we, from I mean in the, I I start to mm from San Louis three o’clock, I I came here to Bloomington one o’clock in that night. [coda] Yeah too much, just driving

235

236 63 64 65 66 67 68

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

I: whew S: and ((laugh)) too much too much just . . . I: ((laugh)). Yeah you do have to be careful in, you can’t spend all your time in your S: yeah ((laugh)) I: car and then, no time in your books.

The speaker depends heavily on reported speech to convey the story line in his narrative; 10 of the 20 foreground clauses use reported speech [3–5, 7–9, 12, 14, 15, and 19]. The narrative is also largely unelaborated in that it consists essentially of the main story line. The few background clauses provide an interpretation of the foreground event we found Bloomington in line 26 [6], observing we didn’t know in line 29 (namely, ‘‘we didn’t know that we were in the wrong Bloomington’’) and the resultant state is summarized in line 50 ‘‘We lost . . . in America’’. In line 51 (‘‘and just go around we don’t know where are going’’) the background provides orienting action; orienting action sets the scene but does not move narrative time forward (Labov 1982; Bardovi-Harlig 1992a). The narrative ends traditionally in a coda; a coda brings a narrative back to the present (Labov 1982).8 Fahad o¤ers a coda which brings the narrative back to the present place, ‘‘I start from San Louis three o’clock, I came here to Bloomington one o’clock in that night’’ and sums up with ‘‘too much driving’’. The minimal backgrounding in this narrative may be due to its function of illustrating a point rather than the telling of the story itself. The interviewer’s first turn following the narrative responds to the main point made by the speaker, namely that if he has a car, he cannot study. In fact, the introductory sentence by the narrator and the response by the interviewer could appear contiguously in sequential turns as in (15). (15) (modified sequence) F: But, I don’t like to buy a car and I don’t like to have a car, cause the car will, will make me like I don’t like to study and I want go just around. I: Yeah you do have to be careful in, you can’t spend all your time in your car and then, no time in your books.

8. See also Bardovi-Harlig (1992a) for analysis of L2 narratives in the Labov (1982) framework.

Text to task

237

The learner is obviously comfortable speaking, and the learner and interviewer have developed a rapport during his time in the English program. The learner nominates topics and requires very little prompting from his interlocutor. The conversation, and the narratives that occur in it, is a reasonable length to provide a usable language sample. 3.2.1. Collecting conversational narratives Conversational narratives occur in conversations and are not elicited per se, but rather collected. Any means discussed for eliciting conversation may also lead to conversational narratives (see Section 2.1). There is no direct written correlate for conversation. However, there is a source for spontaneous written production of narratives in the form of journals. Like conversations, journals contain a variety of text types, including personal narratives. Bardovi-Harlig (1992b, 1994, 1997a, 2000) made extensive use of ungraded free-production daily journals which learners kept throughout the longitudinal study. Many entries at the lower levels received reciprocal entries from teachers in the form of dialog journals. Some students made six or seven entries a week while others made only two or three entries. The benefit of ungraded, unpressured written format manifests in longer more elaborate text than conversation which can be sca¤olded. This is illustrated in the comparison of (16) from conversational interviews and (17) from journal entries by the same learners writing about the same trips. (16) Conversational interviews a. I: So we came to class last week and you were gone. Your parents came? YJ: We went to trip. b. I: So tell me what you did this weekend. HK: Oh, I went to Chicago. (17) Journal entries a. YJ: I left Bloomington to Boston on May 19 because I have to visit my cousin. (YJ, T5) b. HK: I got up at 5:00 am and we drove to Chicago this morning. (HK, T5.5) When the same learners write, they must set the scene since a reader cannot contribute to the construction of the text in the same way as an

238

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

interlocutor. Thus as writers, learners must fully specify the scene, including temporal reference; this is seem in the way in which YJ and HK set the scene when telling about their respective trips in their journals. 3.2.2. Practical considerations Like conversation and conversational interviews more generally, narratives found in conversation can be highly individual and tuned to specific learners. In conversation, speakers are often motivated to relate a narrative in order to make a point. For learners who are never at a loss for words (and some of the learners in my longitudinal study fell into that category) conversational interviews lead to extended narratives. For others who are less inclined to talk, however, such open-ended tasks provide little structure. In addition, even among elaborated personal narratives there is little comparability. For example, the ‘‘Lost in America’’ narrative in Example (14) is one of a kind. No directly comparable narratives were produced by other learners in the study (Bardovi-Harlig 1992b, 1994, 1997, 2000). Because SLA research values language samples that can be compared, elicited narratives are considered next as a means of increasing comparability. 3.3. Elicited narratives To address the issue of comparability, narrative research often elicits sets of narratives from multiple speakers or writers. Native-speaker and learner narratives alike have been elicited for study of discourse structure and temporal expression. Elicited narratives may be personal narratives with content determined by the speaker in response to a prompt or question; they may also be impersonal with topic and potential content determined by the researcher, and they may be oral or written. Whatever the specific conditions of production, the speaker ultimately controls the content and structure of the narrative. The following sections consider and compare three types of elicited narratives: personal, impersonal, and personalized narratives. 3.4. Personal narratives Although the most genuine personal narratives arise spontaneously in conversation, personal narratives can also be elicited by asking speakers to respond to a question or prompt. Personal narratives, whether elicited

Text to task

239

or spontaneous, draw on a speaker’s experiences and may be told in first or third person, and they may be oral or written. Some of the best-known sets of personal narratives include the danger of death stories collected by Labov (1972; Labov and Waletzky 1967) and harassment stories collected by Tannen (1983). In L2 tense-aspect research, Bayley (1994) collected accounts of the uprising in Tiananmen Square in June 1989 and experiences during the Bay Area earthquake of October 1989; other topics included experiences in host and home countries (Shirai 2002), memories of the first few months in the host country (Lo´pez-Ortega 2000), and travel narratives (Du¤ and Li 2002). Liskin-Gasparro (1996) recorded a single learner’s account of being robbed in a taxi in Spain and harassed by a group of young men later that same evening; the learner told the story twice, once in each of two oral proficiency interviews. Excerpt (18) presents the narrative of the robbery from the advanced-level interview. (18) Taxi robbery excerpt (Advanced level, Liskin-Gasparro 1996: 275) Line Foreground 1

[1] Regrese´ a mi casa sola, pero en un taxi alguien me habı´a dicho que en un taxi es bastante seguro ((laugh))

2 3

7 8 9 10 11

[2] fui [3] cogı´ un taxi [4] y al llegar a mi casa e´l me pido´ mucho ma´s dinero que habı´a puesto en la ma´quina co´mo se llama? que cuenta el dinero [5] y yo pregunte´ por que´

Translation I went home alone, but in a taxi someone had told me that in a cab you’re really safe I left I caught a cab and when I got home, he asked me for more money than what was on the machine how do you say it? that counts the money and I asked why

?

4 5 6

Background

no deberı´a haber hecho ((laugh)) esto

I shouldn’t have done ((laugh)) that

240 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig pero sı´ [6] y e´l se enfado´ [7] y agarro´ mi bolsa [8] y e´l tomo´ todo el dinero allı´ [9] y empezo´ a conducir otra vez [10] y yo todavı´a estaba [I: allı´] [11] entonces yo agarre´ mi bolsa [12] salte´ del coche que estaba en marcha y bueno, me asusto´ bastante

but yes and he got mad and he grabbed my purse and he took all the money in it and he started to drive again and I was still [I: there] so then I grabbed my purse I jumped out of the car that was moving and well, he really scared me [evaluation]

The example illustrates the features of a personal narrative including background clauses that interpret the situation in lines 2–3, provide an evaluation of the wisdom of the action reported in lines 11–12, and a description of the moving car followed by an evaluation in lines 20–21. The background clauses provide a context for the past perfect, habı´a dicho ‘‘had told’’ and the modal perfect no deberı´a haber hecho ‘‘I should not have done that’’ which are tense-aspect forms that do not appear in the foreground. Personal narratives are recognized for their rich background as seen in Example (18) and discussed more fully in Section 3.3.3. 3.4.1. Eliciting personal narratives Personal narratives have typically been elicited by asking a general question, although many of the studies cited earlier do not give the specific question used to elicit the narratives. To elicit the danger of death stories Labov (1972) asked, ‘‘Were you ever in a situation where you thought you were in serious danger of getting killed?’’ Tannen (1983) reported asking whether New Yorkers had had any experiences in the subway. Elicited narratives are generally the focus of the interview in which they occur and an extended turn is guaranteed. (Even though conversation naturally suspends normal turn-taking during a narrative the speaker

Text to task

241

may have a sense of not taking too long to tell a story.) On the other hand, conversational motivation for telling a story is removed, and a new one has to be invented and conveyed in the course of the data elicitation. Su‰cient rapport has to be established for the potential narrator to want to tell the narrative. In some cases, L2 data collection benefits from learners wanting to say as much as possible in the second language and being able to do so without fear of losing their turn at talk. Although most of the personal narratives collected in L2 tense-aspect research have been oral, written narratives are valuable as well. Written narratives are more likely to be planned than oral narratives, but time constraints on the writing tasks can limit the amount of explicit knowledge brought to bear on narrative production. Writing may also reduce anxiety concerning oral skills and mediate nontargetlike pronunciation. Written and oral narratives may often be elicited by the same techniques. Questions asked of learners should be formulated with some sensitivity to what they might be willing to talk about. Not everyone wants to tell a stranger about their most embarrassing moment, for example. If it was embarrassing in the first place, it will be embarrassing in the retelling. Topics should be chosen carefully with an eye toward what students are likely to have experienced. For example, Jourdenais (1998) asked students about their initial experiences during their first job, during their first few days of college, and as they began to learn Spanish. Choosing topics carefully is even more important when learners and researchers have no relationship beyond the single elicitation event. One way around the issue of determining the topic of a personal narrative (so much of a person’s life may not be the business of a researcher, after all) is to avoid a specific selection, and instead to let the learner choose from a short list of topics. The use of emotion cards (first used by Collier, Kuiken, and Enzle 1982, and Davitz 1969) were introduced to L2 research by Rintell (1989) to elicit language expressing emotion and adopted for tense-mood-aspect elicitation by Salsbury (2000) and Comajoan (2001). Following Rintell, learners are presented with a set of emotion cards, with one emotion written on each card (e.g., happy, sad, angry) and asked to select an emotion that they are willing to talk about. They are then prompted to ‘‘tell about a time that you felt sad’’. The advantage is that the stimulus is very minimal and that the emotion is selected by the learner. This lessens the comparability somewhat in that learners do not all respond to the same prompt, but they may ultimately produce longer narratives because they chose the topic. Salsbury used longer prompts as

242

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

the learners in his longitudinal study gained in proficiency, but maintained learner topic-selection by presenting the questions on individual cards. Another means of enhancing elicitation of personal narratives is to provide an example of an event or situation in the form of pictures or film and then ask learners whether they have had a similar experience (BardoviHarlig, longitudinal corpus 1994, 1997a, 2000; Berman and Verhoeven 2002). Bardovi-Harlig used picture sequences which included going to a circus and trying out the tricks at home, playing pranks at school, and being helped by a stranger to get speakers to start talking and to introduce topics prior to asking them for their own similar experiences with a prompt such as ‘‘Did you ever do that. . . . Tell me about it’’. Berman and Verhoeven showed a film depicting di¤erent types of conflict before their elicitation of oral and written texts on the same topic. It is interesting to note that not all questions work as prompts. Berman and Verhoeven (2002) reported that students from some countries would not discuss interpersonal conflict and instead were given a substitute question about a time when someone helped them (34, footnote 10.) Tannen’s (1983) harassment stories began with the goal of collecting narratives about experiences on the New York subway, but ended up as narratives about molestation as the theme recurred across narratives. When she collected a comparable set of narratives from Greek women she asked directly if they had had any experiences being molested. 3.4.2. Practical considerations Some of the practical considerations were mentioned above. In addition to being sensitive about topics, interviewers should also be prepared with alternative topics (as were Berman and Verhoeven 2002). If interviewers are working in a team, it helps if they can confer between interviews and make similar adjustments to keep the interviews aligned. Individual interviewers can keep notes to increase similarities in their approaches to di¤erent speakers. Shared cultural events, weather-related experiences, or airport travel are topics that are often fruitful. Even with elicited narratives on the same general theme, there is still an element of the unknown for the researcher. For example, personal narratives may be comparable only thematically, but not in detail, and analysts do not have an external map of the order of events. Both of these issues are addressed through the use of impersonal narratives.

Text to task

243

3.5. Impersonal narratives Among the open-ended tasks, those eliciting impersonal narratives dominate L2 tense-aspect research. They are favored for their high comparability and the degree of researcher control over the stimulus. The impersonal narratives used in L2 research are fictional (but do not have to be) and always third person. Examples (10)–(13) are impersonal narratives from Modern Times retell tasks. 3.5.1. Eliciting impersonal narratives Impersonal narratives can be elicited easily by means of films or picture retell tasks. The film or picture retell tasks get their name from the process by which it is elicited. Participants are presented with a story on film or in a series of stationary pictures and are asked to tell the story. Sequences of events are presented as well as visual details (varying with the media used), but the participant is free to add to or reduce the detail of the story. Silent films or excerpts have been used because the films are intended to provide a stimulus, but not a verbal model. Films that have been used to elicit narratives include the Pear Stories produced for the purpose of narrative elicitation (Chafe 1980), Modern Times (Chaplin 1936; di¤erent segments used by Bardovi-Harlig 1995, 1998; Dietrich, Klein, and Noyau 1995; also Bergstro¨m 1995, 1997; Comajoan 2001, 2005a,b, 2006; Hasbu´n 1995; Salaberry 1998), Tin Toy (Lasseter 1995; used by Bardovi-Harlig 1999), The Sorcerer’s Apprentice (Algar, Pearce, and Fallberg 1940; used by La¤ord 1996), Quest (Montgomery 1996; used by Carroll, Rossdeutscher, Lambert, and von Stutterheim 2008) and others. Schmiedtova´’s (2004) use of eleven short television commercials (19–55 seconds long) were carefully selected for their portrayal of simultaneous actions and ordered events in a study of the L2 acquisition of Czech. Leclercq (2009) used five of Schmiedtova´’s commercials to study simultaneity in English. In addition, stationary pictures such as those found in comic strips (Comajoan 2006) and wordless picture books such as Frog, Where are you? (Mercer 1969) have been used by Bamberg and Marchman (1990), Berman and Slobin (1994) and Housen, Kemps, and Pierrerd (2009). Wordless picture books can be modified to emphasize actions (such as modifying an action of flying up to flying up, up, up; Burghardt 2010, forthcoming) and can be projected via computer. Narratives can also be retold from a live, oral performance of story or folktale (Bardovi-Harlig 1992a used Punia and the King of the Sharks, a Hawaiian trickster tale, from MacDonald 1986). Some learners find a

244

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

task based exclusively on listening in the L2 to be too demanding (only 16 of 22 learners were able to complete the task used by Bardovi-Harlig 1992a). In addition, an oral presentation provides a model for temporal reference, which adds another variable. Interestingly, even with a verbal model, some learners elaborated on the text in innovative ways. Procedures di¤er on whether the learners tell the narrative to a researcher or associate who has seen the film (Bardovi-Harlig 1995), a fellow student who has not seen the film (Salaberry 1998) or self-recording with no interlocutor (Labeau 2009). Written impersonal narratives do not have an obvious reader, but Labeau had learners email her their written narratives within an hour of completing the oral picture retell task, thus establishing a known reader. Practice also varies on whether the learners view the film once or twice. Viewing the film twice is thought to lessen anxiety and reduce memory load. As with personal narratives, most studies collect oral retells. Some studies have collected both oral and written narratives (Bardovi-Harlig 1995; Labeau 2009); only one study (Clachar 2005) seems to have collected only written narratives. The emphasis on retell tasks comes from the freshness of the details and the action. It has been suggested that film retells are superior to the use of classic stories or culturally specific folktales or myths which tend to lack details in accounts by learners who do not know them well or have not heard them for a while. However, folktales and myths can be used as content for retell tasks as Comajoan (2001, 2005a,b) did with an illustrated book of the tale of Saint George. 3.5.2. Practical considerations Because stimuli used to elicit impersonal narratives are selected by the researcher, the order of the events is known in advance, an advantage especially when working with language samples from lower level learners. Researchers have the opportunity to select stimuli that elicits features that they are interested in. Pictures and even film can be relatively easily modified, for example, to increase the number of simultaneous events, or augment an action (from going up to going up, up, up, Burghardt 2010). Narrative retell tasks have the potential of equalizing the length of narratives by giving speakers a certain amount of content to work with. This was emphasized by the narratives collected by Du¤ and Li (2002) who found that the elicited Pear Story narratives were longer than personal travel narratives told by the same learners of Mandarin (whereas the personal narratives by native speakers were longer than their Pear Stories).

Text to task

245

The use of still pictures to elicit narrative has to be done with some care to have the learners first read the pictures, after which the researcher removes the pictures and the learners tell the story. This increases the focus on the action. Learners have a tendency to describe a picture that is in front of them. This can be turned into an advantage for the elicitation of descriptions discussed later. 3.6. Comparing personal and impersonal narratives Noyau (1984, 1990) argued for the superiority of personal over impersonal narratives citing structure and motivation as two main benefits. She claimed that film retell tasks provide an inherent structure whereas personal narratives o¤er greater potential for observing how learners manage temporal reference on their own. More importantly, Noyau (1984) claims that ‘‘the motivation of the speaker for sharing his own experience gives maximal expression of his repertoire’’ (115) leading to greater elaboration of the background. In support of this argument, native speaker personal narratives show greater backgrounding than foregrounding (Schi¤rin 1981), as do personal narratives by learners (Comajoan 2001, 2005b; Liskin-Gasparro 2000; Tre´vise 1987). Tre´vise (1987) noted that one of her narrator’s explanations in the narrative about how he escaped from Argentina is so important to both the narrator and narrative that it seems hardly less significant than the action. In addition to influencing the depth of the background, whether a narrative is personal or impersonal, elicited or conversational may also influence the rate of suppliance for both perfective and imperfective morphology. Personal and conversational narratives show higher rates of use of verbal morphology than impersonal narratives (Comajoan 2001, 2005b for Catalan; Giacalone Ramat and Banfi 1990 for Italian; Liskin-Gasparro 2000 for Spanish). Although film and story retell tasks can elicit rich background (see Bardovi-Harlig 1992a, 1995), especially with visually rich animation (La¤ord 1996), learners can comply with a researcher’s request to ‘‘tell what happened’’ by relating the foreground alone. In any retell task, however, there may be pressure that leads learners to sacrifice background for foreground (Tomlin 1984). 3.7. Personalized narratives The use of personalized narratives attempts to capitalize on the benefits of personal narratives (greater detail, more background, and increased use

246

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

of verbal morphology) while maintaining control over content and comparability. In the retell task participants take the role of a protagonist in a film or story and tell the story from the first person perspective. Learners show di¤erent use of tense-aspect morphology in personalized narratives and greater elaboration of background compared to impersonal narratives. Moreover, personalized narratives look ahead, interpret, evaluate, and give reasons, features that Noyau (1984, 1990) claims to be present only in personal narratives. In addition, some learners also show a range of tense-aspect forms not seen in the impersonal narratives. Bardovi-Harlig (1999) used a computer-animated film, Tin Toy (Lasseter 1989) to explore personalized narratives. In Tin Toy, a baby terrorizes his toys by picking them up, chewing on them, drooling on them, and then smashing them down on the floor. Only the tin toy, a mechanical one-man band, dares to o¤er himself to the baby to play with. After learners viewed the film, they were asked first to retell the story. These instructions produced impersonal narratives. Next, the learners were asked to take the part of one of the protagonists, the heroic mechanical toy or the toy-smashing baby. The personalized narratives provided background information which was absent relative to the same reported foreground action in the impersonal narration, including adding motivation of the character and emotions; in addition, the narrators o¤ered interpretations of the foreground events. In Excerpt (19) line 7 the learner narrating the impersonal account reports that the toys are hiding, and in the personalized narrative in (20) line 7, he expands on why the toys are hiding, and in line 9 what the toys are thinking (they are surprised) following foreground predicate he started to cry. (19) Impersonal narrative (L1 Arabic) [5] the musician man run away from the baby. [6] And, uh . . . the, the baby was . . . uh, running after the musician man, [7] till the . . . the musician man hide uh, under the couch or something. And there’s all of the toys who were /hide/, hiding from the baby [8] And after that the baby fell down [9] and he started to cry. /Nnn/ . . . [10] After that the musician . . .

Text to task

247

(20) Personalized narrative: narrator as the baby [5] The musician man just run away from me [6] and I follow [him?]. And I was so happy. And I was eager to catch it. [7] Uh, then he just uh, he just hide from me with the . . . other toys which they were, they, they were afraid of me. [8] And uh, I fall [fell?] down, eh, [9] then I started to cry. I was crying, and all of the toys [surprised?]: What’s happening? [10] There is a musician man get out . . . In addition, in (21) we hear the voice of the Tin Toy who feels sorry for the baby (compare this to predicate [9] in (19) and (20)). (21) Narrator as the tin toy Foreground Background [17] and he, he was crying, started to cry. Uh, then uh, his voice was very loud, and I just felt sorry for him 3.7.1. Eliciting personalized narratives To elicit personalized narratives, learners are told to imagine that they are one of the characters from a story. For example, in the case of the Tin Toy narratives excerpted above, learners were told ‘‘imagine that you are this toy . . . and tell me the story . . . and tell me what you remember about what happened to you’’. or ‘‘imagine that you’re the baby. Okay? And tell the story as if you were the baby. Okay?’’ One interviewer added, ‘‘What happened to you today, Mr. Toy?’’ (Bardovi-Harlig, longitudinal corpus 2000). Note that the instructions were followed by several comprehension checks (‘‘Okay?’’) by the interviewers. 3.7.2. Practical considerations Eliciting personalized narratives requires a stimulus with a sympathetic protagonist. Most of the narratives used in L2 elicitations could be used in this way. This turned out to be a conceptually di‰cult task which some participants declined to do citing the fact that babies cannot talk or think. Because of this, it seems to be important to make sure that the protagonists are higher up on the animacy hierarchy (Hill 1988; Silverstein 1976) than babies or toys. (This also suggests that animals might be prob-

248

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

lematic main characters for personalized narratives. See Carroll, Rossdeutscher, Lambert, and von Stutterheim 2008, for a discussion of characteristics of protagonists.) Learners who completed the task seemed to have fun with it and, more importantly, they showed noticeable increases in backgrounding in the first person narratives over the third person narratives. 3.8. Summary: working with narratives Regardless of mode, whether elicited or spontaneous, personal or impersonal, narratives allow researchers to document learners’ use of tense-aspect in a past-time chronologically ordered framework. The sequence of chronologically ordered events in the foreground establishes a timeline against which the background is understood: The foreground will exhibit perfective past (simple past in English). In contrast, anterior, simultaneous, and future events and situations in the background all provide contexts for the use of diverse tense-aspect morphology. These factors combine to create a rich environment for the study of temporal expression. Oral narratives can be told by speakers of any age or education level; moreover, welldeveloped narratives are not the exclusive domain of the proficient speaker. By definition, narrative discourse privileges chronological sequencing as it answers the question ‘‘what happened next?’’ The following section considers texts with other organization and goals. 4. Extended monologic discourse: nonnarrative texts As previously noted, nonnarrative discourse often has been defined in opposition to narrative in terms of what it is not, rather than what it is. Following Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (2000: 124), nonnarrative discourse (a) establishes a generic truth through analysis, synthesis, or argumentation; (b) contains detailed information about structure or process; (c) establishes a position that needs to be supported; and (d) realizes a variety of speech acts. In the same way that we can use narrative to study how time moves forward and the means that speakers use to convey it, we can use other types of text to study how time stands still and how learners convey that. Nonnarratives exhibit use of imperfective past, future, and modals (BardoviHarlig 2005). No single type of nonnarrative text has received as much attention linguistically as the narrative, especially in the tense-aspect literature. This section considers description, argument, and irrealis as three examples of nonnarrative text which have been investigated in L2 tense-

Text to task

249

aspect research. (Although not part of classic studies of discourse, I have added irrealis here because eliciting irrealis texts require special elicitation tasks.) In the construction of the narrative, chronological action is emphasized against all else. In contrast, in descriptions, states are highlighted and action is relegated to the explanatory (von Stutterheim and Klein 1989; von Stutterheim 1991). Von Stutterheim and Klein argue that narrative structure, grounding, and description can be understood in a more general approach to main structures and side structures. In a narrative, the foreground answers the question ‘‘What happened next?’’ from which unbounded states, habituals, and generics are excluded. In contrast, a description answers questions such as, ‘‘What did/does X look like?’’ (von Stutterheim and Klein 1989) or ‘‘What was it like there?’’ (Carroll and von Stutterheim 2003). In descriptions, according to von Stutterheim (1991: 391), specific temporal reference is normally excluded, and temporal location on the time axis leads to side structures, ‘‘exactly the reverse picture’’ from the narrative.9 In a narrative, temporal reference is moved forward by bounded events; in a description, unbounded states imply the maintenance of the temporal frame. Comparisons among text types have been made by Bronckart and Bourdin (1993) for young students ages 10, 12, and 14, by Ragnarsdottir et al. (2002) for students at di¤erent academic levels, ages 9–10, 12–13, 16–17, and university graduate students, and Smith (2003) for published texts. Bronckart and Bourdin (1993) compared use of morphology in a narrative, a report, a letter and an explanation of a process by students at age 10, 12, and 14. These comparisons show that not only do texts di¤er from each other, but tense-aspect distribution may also di¤er across languages (see also Carroll and von Stutterheim 2003, on this issue.)10 It should also be noted, however, that tasks can be manipulated to encourage one tense over another, as discussed in Section 4.1.1. A comparison of temporal and modal features in narrative, descriptions, and arguments in written L2 English showed that learner descriptions and arguments were characterized by nonpast time and greater use of modals than narratives, making these text types ideal means of investigating nonpast and modality (Ewert 2006). In addition, descriptions showed more stative verbs than 9. Smith’s (2003) analysis is a bit di¤erent. For Smith, descriptions are located in time, but static. Movement of time would trigger a side sequence. 10. An examination of learner texts crosslinguistically is beyond the scope of this chapter.

250

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

narratives or arguments making them potentially good contexts for imperfective morphology. 4.1. Description Smith (2003: 20) characterizes descriptions as being located in time (which is static) focusing on specific objects, people, mental states, and ongoing events. Descriptions may be oral or written and may occur as part of the background of a narrative as in (1) and (12) or an independent text as in (22) and (23). Independent descriptive texts have the potential of being longer than descriptions found in narrative background (in learner texts) and may be more fully developed (the di¤erence in oral-written modes may be a confound here). In Excerpt (22) from an essay describing the qualities of a good leader (Ewert 2006: 198), the use of present and modal can maintain the time frame. Original learner spelling is maintained. (22) Description essay (Ewert 2006: 198) (In the excerpts that follow, ¶ means paragraph.) I think karizma [charisma] is one of the most important quality in being a leader. ¶ Secondly, I think that the good leader can persuade other people who against their bill or idea. Without any violence, the leader can change the opposive side’s thinking. By speech, Lincon or Washinton can move the public. This ability is the necessity of good leader. which can persuade other people (23) Description essay with narrative side structure (Ewert 2008: 20) First, they have the constant will or passion. In their life time, they were attacked so many times, but no one can defeat them, Because they attracted the people, so the people was alway their side. Nelson Mandela was arrested

Text to task

251

and put into jail for eighteen years. His children was killed. However, he never gave up. He had the dream to overcome the human discrimination and establish the freedom. So was Martin Luther King. After eighteen year fighting, he got the freedom and became a president of South Africa Republic. I was much moved by their life. The true leaders a¤ect us not only at that times but also even now. Excerpt (23) shows a description with a narrative side structure (indicated by italics) in which the statives, modals, and habituals (indicated by adverbials) in the description contrast with the narrative. There are two main ways to elicit descriptions: to enhance background in narratives and to elicit independent descriptions. One means of enhancing description is to employ the personal narrative for reasons discussed earlier. (See, for example, Liskin-Gasparro 1996.) Another means is to manipulate a stimulus to promote description. Visually interesting films such as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice used by La¤ord (1996) enhance description as would documentary films such as Babies (Billot et al. 2010) whose settings are perhaps the main point of the film. Following von Sutterheim and Klein (1989) and Carroll and von Stutterheim (2003), tasks for eliciting description should compel participants to answer questions such as ‘‘What is/was X like?’’ and ‘‘What was it like there?’’ Increasing description by increasing narrative background is a natural outcome of using static pictures. Static pictures can be problematic for eliciting narratives (because they promote description) and this makes them ideal when the goal is to elicit description. Labeau’s (2009) use of nine static pictures in a wordless cartoon set in prehistoric times promoted the use of background description in a study of the French imparfait (imperfect). Comajoan (2005a) employed a richly illustrated picture book about the legend of Saint George and found greater background with the static pictures than with a film retell task. Kim (2012) also used visually detailed pictures to elicit descriptions. Using a blind between the researcher and the learner so that only the learner saw the picture, Kim encouraged learners to produce longer oral samples by asking, ‘‘I would like to know more about the lady. Please tell me about her clothes and appearance’’.

252

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Independent descriptive texts may be elicited in a variety of ways. The prompt used with emotion cards (Rintell 1989) can be varied from eliciting narratives to eliciting description. After the learner identifies the emotion he or she would like to talk about from a stack of cards, the researchers uses the prompt ‘‘tell me about things that make you sad/happy/anxious’’ (Salsbury 2000). The focus away from events to things shifts the focus of the text. One of the challenges of working with descriptions is finding topics that generate descriptions of su‰cient length to constitute a reasonable sample, and allowing learners to choose their topics (as discussed earlier) helps with this. Another means of eliciting description is to make it the explicit focus of the prompt by naming the text type as in ‘‘Description–Qualities of a Good Leader: Describe the qualities (characteristics) of a good leader. Use specific details and examples in your description’’ (Ewert 2006). Such prompts are common for eliciting written texts in academic language programs. If a description is used to investigate the emergence of past imperfective forms, then there is methodological challenge of maintaining the focus on past time reference. Descriptive prompts which have a past time reference were employed by Jourdenais (1998) in which learners were asked to describe their initial impressions during their first jobs, during their first few days of college, and as they began to learn Spanish. An additional way to elicit description may be to have learners emulate newspaper reports, a text characterized by the central role of description (Caenepeel 1995). Because the immediate situational context of the reader and the reported events do not coincide, the writer must convey facts about the setting and circumstances in which the newsworthy events have occurred, resulting in a descriptive focus. Extensive clips of news footage could be shown to learners who then write their own ‘‘newspaper’’ reports. This task would work best with participants who have had experience with newspapers or on-line news reporting. An oral version might ask learners to simulate a ‘‘live’’ broadcast for radio or television. 4.2. Argument Arguments put forward a claim, comment, or position and support it in some way. Smith (2003) describes arguments as atemporal. Arguments are a typical academic text type and unlike the other text types considered in this chapter are primarily written, although the arguing of positions can also be found in conversation, and formal oral debate. Ewert (2006, 2008) elicited written texts and compared arguments to description and narra-

Text to task

253

tive. So far, the use of arguments has only been minimally exploited in L2 tense-aspect research. Example (24) shows an excerpt from an argument essay that takes the stand that technology enhances the quality of education. (24) Excerpt from argument essay (Ewert 2006: 98) ¶ Also, making students better to live current world is important. It means that students must be used to using technology such as computers. Because, no one can live without such kinds of technology in practical world. For example, almost all companies use and organize their works by computers. If someone can’t use computers, he/she will not achieve. So, using technology helps also the student’s technology experience. ¶ In conclusion, teaching must change with pracical world. (25) Argument with side structure (Ewert 2008: 16) ¶ Today’s technology is higher than past years. People have many technology like calculators, computers, television, and so on They are support to education. Quality of education is increased by technology. ¶ Korea army used the brackboard of paper chapter when they teaching about batter [battle] skills. Three years ago, they changed the teaching way from brackboard and paper chapters to CBT. That was revolution of education. Many practice soldier was understood the educations more easier. At that time, dropping rate was decrease. ¶ Engineers need calculators and computers In (25) the learner provides a short narrative to illustrate his point (see italicized text). The narrative also contains its own background clauses.

254

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

The use of argument in L2 tense-aspect research has not yet been fully exploited. The use of argument prompts are well developed in the teaching of composition and oral debate, and can be utilized in L2 tense-aspect research with additional piloting and adjustment for specific purposes. Ewert (2006) used a prompt related to technology and education, a topic of relevance to her subject population: ‘‘Argument–Technology and the Quality of Education: Discuss your opinion on how technology (calculators, computers, television, video, etc.) a¤ects the quality of education. Use specific details and examples to support your ideas’’. In a crosslinguistic study of the development of text production of L1 speakers from 4th grade (9–10 years old) to University graduate students (20–30 years old), Berman and Verhoeven (2002) collected oral and written texts about problems between people. Subjects viewed a three-minute film depicting short unrelated scenes about social, moral, and physical conflict at school. No scene presented a resolution and no scene was related to the other to make sure that the film did not predispose the viewers to narrative. The subjects were asked to give a talk in class and to write a composition about problems between people. They were further instructed not to tell a story. 4.3. Irrealis: hypothetical and future texts Realis refers to situations that have actually taken place or are actually taking place in a real or fictional world, whereas irrealis is used for hypothetical situations, including inductive generalizations and future (Comrie 1985; Dry 1983). Irrealis texts are also nonnarrative. The irrealis texts that are most likely to be considered in tense-aspect studies are future-oriented texts.11 Temporality is only one concept that makes up the future. Crosslinguistic research on tense-aspect systems agrees that, unlike the purely temporal relationships of the past and the present, the future also encompasses modality (Dahl 1985; see also Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994). Future reference may thus include modal readings of possibility, probability, intention, and desire or volition, of which intentionality is the most common (Bybee 1985; Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994; Dahl 1985; Fleischman 11. Once future is introduced in any discussion of tense-aspect, the gate to modality is open. Due to length restrictions, this chapter does not review data collection in studies of L2 modality. The reader is referred to Giacalone Ramat and Crocco Gale`as (1995), Salsbury (2000), and von Stutterheim (1993).

Text to task

255

1982). In fact, Dahl’s crosslinguistic survey shows that the most typical uses of future involve actions that are planned by the agent of the sentence (1985: 105), whereas cases of ‘pure prediction’ are less frequent. The practical outcome of this observation is that most future texts will be first person. The tendency to first person in future-oriented texts or passages can be seen in Example (26) produced in response to a writing prompt asking learners to consider life five years from the time of writing (which was in 1990, hence the references to 1995). (26) Five Years from Now a. Five years from now, I will be twenty eight years old at 1995. It is very di‰cult for me to guess what I will be doing. . . . (HK, Written, L1 Japanese) b. I hope in 1995 I will graguet [graduate] from university in seecced [and succeed] if I did it I will work in the caverman [government] in my cantery [country] and I want to make a privet pesness [private business] . . . (MA, Written, L1 Arabic) Future and hypothetical texts are not only written. In Example (27) the learner was asked by the interviewer to describe a fantasy (defined by the interviewer as something that could probably never happen; Salsbury 2000). (27) As you know, the computer will be like, like ten years the future, will be most things in your life . . . so many the computer will solve will solve a lot of problems, like maybe the computer will gonna, like help them how to see the, like farthest place in the universe, they found life or something, maybe he can like, imagine, like, maybe they can bring something from other planet computer can, like translate it or imagine it. (28) Irrealis passage from Modern Times [16] and imagined a future of them Chaplin is the woman’s husbund. It is deal. There are many food in their home. They look like very happy. [17] but the polise man came An irrealis passage may also appear in other text types including narratives. Modern Times contains a day-dream sequence introduced by the title ‘‘Can you imagine us in a little home like that?’’ which encourages narrators in the construction of irrealis text. Learners use bounding state-

256

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

ments as in (28), ‘‘Imagined the future of them’’ and ‘‘the polise man came’’ and in between set up the irrealis passage morphologically by using present, thus distinguishing it from the foreground of the narrative which occurred in past (Bardovi-Harlig 1995). 4.3.1. Eliciting hypothetical and future texts One of the most common means of eliciting future texts is to ask questions about future plans for a certain time period (Moses 2002) or a specific event or situation such as career plans (Howard 2012). In his longitudinal study of future expression in French, Moses asked one question in each of five conversational interviews, ‘‘What are your plans for Thanksgiving holiday/next semester’s schedule/weekend activities/summer vacation plans?’’ The questions were enhanced by story squares, a series of two or three pictures with one time label for present, ‘‘now’’, and another one or two for the relevant future, for example ‘‘Thanksgiving’’, or ‘‘next semester’’. The story squares had two rows. The first row was labeled moi (‘‘me’’) in which the pictures depicted the researcher’s activities. The ‘‘now’’ squares depicted the researcher conducting interviews, and the ‘‘next semester’’ square showed him writing his dissertation. The next row was blank, but labeled toi (‘‘you’’) for the learners. Following the interviews, learners completed written texts on the same topic designed as letters to a friend in order to maintain the informal register of the interview. The reciprocal information exchange, where the interviewer also divulged his own plans added to the conversational feel and helped build rapport being the interviewer and the participants. A longitudinal study of future expression in English (Bardovi-Harlig 2004a, b, 2005) drew on an oral and written learner corpus which included essays assigned by the intensive English program with prompts such as ‘‘five years from now’’ or ‘‘What do you expect life to be like in 10 years/ in 2040?’’ (Excerpt 26 is a response to the first prompt.) In written mode, learner journals also provided a good source of future as learners wrote about their plans and aspirations. The prompts planned by Howard and Moses for their interviews, and the essay prompts given by the instructors in Bardovi-Harlig’s study are designed to increase the number of future uses in one text. In conversation, Wiberg (2002) notes, future does not generally occur in long sequences; rather, it occurs in contrast to other temporal reference. Nevertheless, it does occur rather frequently. As an illustration, consider that although no tokens of the future were intentionally elicited in the corpus which sought to investigate past-time reference,

Text to task

257

over 1,100 tokens of future occurred in 175 conversations which were introduced entirely by learners and their interlocutors in the unplanned portions of friendly small talk (Bardovi-Harlig 2004a). To present hypothetical situations Salsbury (2000) set up interpretive sessions which utilized black and white candid photographs taken by photographers for Life magazine. Learners were shown a picture and asked to tell a story about it; then they were asked specific questions about what they thought the subjects in the photographs were thinking or feeling and how they might react if they were in a similar situation. As students became more proficient in the course of the longitudinal study, prompts became increasingly verbal and included questions or statements that learners could address involving past regrets and future hopes and dreams. An important principle in Salsbury’s elicitation method is that learners were able to choose the topics that they addressed from among a four to six topics. In a study of topic-related cognitive demands on syntactic accuracy, fluency, and complexity, Tapia (1993) developed two future-oriented essay prompts, one an experiential topic, ‘‘In your opinion, what is one of the biggest problems in your country? What will need to be done to solve this problem?’’ and the other a hypothetical topic, ‘‘What do you think life will be like in 2041 (50 years from now)? Describe what it will be like to live then. What changes will there be by then?’’ The experiential topic starts o¤ with a current issue and builds to the future (hence the label experiential) whereas the second topic is entirely set in the rather distant future for the college-age respondents, but still in their lifetimes. The hypothetical topic is an elaborated version of topics used frequently in eliciting the future. In the elicitation of future there is a tension between conversation in which future appears not infrequently but in short bursts, and the extended monologic interview and writing tasks in which the text is potentially entirely in future. Both are promising sources. 4.3.2. Practical considerations The greatest challenge in eliciting nonnarrative texts is avoiding narrative. Speakers will often switch to narrative when possible. This is so widely recognized that Berman and Verhoeven (2002) explicitly told their participants in the expository condition to not tell a story. Still pictures, which are risky for narrative production if viewed while speaking, promote description, and are thus ideal when description is the goal. Some types of nonnarrative texts are almost exclusively written, and this excludes

258

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

either very young learners or adults with low literacy skills; on the other hand, these same texts are common in academic writing and can be easily elicited in instructional settings. 4.4. Summary: working with nonnarrative texts Nonnarrative texts have not been as widely investigated in L2 tense-aspect research as narrative has been. As noted at the outset, discourse analysts do not always agree on divisions among nonnarrative texts. Nevertheless, the inclusion of a variety of nonnarrative texts enriches L2 tense-aspect research by providing environments (both at the textual and clausal levels) for the expression of temporal relations other than forward movement of time. The use of independent texts (rather than background clauses) allows speakers and writers to highlight static, atemporal, or irrealis expression in texts ordered by principles other than chronological order. Testing the aspect hypothesis or the discourse hypothesis on texts other than narratives would allow researchers to avoid unrecognized narrative confounds. 5. Concluding remarks The use of conversation, conversational interviews, and open-ended tasks that result in extended monologic discourse have played a considerable role in the study of L2 temporal expression and tense-aspect development. Each type of language sample has its own benefits and its own costs. What they share is the opportunity for learners to make meaning and to use their emergent tense-aspect systems (as well as other means of temporal expression) in the act of communication. The communicative focus directs learners’ attention away from explicit knowledge which is likely to play a role in tense-aspect use under monitored conditions. Conversation o¤ers the greatest range of tense-aspect morphology given that a conversation can have any possible temporal frame, depending on the topic. This, it is likely to display a range of tense-aspect forms. Speakers may change temporal reference, sometimes quite rapidly (for example, imagine moving from reporting an event earlier in the day to weekend plans). Depending on the overall oral-aural competence of a learner and his underlying tense-aspect system, a learner may display agility in following the lead of his interlocutor (or not), or if inclined, may lead the conversation. The turn structure is both a cost and a benefit in that turn taking supports lower-level speakers (a benefit) and a cost in that relatively balanced turns preclude extended turns for an individual speaker, thus limiting a sample.

Text to task

259

Conversational narratives are the one exception to regular turn taking because turns are often suspended to allow an extended narrative to occur. Conversational narratives, like other extended monologic texts, allow speakers to create an entire text on their own. Conversational narratives are typically framed by a claim which they illustrate. Speakers are invested in making their point and add rich support in the form of background to help them do so. The benefit of personal narratives, whether spontaneous or elicited, is speaker involvement which leads to more elaboration (and every clause provides more evidence for the system which underpins it); however, the greatest cost of personal narratives is the lack of comparability. Because of its disciplinary investment in language samples that can be compared, SLA studies in tense-aspect research have favored elicited narratives. Several means have been developed to elicit impersonal narratives which were detailed in the preceding sections. The comparability of texts has paid o¤ by providing relatively large corpora of narratives for analysis. The cost is in the less elaborated background which is thought to stem from the impersonal perspective. A hybrid elicitation task yielding personalized narratives (a personal perspective of third-party events) has shown promise in increasing background information relative to foreground events. Narratives have been used successfully in small case studies and large scale studies, with learners of all ages, levels of proficiency, and levels of literacy and education. Narratives are excellent sources for the study of perfective past with foreground providing a contrast to the diverse time frames and tense-aspect morphology found in the background. Finally, this chapter considered nonnarrative texts and the role they can play in providing data for the study of statives and imperfectives. Although there has recently been a move to add nonnarrative texts to the study of tense-aspect development, overall, nonnarrative texts have not been exploited fully. The production of some types of nonnarrative texts such as descriptions and future-oriented texts (including things that are imagined, and hopes and plans for the future) can be elicited from a range of informants. Other nonnarrative texts such as expository and argument texts are often written and their structure is typically learned during schooling; they thus seem to be relatively more limited as to the range of learners who can produce them. No doubt there will be an increased use of such texts as research moves from the focus on perfective to imperfective forms and functions in L2 acquisition research. In summary, this chapter has investigated both talk and text types, considered the characteristics of each in terms of tense and aspect distribution and function, and shown how tasks which promote extended discourse can

260

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

be conducted across languages and with populations at various levels of proficiency and most at any level of L1 or L2 literacy. The data which extended discourse provides can be used to test a wide range of hypotheses and to understand form-to-meaning and meaning-to-form associations in developing L2 tense-aspect systems.

References Algar, James (Director), Perce Pearce & Carl Fallberg (Writers) 1940 Sorcerer’s apprentice. (In Fantasia). [Motion picture]. United States: Walt Disney Productions. Bamberg, Michael & Virginia Marchman 1990 What holds a narrative together? The linguistic encoding of episode boundaries. Papers in Pragmatics 4. 58–121. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1992a The telling of a tale: Discourse structure and tense use in learner’s narratives. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Monograph 3, 144–161. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1992b The use of adverbials and natural order in the development of temporal expression. IRAL 30. 299–320. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1994 Reverse-order reports and the acquisition of tense: Beyond the principle of chronological order. Language Learning 44. 243– 282. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1995 A narrative perspective on the development of the tense/aspect system in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17. 263–291. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1997a Another piece of the puzzle: The emergence of the present perfect. Language Learning 47. 375–422. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1997b Assessing grammatical development in interactional contexts. TESOL Quarterly 31. 797–806. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1998 Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 471–508. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1999 Examining the role of text type in L2 tense-aspect research: Broadening our horizons. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Proceedings

Text to task

Bardovi-Harlig, 2000 Bardovi-Harlig, 2004a

Bardovi-Harlig, 2004b

Bardovi-Harlig, 2005

Bardovi-Harlig, 2007

Bardovi-Harlig, 2004

Bayley, Robert 1994

261

of the Third Pacific Second Language Research Forum (Vol. 1, 129–138. Tokyo: The Pacific Second Language Research Forum. Kathleen Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell. Kathleen The emergence of grammaticalized future expression in longitudinal production data. In M. Overstreet, S. Rott, B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Form and meaning in second language acquisition, 115–137. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kathleen Monopolizing the future: How the go-future breaks into will ’s territory and what it tells us about SLA. EuroSLA Yearbook 4. 177–201. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kathleen Tracking the elusive imperfect in adult second language acquisition: Refining the hunt. In P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 397–419. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kathleen One functional approach to SLA: The concept-oriented approach. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition, 57–75. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kathleen & Tom Salsbury The organization of turns in the disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning, 199–227. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Interlanguage variation and the quantitative paradigm: Past tense marking in Chinese-English. In S. Gass, A. Cohen & E. Tarone (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition, 157–181. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bergstro¨m, Anna 1995 The expression of past temporal reference by English-speaking learners of French. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University, Ph.D. dissertation. Bergstro¨m, Anna 1997 L’influence des distinctions aspectuelles sur l’acquisition des temps en franc¸ais langue e´trange`re. [The influence of aspectual distinctions on the acquisition of tense in French as a foreign language.] Acquisition et interaction en langue e´trange`re 9. 52– 82. Berman, Ruth A. & Dan Slobin 1994 Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

262

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Berman, Ruth A. & Ludo Verhoeven 2002 Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities. Written Language and Literacy 5. 1–43. Biber, Douglas 1989 A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27. 3–43. Billot, Amandine, Alain Chabat, Christine Rouxel (Producers) & Thomas Balmes (Director) 2010 Babies [Motion picture]. United States: Focus Features. Bley-Vroman, Robert & Craig Chaudron 1994 Elicited imitation as a measure of second-language competence. In E. Tarone, S. M. Gass & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition, 227–243. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bronckart, Jean-Paul & Be´atrice Bourdin 1993 L’acquisition des valeurs des temps des verbes: E´tude comparative de l’allemand, du basque, du catalan, du franc¸ais et de l’italien. [The acquisition of tenses: a comparative study of German, Basque, Catalan, French, and Italian.] Langue Franc¸aise 97. 102–124. Burghardt, Beatrix 2010 The acquisition of grammatical aspect: The use of prefixes in L2 Hungarian narrative. Indiana University, Ph.D. qualifying paper. forthcoming The acquisition of grammatical aspect through directional expressions. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation. Bybee, Joan 1985 Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca 1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Caenepeel, Mimo 1995 Aspect and text structure. Linguistics 33. 213–253. Carroll, Mary, Antje Rossdeutscher, Monique Lambert & Christiane von Stutterheim 2008 Subordination in narratives and macrostructural planning: A comparative point of view. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text, 161–184. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Carroll, Mary & Christiane von Stutterheim 2003 Typology and information organisation: Perspective taking and language-specific e¤ects in the construal of events. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 365– 402. Berlin: de Gruyter. Chafe, William (Ed.) 1980 The Pear stories. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Text to task

263

Chaplin, Charlie (Director) 1936 Modern times [Motion picture]. United States: United Artists. Clachar, Arlene 2005 Creole English speakers’ treatment of tense-aspect morphology in English interlanguage written discourse. Language Learning 55. 275–334. Clements, J. Clancy 2003 The tense-aspect system in pidgins and naturalistically learned L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25. 245–281. Collier, Gary, Don Kuiken & Michael Enzle 1982 The role of grammatical qualification in the expression and perception of emotion. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11. 631–650. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ 2001 The acquisition of past temporality and past morphology in Catalan as a foreign language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ 2005a The acquisition of perfective and imperfective morphology and the marking of discourse grounding in Catalan. In D. Ayoun & M. R. Salaberry (Eds.), Tense and aspect in Romance languages, 35–78. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ 2005b The emergence of L2 imperfective morphology in narrative retellings and conversations. Catalan Review 19. 79–108. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ 2006 The Aspect Hypothesis: Development of morphology and appropriateness of use. Language Learning 56. 201–268. Comrie, Bernard 1985 Tense. New York: Cambridge University Press. ¨ sten Dahl, O 1984 Temporal distance: Remoteness distinctions in tense-aspect systems. ¨ . Dahl (Eds.), Explanations In B. Butterworth, B., Comrie & O for language universals, 105–122. Berlin: Mouton. ¨ sten Dahl, O 1985 Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dale, Philip 1975 Language development: Structure and function. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Davitz, Joel R. 1969 The language of emotions. New York: McGraw Hill. Dietrich, Rainer, Wolfgang Klein & Colette Noyau (Eds.) 1995 The acquisition of temporality in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

264

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Douglas, Dan & Larry Selinker 1994 Research methodology in context-based second language research. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition, 119–131. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dry, Helen 1981 Sentence aspect and the movement of narrative time. Text 1. 233–40. Dry, Helen 1983 The movement of narrative time. Journal of Literary Semantics 12. 19–53. Du¤, Patricia & Duan-Duan Li 2002 The acquisition and use of perfective aspect in Mandarin. In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Tense-aspect morphology in L2 acquisition, 417–453. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dulay, Heidi, Marina Burt & Stephen Krashen 1982 Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod 2008 The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ewert, Doreen E. 2006 The expression of temporality in the written discourse of L2 learners of English: Distinguishing text-types and text passages. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation. Ewert, Doreen E. 2008 Non-narrative writing for pre-academic L2 adult learners. INTESOL Journal 5. 9–22. Fleischman, Suzanne 1982 The future in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleischman, Suzanne 1985 Discourse functions of tense-aspect oppositions in narrative: Toward a theory of grounding. Linguistics 23. 851–882. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra & Dionysis Goutsos 2000 Mapping the world of discourse: The narrative versus nonnarrative distinction. Semiotica 131. 113–141. Giacalone Ramat, Anna 2002 How do learners acquire the three classic categories of temporality? Evidence from L2 Italian. In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Tense-aspect morphology in L2 acquisition, 221–448. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Emanuele Banfi 1990 The acquisition of temporality: A second language perspective. Folia Linguistica XXIV/3–4. 405–428.

Text to task

265

Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Crocco Gale`as, G. (Eds.) 1995 From pragmatics to syntax: Modality in second language acquisition. Tu¨bingen: Gunter Narr. Hasbu´n, Leyla 1995 The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense and grammatical aspect in Spanish as a foreign language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation. Hill, Jane H. 1988 Language, culture, and world view. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey (Vol. 4). Language: The sociocultural context, 14–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, Paul 1979 Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givo´n (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax, 213–241. New York: Academic Press. Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson 1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. Housen, Alex, Nancy Kemps & Michel Pierrard 2009 The use of verb morphology of advanced L2 learners and native speakers of French. In E. Labeau & F. Myles (Eds.), The advanced learner variety: The case of French, 41–61. Oxford: Peter Lang. Howard, Martin 2005 The emergence and use of the ‘plus-que-parfait’ in advanced French interlanguage. In J.-M. Dewaele (Ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary perspectives, 63–87. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Howard, Martin 2009 Short-versus long-term e¤ects of naturalistic exposure on the advanced instructed learner’s L2 development: A case-study. In E. Labeau & F. Myles (Eds.), The advanced learner variety: The case of French, 93–123. Oxford: Peter Lang. Howard, Martin 2012 From tense and aspect to modality – the acquisition of future, conditional and subjunctive morphology in L2 French: A preliminary study. In E. Labeau (Ed.), Development of tense, aspect and mood in L1 and L2, 201–223. Amsterdam: Rodopi/Cahiers Chronos. Jourdenais, Renee 1998 The e¤ects of textual enhancement on the acquisition of the Spanish preterite and imperfect. Georgetown, DC: Georgetown University, Ph.D. dissertation. Kihlstedt, Maria 2002 Reference to past events in dialogue. In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Tense-aspect morphology in L2 acquisition, 323– 335. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

266

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Kim, Hyun-Jin 2012 A case study of tense-aspect marking by L2 learners of Korean. In E. Labeau (Ed.), Development of tense, aspect and mood in L1 and L2, 153–177. Amsterdam: Rodopi/Cahiers Chronos. Klein, Wolfgang 1986 Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Labeau, Emmanuelle 2009 An imperfect mastery: The acquisition of the functions of imparfait by Anglophone learners. In E. Labeau & F. Myles (Eds.), The advanced learner variety: The case of French, 63–92. Oxford: Peter Lang. Labov, William 1972 Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky 1967 Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts, 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press. La¤ord, Barbara 1996 The development of tense/aspect relations in L2 Spanish narratives: Evidence to test competing theories. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Tucson, AZ. Lasseter, John (Writer, Director) 1988 Tin toy [Short film]. In Pixar short films collection: Volume 1. United States: Walt Disney Home Entertainment. Leclerq, Pascale 2009 The influence of L2 French on near native French learners of English. The case of simultaneity. In E. Labeau & F. Myles (Eds.), The advanced learner variety: The case of French, 269– 289. Oxford: Peter Lang. Liskin-Gasparro, Judith 1996 Narrative strategies: A case study of developing storytelling skills by a learner of Spanish. Modern Language Journal 80. 271–286. Liskin-Gasparro, Judith 2000 The acquisition of temporal expression in Spanish oral narratives: Exploring learners’ perceptions. Hispania 83. 830–844. Lo´pez-Ortega, Nuria 2000 Tense, aspect, and narrative structure in Spanish as a second language. Hispania 83. 488–502. MacDonald, Mary R. 1986 Twenty tellable tales: Audience participation folktales for the beginning storyteller. New York: Wilson.

Text to task

267

Mercer, Marcel 1969 Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press. Print. Montgomery, Tyron (Director) & Thomas Stellmach (Writer) 1996 Quest [Animated short]. Germany: Montgomery Film/Thomas Stellmach Animation. Moses, John G. 2002 The expression of futurity by English-speaking learners of French. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation. Noyau, Colette 1984 The development of means for temporality in French by adult Spanish-speakers: Linguistic devices and communicative capacities. In G. Extra & M. Mittner (Eds.), Studies in second language acquisition by adult immigrants: Proceedings of the ESF/AILA symposium held on the 9th of August 1984 in Brussels, 113–137. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University, Department of Language and Literature. Noyau, Colette 1990 The development of means for temporality in the unguided acquisition of L2: Crosslinguistic perspectives. In H. W. Dechert (Ed.), Current trends in European second language acquisition research, 143–170. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ragnarsdo´ttir, Hrafnhildur, Melina Aparici, Dalia Cahana-Amiaty, Janet van Hell & Anne Viguie´-Simon 2002 Verbal structure and content in written discourse: Expository and narrative texts. Written Language and Literacy 5. 95–125. Reinhart, Tanya 1984 Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts. Linguistics 22. 779–809. Rintell, Ellen M. 1989 That reminds me of a story: The use of language to express emotion by second-language learners and native speakers. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage, 237–257. New York: Plenum. Salaberry, M. Rafael 1998 The development of aspectual distinctions in academic L2 French. Canadian Modern Language Review 54. 508–542. Salsbury, Tom 2000 The acquisitional grammaticalization of unreal conditionals and modality in L2 English: A longitudinal perspective. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation. Schi¤rin, Deborah 1981 Tense variation in narrative. Language 57. 45–62. Schmiedtova´, Barbara 2004 At the same time . . . The expression of simultaneity in learner varieties. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

268

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Selinker, Larry & Dan Douglas 1988 Using discourse domains in creating interlanguage: Context, theory, and research methodology. In J. Klegraf & D. Nehls, (Eds.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th birthday, 357–379. Heidelberg: Julius Groos. Shirai, Yasuhiro 2002 The proto-type hypothesis of tense-aspect in second language. In R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Tense-aspect morphology in L2 acquisition, 455–478. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Silverstein, Michael 1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–177. Canberra: Australia Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Smith, Carlota S. 2003 Modes of discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Carlota S. 2005 Aspectual entities and tense in discourse. In P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 223–237. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Tannen, Deborah 1983 ‘‘I take out the rock–Dok!’’: How Greek women tell about being molested (and create involvement). Anthropological Linguistics 25. 359–374. Tapia, Elena 1993 Cognitive demand as a factor in interlanguage syntax: A study in topics and texts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation. Tomlin, Russell 1984 The treatment of foreground-background in the on-line descriptive discourse of second language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6. 115–142. Tre´vise, Anne 1987 Toward an analysis of the (inter)language activity of referring to time in narratives. In C. W. Pfa¤ (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes, 225–251. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. von Stutterheim, Christiane 1991 Narrative and description: Temporal reference in second language acquisition. In T. Huebner & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories, 385–403. Amsterdam: Benjamins. von Stutterheim, Christiane 1993 Modality: Function and form in discourse. In N. Dittmar & A. Reich (Eds.), Modality in language acquisition, 3–26. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Text to task

269

von Stutterheim, Christiane & Wolfgang Klein 1989 Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context, 39–76. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Wiberg, Eva 2002 Information structure in dialogic future plans. In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Tense-aspect morphology in L2 acquisition, 285–321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chapter 8 Defining and coding data: Lexical aspect in L2 studies Yasuhiro Shirai 1. Introduction This chapter discusses issues surrounding the use of lexical aspect categories in research on tense-aspect markers, mainly in second language acquisition (SLA). I will first discuss the issue concerning the optimal number of lexical aspect categories to be distinguished, and the issues surrounding the discrepancies of lexical aspect categories across languages. Then, I will present the details of a classification procedure to provide a better sense of how verb classifications are conducted and the issues involved in classifying problematic cases. Since the 1970’s, research on the relationship between tense-aspect markers and characteristics of verb semantics in first language acquisition has uncovered an important correlation now known as the Aspect Hypothesis (e.g., Andersen and Shirai 1994). Early studies such as the ones conducted by Antinucci and Miller (1976), Stephany (1981), Aksu-Koc¸ (1988), and Bloom, Lifter and Hafiz (1980) used di¤erent methods to determine the relevant verb semantic categories, and thus there were issues of replicability. Weist et al. (1984) was the first study to systematically use operational tests based on Vendler’s (1957) verb classification. Since then, many researchers investigating the relationship between tense-aspect marking and temporal semantics of verbs – both in L1 and L2 acquisition – have used linguistic tests systematically so that studies can be comparable and replicable. Yet, there are still discrepancies that need to be addressed to reach even higher levels of systematicity. 2. How many categories? Vendler’s (1957) model of lexical aspect, which has been the most influential both in linguistics and acquisition research, consists of four classes: States, activities, accomplishments, and achievements. States (e.g., love) describe a situation that is viewed as continuing to exist unless some outside situation makes it change. Activities (e.g., run) describe a dynamic

272

Yasuhiro Shirai

and durative situation that has an arbitrary endpoint, i.e., it can be terminated at any time. In contrast, accomplishments (e.g., make a chair) describe a situation that is dynamic and durative, but has a natural endpoint after which the particular action cannot continue (i.e., they are telic). Finally, achievements describe an instantaneous and punctual situation; that is, it can be reduced to a point on a time axis (e.g., die). States are [dynamic], [telic], [punctual]; activities are [þdynamic], [telic], [punctual]; accomplishments are [þdynamic], [þtelic], [punctual]; achievements are [þdynamic], [þtelic], [þpunctual]. The following is a graphic representation of these four categories. State ______________ love, know, belong, think that . . . Activity run, walk, swim, think about . . . PPPPPPPPPPP paint a picture, make a chair, Accomplishment PPPPPPPPPPP x walk to school Achievement x fall, drop, win the race, die Although Vendler’s model is often taken as the standard, there are other variations of lexical aspect categories in linguistic analysis. For instance, Smith (1991, see also 1997) proposed a 5-way classification adding another category: semelfactive, which is punctual but not telic (e.g., jump, knock). Verkuyl (1989), in turn, argued that the distinction between achievements and accomplishments is not necessary. Furthermore, even if di¤erent researchers use the same four-way distinction, they di¤er with respect to how the four categories are operationalized; that is, they di¤er in terms of the identificatory criteria used. For example, some researchers take punctuality as a defining feature to distinguish accomplishments from achievements (Smith 1991), whereas others (Van Valin 1993) do not (see Shirai 1996).1 Why are there so many di¤erent proposals? We should remember that verbal semantics (or language itself for that matter) is not such an entity that can be classified into one, two, or three discrete categories by a small 1. Shirai (1996) pointed out that there are two approaches to lexical aspect, one relying on temporal features (especially duration) which he called the temporal approach, represented by Smith (1991), and one relying on logical structure (e.g., VanValin 1993), which he called the decompositional approach. They di¤er greatly in how they classify achievements and accomplishments. Essentially, the latter position treats causative verbs as accomplishments regardless of duration, and therefore walk the dog (activity in the temporal approach) and throw the hat on the table (achievement in the temporal approach) are accomplishments.

Lexical aspect

273

set of linguistic tests. It is well known that linguistic tests which are supposed to give the same distinction (such as stative versus dynamic), often give di¤erent results when applied to the same predicate (Parsons 1989). For example, the linguistic test often used to determine whether a verb is stative or dyanamic is ‘‘incompatibility with progressive marking’’. If a verb cannot be progressivized, it is stative. This test yields that [live] is a dynamic verb since one can say I am living in Tokyo. However, another linguistic test for stativity, such as ‘‘no habitual reading in simple present tense’’, yields that it is a stative verb. If a verb is dynamic, simple present tense yields habitual reading. (I run three miles means that this person runs three miles habitually, say every day). Since one can say I live in Tokyo without any repetition involved, this tests yields [live] is stative, which contradicts the progressive test mentioned above. To make matters more complex, we cannot assume one classification system is optimal for all languages, although lexical aspect categories are often considered to be universal categories rooted in basic ontological conceptual distinctions. For example, Smith (1991) proposed a universal system of aspectual phenomena applicable to her 5-way classification to English, Russian, French, Chinese, and Navajo. She did, however, modify her system of lexical aspect in accounting for the aspectual system of Navajo. Given these observations, it is not easy to evaluate which classification system is best for linguistic analysis, and it is beyond the scope of this chapter to do such an evaluation. In what follows, I will focus on the evaluation of di¤erent categories/classifications used for second language acquisition research. Roger Andersen was the first to investigate the e¤ect of Vendlerean lexical aspect in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology (e.g., Andersen 1986, 1989). Although he did not publish his linguistic tests, he was using them in analyzing data, and discussed such tests extensively in his seminars at UCLA, which influenced his students’ works, including Shirai (1991). Robison (1990), who was Andersen’s student, was the first to publish a study that used a classification system based on linguistic tests in SLA. His study on naturalist acquisition of English as a second language by an immigrant, which was influenced by Bickerton’s (1981) Language Bioprogram Hypothesis, was therefore slightly di¤erent from the standard Vendlerean four-way classification. He focused on the stateprocess and the punctual-nonpunctual distinctions proposed by Bickerton, and therefore, he did not distinguish between activities and accomplishment, that is, the telic-atelic distinction. Robison (1993, 1995) added punctual activity (i.e., semelfactive) and punctual state (which generally consists

274

Yasuhiro Shirai

of punctual change of state verbs of perception/cognition such as notice) to Vendler’s four categories. Bardovi-Harlig and Bergstro¨m (1996) was a cross-linguistic study in which both tests of English and French were used. This was the fist published study using the Vendleran four-way classification with operational tests in SLA. Bardovi-Harlig (1998) also used the same tests for her study on L2 English with the four-way Vendlerean classification. Salaberry’s studies (e.g., Salaberry 1999) on L2 Spanish usually employ a three-way classification collapsing achievements and accomplishments as events. As an extension, his work on English as a second language also employs 3way classifications (Ayoun and Salaberry 2008).2 Researchers working on other languages, such as Japanese (Shirai 1995; Shirai and Kurono 1998), Korean (Lee and Kim 2007), and Catalan (Comajoan 2006) also used the Vendlerean 4-way classifications. Table 1 summarizes the published studies that used linguistic tests to classify lexical aspect in second language acquisition, although they are not meant to be exhaustive.3 In analyzing acquisition data, we cannot come to a definite conclusion regarding which particular classification system universally works best for all languages and for all purposes (see Chapter 11). There are various advantages and disadvantages in particular systems of classification. Generally speaking, a finer distinction is better at the level of the initial classification. For example, a 6-way classification is better than a 4-way one. This is because we can always choose to collapse two categories together as one afterwards if necessary. However, there is always a trade-o¤ when using a large number of categories: If one has more rather than fewer categories, the overall process of categorizing verbs becomes time-consuming. If, for example, the distinction between accomplishment versus achievement is not always easy, and if we do not need to make this distinction, the classification process will be much more straightforward than otherwise. However, by abandoning this distinction, one might lose important information about learners’ sensitivity to lexical aspect. One interesting finding 2. See Salaberry (2000: 32–35) for his argument for collapsing two telic categories. 3. There are other studies that use the categories from Vendler, but not all such studies report how linguistic tests are used. Wiberg (1996) and Collins et al. (2009) used a 3-way, and Montrul (2002) used a 4-way classification but did not report which tests were used to classify verbs. Rohde (1996) reported only the tests for telic versus atelic distinction. Lo´pez-Ortega (2000) used a 4-way categorization but she only stated that Robison’s (1995) classification test was used, which in fact was a 6-way classification, and therefore it is not very clear how the verbs were classified into 4-way categories.

Lexical aspect

275

Table 1. Representative studies that used Vendlerean categories of lexical aspect L2 / Study

Vendlerean categories

English Robison (1990) Robison (1995) Bardovi-Harlig & Bergstro¨m (1996) Bardovi-Harlig (1998) Gavruseva (2002) Ayoun & Salaberry (2008)

state versus process; punctual versus non-punctual 6-way (4-way þ punctual activity, punctual state) 4-way 4-way 4-way 3-way (state, activity, telic)

French Bardovi-Harlig & Bergstro¨m (1996)

4-way

Japanese Shirai (1995) Shirai & Kurono (1995)

4-way

Spanish Salaberry (1999) Camps (2002)

3-way (state, activity, telic) 4-way

Korean Lee & Kim (2007)

4-way

Catalan Comajoan (2006)

4-way

from Bardovi-Harlig (1998) was that there was a statistically significant di¤erence between accomplishments and achievements in oral film retell tasks, while there was no di¤erence in written narratives. This interesting task variation would have been missed had she collapsed the two telic categories. Another example of the danger of abandoning the achievement-accomplishment distinction can be illustrated by Collins et al.’s (2009) study. This study used three categories, and found that 72% of past tense forms is used with telic verbs while 59% of progressive marking is used with activity verbs in the ESL classroom input. Based on this finding, they argued that past tense use is more restricted to prototypical verbs than progressive marking, which makes it more di‰cult to acquire. However, previous research (e.g., Shirai and Andersen 1995) showed that both progressive and past markings are attached to their prototypes about 60% of the time in native English speaker’s speech. This discrepancy is possibly related to the use of a four-way versus a three-way classification. Shirai and Andersen

276

Yasuhiro Shirai

(1995) used a four-way classification, and they reported that about 10% of both progressive and past markings were used with accomplishment verbs. Therefore, it is likely that in Collins et al.’s study too, both progressive and past markers are attached to their prototype (i.e., activity verbs and achievement verbs, respectively) around 60% of the time had they used the four-way classification. In other words, the choice of three versus four categories determined the outcome. The choice of collapsing two telic categories (i.e., achievements and accomplishments) is also influenced by the target structure under investigation. When the past or perfective category is the target, achievements and accomplishments behave largely identically in terms of the meaning they denote (change of state), whereas when they are used with imperfective aspect there is a substantial di¤erence in meaning between achievements and accomplishments. For example, progressive aspect, which is dynamic imperfective, generally yields action in progress meaning when it is used with accomplishment verbs (e.g., He is making a chair). When the progressive is attached to achievement verbs, however, it denotes the meaning of ‘preliminary stages’ of an event (Smith 1991), such as He is leaving or He is reaching the summit. Thus, overall one would predict di¤erential behavior between accomplishments and achievements. In the same vein, when Japanese imperfective -teiru is attached to achievements it denotes resultative state as in (1), whereas when it is used with accomplishments, it denotes action in progress, as in (2). Resultative:

(1)

Ken-wa sin-de i-ru. Ken-Top die-Asp-Nonpast ‘Ken is dead’.

Progressive: (2)

Ken-wa hasit-te i-ru. Ken-Top run-Asp-Nonpast ‘Ken is running’.

That is, we obtain totally di¤erent meanings depending on whether imperfective aspect is attached to accomplishments or achievements. Thus, in such cases it is more appropriate to make finer distinctions within telic verbs without lumping together achievements and accomplishment. This brings us to another question of cross-linguistic validity of lexical aspect categories, which may a¤ect the reliability of classification. When I tried to translate the classification procedure for English (Shirai 1991) into Japanese (Shirai 1993, 1998a), I found it very di‰cult to distinguish

Lexical aspect

277

activities from achievements in Japanese. This problem did not arise in English, and so I added additional tests to distinguish between them.4 Likewise, when I tried to distinguish achievements from accomplishments in Spanish by asking native Spanish speakers for acceptability judgments, it was di‰cult to make this distinction. It is possible that di¤erent languages may bring about specific di‰culties associated with particular distinctions. These cross-linguistic di¤erences in aspectual organization may come into play in making decisions in how many categories should be used in acquisition research. In sum, we should not assume that there is one optimal number for categories. This applies not only to acquisition research, but also in linguistic analysis. The optimal number of categories should di¤er depending on various factors, such as target language, target structures, and the target of analysis (see Chapters 5 and 12).

3. Crosslinguistic discrepancy in lexical aspect When we talk about a Vendlerean category, it is often the case that its universality is emphasized. This is understandable because the attraction of Vendlerean categories is the observation that in almost all languages being studied these lexical aspect categories show very similar properties and that their interaction with grammatical aspect can predict the aspectual meaning of sentences (Smith 1991; Shirai 2000). These categories are thus considered covert grammatical categories, and sometimes even considered innate (Smith 1991). Given the importance ascribed to the universal nature of lexical aspect categories, it is not surprising that crosslinguistic variations have not figured prominently either in linguistic analysis or acquisition. However, it has been acknowledged that di¤erent languages lexicalize similar notions di¤erently (e.g., Rothstein 2004; Tatevosov 2002).

4. The di‰culty associated with making the activity-achievement distinction, which is more di‰cult than the achievement-accomplishment distinction in Japanese, is probably related to the fact that Japanese has an imperfective marking -teiru (see Shirai 2000 for further details), which clearly distinguishes achievements and accomplishments as shown in the contrast between examples (1) and (2). Japanese -teiru, which is obligatory in marking ongoing situation in progress as in English, can refer to ongoing progressive as well as resultant states. In other words, Japanese speakers always have to be sensitive to whether a verb has duration or not.

278

Yasuhiro Shirai

For instance, the verb to know in English is stative, whereas its counterpart in Italian is an activity (Giacalone Ramat 1997). Japanese does not have a verb that corresponds to the meaning of the verb ‘to know’ in these languages, but the equivalent notion of knowing something or someone is denoted by combining achievement verb siru ‘come to know’ with the imperfective aspect marker -teiru (Li and Shirai 2000). This crosslinguistic variation in lexical aspect may have an important implication for the study of tense and aspect acquisition. Although the study concerning the Aspect Hypothesis has generally emphasized the universality observed in tense-aspect acquisition, e¤ects of learners’ L1 have been observed. Although an increasing number of studies have begun to look at the e¤ect of learners’ L1, they are only concerned with the L1 e¤ect at the level of grammatical tense-aspect, and how it interacts with lexical aspect (e.g., Rocca 2002; Collins 2002, 2004; Sugaya and Shirai 2007; Izquierdo and Collins 2008; Gabriele 2009; Gabriele and McClure 2011) without regard to the discrepancy at the level of lexical aspect. Shirai and Nishi (2002) pointed out the possibility of the discrepancy at the level of L1 and L2 lexical aspect having an influence on the learners’ form-meaning mapping. Nishi and Shirai (2007) tested this possibility by investigating L1 English learners of Japanese, and found that when the lexical aspect di¤ers in the learners’ L1 and the target language, L2 learners have di‰culty at the lower proficiency level, indicating that initial formmeaning association in aspect acquisition is constrained by L1 transfer. More specifically, students had significantly lower scores in acceptability judgment tests on the sentences involving imperfective -teiru with verbs that are stative in English but achievement in Japanese (e.g., to know), compared with verbs for which both languages have the same lexical aspect (e.g., to fall ). The L1-L2 discrepancy in lexical aspect has been discussed from methodological perspectives as well. Lardiere (2003) pointed out that learners’ L2 production of a particular verb may not be what researchers believe it to be. When the learner’s L1 has a di¤erent lexical aspect than the target language, even if the researcher classified a particular verb produced according to linguistic tests, there is no guarantee that the learner is using it with the same lexical aspectual value, in particular when the L1 and the L2 have di¤erent lexical aspectual representations.5 5. Shirai (2007) replied to such methodological concerns stating that we should balance the danger of overinterpretation and methodological rigor while treating use of linguistic test as a measure of enhancing replicability.

Lexical aspect

279

Given these concerns about L1-L2 di¤erences at the level of lexical aspect, Nishi (2008) used written judgment tasks and oral picture description tasks to investigate whether the L1-L2 discrepancy influences the learning of L2 aspectual form. Nishi analyzed the use of Japanese imperfective marker -teiru by English, Chinese, and Korean L1 learners. This is the only systematic study thus far which investigated the e¤ect of crosslinguistic variation in lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense-aspect marking. By systematically manipulating L1-L2 discrepancies in the three source languages and the target language (Japanese), Nishi found, among other things, that L2 learners have di‰culty when there is a discrepancy at the level of surface form-meaning correspondence, and that they find it more di‰cult to correctly judge or produce sentences involving L1-L2 discrepancies in lexical aspect. These studies suggest that L1 influence may be much stronger than originally thought. Based on these studies, Shirai (2009: 184) suggested that the acquisition pattern represented by the Aspect Hypothesis might at least be partially determined by L1 influence: Most of the L1s have corresponding past or perfective marking, for which the prototype is telic and punctual (cf. Dahl 1985), which may transfer to L2 learning of past or perfective marking. This may facilitate early acquisition of past tense with telic verbs. Likewise, acquisition of progressive marking with activities may be facilitated because in most languages, progressive marking marks action in progress that is obtained when imperfective aspect marking is combined with activity verbs, but other meanings (such as habitual, futurate) are not always present (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994).

In other words, L1 influence may be working as a constraint on prototype formation. Learners create initial prototypes for each grammatical category based on input frequencies characterized by the association of the past/ perfective marker with telic verbs, the imperfective marker with atelic verbs, and the progressive marker with activity verbs. These associations may be constrained by the learners’ L1 when corresponding L1 forms are available. The strong e¤ect of the L1 may account for the discrepancy in foreign language learners and naturalistic learners that have been observed in Spanish SLA. Whereas the findings from Andersen (1991) and Lo´pezOrtega (2000) – based on naturalistic learners – were consistent with the Aspect Hypothesis, Salaberry’s (1999, 2011) findings, based on classroom learners, were not. This is probably because learners in the foreign language environment are more influenced by the L1, as Salaberry notes,

280

Yasuhiro Shirai

and thus they treat Spanish Preterite as if it were an English past tense marker. In naturalistic settings, in turn, this past tense marker can be more freely applied to atelic verbs and given that learners are more experienced with the target language, they begin to create semantic prototypes.6 A recent study by Martelle (2010, 2011) on Russian as a foreign language shows that learners treat the imperfective past tense form as a marker of default past. This may plausibly be due to the fact that in Russian the imperfective is morphologically unmarked and it is also taught first, thus learners may associate it with English simple past tense marking. The e¤ect of the L1 is not always apparent because when L1 semantics is a subset of L2 semantics, it does not result in errors. It may, however, covertly influence the learners’ form-meaning mapping. Only through careful comparison of L1-L2 mappings in lexical aspect, grammatical aspect (and tense), and the interaction between the two can we notice subtle L1 e¤ects. In sum, the crosslinguistic discrepancy of lexical aspect (Shirai and Nishi 2002; Lardiere 2003) is an area that calls for more attention and further research.

4. An example of classification procedure Although many studies (see Table 1 above) report operational tests for classifying verb tokens into lexical aspect classes, it is rare that they discuss the detailed procedures to generate those classifications. However, as those who have tried actual coding of verbs know well, even if one uses linguistic tests, there are many cases in which it is not easy to make coding decisions. This is not surprising because linguistic semantics cannot be neatly classified into distinct categories given that linguistic categories have prototype structures (e.g., Lako¤ 1986), and because it is not easy to determine the exact reference that speakers, especially L2 learners, have in mind.

6. Not just learning environment, but task type may also influence the adherence to the predictions of the Aspect Hypothesis (AH). The use of naturalistic tasks (such as open ended conversation) give results that are more consistent with the AH, whereas data prompted with the use of elicited narrative are less consistent with the AH (Bonilla, in press).

Lexical aspect

281

In what follows, I will discuss details of how the verb classification system used in Shirai and Andersen (1995, based on Shirai 1991) was performed to illustrate the actual process of lexical aspect classification and di‰culties involved. This classification system has been used by other researchers – both functionalists (e.g., Weist, Pawlak, and Carapella 2004; ´ lvarez-Caldero´n and Schecter 1998) and generativists (e.g., Bayley, A Gavruseva 2002, 2003). It has also been used, with minimal adaptation, in the analysis of other languages, including Japanese (Shirai 1993, 1998a), Turkish (Aksu-Koc¸ 1998), Spanish (Salaberry 1999), Chinese (Jin and Hendriks 2003; Chen and Shirai 2010), and Korean (Lee and Kim 2007). Thus, we can treat Shirai and Andersen’s test as a good system that set the standard in this area, and thus it is worth examining it in detail. First, I will outline the procedure for coding and its motivation.7 I will then discuss the choice of particular tests in Shirai (1991), and elaborate on how aspectual systems as a linguistic choice is viewed in this classification system. Finally, I will discuss some problematic cases that were encountered in coding, and how they were resolved. 4.1. Procedures to classify lexical aspect One of the weaknesses in many previous studies in the past (and some current ones) has been the lack of precise descriptions of the procedures for determining lexical aspect. Prior to Shirai (1991), there had been only two published acquisition studies that used operational tests (Weist, Pawlak, and Carapella 1984; Robison 1990). The problem with this lack of published procedures is that it a¤ects the replicability and comparability of the studies because di¤erent studies may be classifying the same verbs into di¤erent categories.8 This problem is more common in the classification of borderline cases, such as posture verbs, e.g., to sit, which can be classified as a state or an activity (to be discussed below).

7. No study in linguistics that I know of has coded discourse in terms of lexical aspect and discussed the problems involved except for Xiao and McEnery (2004). It should be noted that R. Andersen and his students (including Robison 1990), at least since 1986, have been coding lexical aspect using operational tests (e.g., Cushing 1987; Gonzales 1989, 1990). 8. Only a handful of studies reported the reliability of the Vendlerean classifications (Cziko and Koda 1987, Shirai 1994, and Shirai and Andersen 1995, who reported intra-rater reliability).

282

Yasuhiro Shirai

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the classification procedure

Shirai (1991) used the procedure represented in Figure 1 to classify verb tokens into the Vendler-type lexical aspect categories. There are three stages for coding lexical aspect. First, we need to read a small subset of discourse until we are reasonably sure about the interpretation of the discourse segment. Second, we determine if repetition is involved, and code such instances as either unitary, iterative, habitual, or iterative-habitual following the criteria below: Criteria for iterativity The criterion for iterativity is simply whether the situation referred to is a single unitary state/event/process, or not. For example, He coughed once at noon yesterday, He sang for a few minutes yesterday, and He loved Mary are coded as unitary, whereas he coughed for a few minutes is coded as non-unitary (i.e., repeated) because there is repetition of the action of coughing. There are three subcategories for repeated: Unitary He coughed once at noon yesterday. Repeated (a) Iterative He coughed for a few minutes. (b) Habitual He walked to school for a month. (c) Iterative-habitual He coughed for a few minutes every day. As defined in Brinton (1988: 54), iterative ‘‘portrays actions repeated on the same occasion’’, (e.g., He’s kicking a ball outside right now) whereas habitual ‘‘portrays actions repeated on di¤erent occasions’’ (e.g., He’s kicking a ball for an hour every night these days).9 The category iterativehabitual is to represent actions that are repeated not only on multiple occasions but also on each of these occasions (to be discussed in more detail 9. I am aware that the distinction between the two can be murky. See Salaberry (2008: 81–85) for further discussion.

Lexical aspect

283

below). Finally, the third stage of the classification process requires that we remove grammatical aspect/tense from the sentence, and then apply the following operational tests (outlined in Steps 1 to 3) to determine its lexical aspect.10 Operational tests for lexical aspect (Each test is used only in the clauses remaining after the preceding test): Step 1: State or non-state? Does it have a habitual interpretation in simple present tense? If no ! State (e.g., I love you.) If yes ! Non-state (e.g., I eat bread.) ! Go to Step 2 Step 2: Activity or non-activity? Does ‘‘X is Ving’’ entail ‘‘X has Ved’’ without an iterative/habitual meaning? In other words, if you stop in the middle of Ving, have you done the act of V? If yes ! Activity (e.g., run) If no ! Non-activity (e.g., run a mile) ! Go to Step 3 Step 3: Accomplishment or achievement? If test (a) does not work, apply test (b), and possibly (c). a) If ‘‘X Ved in (Y time; e.g., 10 minutes)’’, then ‘‘X was Ving during that time’’. If yes ! Accomplishment (e.g., He painted a picture) If no ! Achievement (e.g., He noticed the picture) It needs to be noted that it is possible to say X was Ving even right after X began the action that led to the goal.

10. What needs to be coded is lexical aspect, not lexical aspect combined with grammatical aspect. That is, morphology needs to be removed. Let us take an obvious example from Japanese discussed above. In example (1), sin-deiru ‘be dead’ refers to a state of someone being dead, but that is not what needs to be coded. What needs to be coded is sin(u) ‘to die’, i.e., the verb stem without grammatical aspect markers, which is an achievement. Thus, in the context of English, if the learner says ‘he’s walking to school’ we apply the tests (Steps 1,2, and 3) to the verb constellation [he walk to school].

284

Yasuhiro Shirai

b) Is there ambiguity with ‘‘almost’’? If yes ! Accomplishment (e.g., He almost painted a picture has two readings; i.e., He almost started to paint a picture and He almost finished painting a picture) If no ! Achievement (e.g., He almost noticed the picture has only one reading.) c) ‘‘X will VP in (Y time; e.g., 10 minutes)’’ ¼ ‘‘X will VP after (Y time)’’. If no ! Accomplishment (e.g., He will paint a picture in an hour is di¤erent from He will paint a picture after an hour, because the former can mean He will spend an hour painting a picture, but the latter does not.) If yes ! Achievement (e.g., He will start singing in two minutes can have only one reading, which is the same as in He will start singing after two minutes, with no other reading possible.) 4.2. Tests for lexical aspect The linguistic tests to operationalize lexical aspect categories rely on a number of studies on the Vendlerean classification: Brinton (1988), Comrie (1976), Dowty (1979), Lys and Mommer (1986), Mourelatos (1981), Robison (1990), Sag (1973), and Vendler (1957). Dowty (1979) was especially informative. One of the important observations that Shirai (1991) made in using various tests to classify tokens in actual data is that acceptability judgment tests in general are not very e¤ective. In discussions of lexical aspect in linguistics, the examples used are very clear cases, due to their invented nature. In the actual classification of discourse data, however, there are many unclear, borderline cases for which acceptability judgments are di‰cult. This is, in a sense, inevitable since it has been observed that acceptability judgment tests often create disagreements among raters (Labov 1975). Let us take an example of one of the stativity tests often used: disjunction of progressive with stative verbs. According to this test, a verb is to be coded stative if it is ungrammatical when the progressive marker is applied. However, this is not always as clear-cut as the test seems to indicate. Brown (1973: 323) heard the following sentence on an airplane: (3) Are you wanting your suitcase down?

Lexical aspect

285

Sentence (3) is indeed a problematic case, and grammaticality judgments may di¤er from coder to coder. Most of the tests Shirai chose do not rely on grammaticality judgments but on the interpretation of sentences. Interpretation of sentences should not be as fuzzy as grammaticality judgments. For example, [want your suitcase down] is hard to classify if we use an acceptability judgment test, but if we use an interpretation test (Does it refer to habitual interpretation in simple present tense?), it is relatively easy to determine that it is a state because [want your suitcase down] does not have to involve habitual interpretation. Given enough information for the interpretation of the clauses in question, its semantic interpretation can be applied in a categorical fashion more easily than giving acceptability judgments of borderline cases.11 Another criterion for choosing a test is the exclusion of agentivity. It is often the case that agentivity is mistakenly regarded as an aspectual value as pointed out by Brinton (1988) and Verkuyl (1989). This is inevitable because there is a very strong correlation between high stativity and low agentivity (Sag 1973). In Shirai (1991) a stativity test which renders temporal aspectuality, not agentivity, was chosen: Does it have a habitual meaning in simple present tense? As discussed in the previous paragraph, [John run] involves a habitual interpretation, and therefore it is a nonstate (i.e., dynamic) whereas [John live (in Tokyo)] does not involve repetition, and thus it can be classified as stative. 4.2.1. Situation, lexical aspect, and viewpoint aspect In the classification scheme just described, it is assumed that it is possible to separate grammatical (viewpoint) aspect from a sentence when coding the lexical aspect. Let us take an example to illustrate this point. When speakers want to describe a real-world situation, such as [Mary was running at 10 a.m. on January 5th 2009, with a view to running a mile] (speech time: January 6th 2009), they have a variety of choices. They might say one of the following, for example: (4) Mary ran (yesterday). (5) Mary was running. (6) Mary was running a mile.

11. This may be due to the fact that in our everyday life we do not make a grammaticality judgment, whereas we always have to ‘‘interpret’’ sentences.

286

Yasuhiro Shirai

If the speaker’s goal is just to assert the fact that Mary ran (yesterday), (4) will su‰ce. If he wants to add more dynamicity/vividness to the assertion, he can choose to impose a viewpoint aspect (in this case, progressive), as in (5).12 If he wants to additionally assert that Mary was in the process of running a mile, he can choose (6). The speaker makes these choices instantaneously. The point here is that verbalization, if the utterance contains a verb phrase, involves (at least) two aspectual choices: which words to use (lexical aspect), and which verbal morphemes to use (viewpoint aspect). In terms of lexical aspectual choice, (4) and (5) are the same (activity), while in terms of viewpoint aspectual choice, (5) and (6) are the same (progressive). The hearer, then, uses the utterance and contextual information (both linguistic and extralinguistic information) to interpret the utterance. This process, leading to the formulation of the utterance and its interpretation, is schematically represented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Structure of the speaker’s utterance and the hearer’s interpretation

Given the above structure of the speaker’s aspectual choices and the hearer’s interpretation, how are we to code sentences (4)–(6)? What we need to code is the lexical aspect that describes the real world situation. Therefore, it is irrelevant that the situation being described is the same for (4) to (6); what matters is the kind of aspectual choices made to describe the situation. The choice made by the speaker as to what lexical items should be used to describe the situation is important, and this is what we need to code. We can use [Mary run] for (4) and (5) and [Mary run a mile] for (6) as default values without grammatical aspect marking. Then operational tests can be applied to these default values. 12. It is also possible to say that in (4) the speaker is choosing a viewpoint aspect, which is the ‘default’ (ran: simple non-progressive past).

Lexical aspect

287

Why do we need to first read and interpret a segment of the transcription before coding for lexical aspect? This is because the appropriate interpretation is very di‰cult without information provided by the morphology, the discourse context, and the comments on extralinguistic contexts provided by researchers who gathered the data. Consideration of both linguistic and extralinguistic information is essential for classification because some tokens with the same linguistic form can be interpreted in more than one way. For example, [open the box] can be an achievement or an accomplishment depending on the kind of box being opened. If the box is the kind that can be opened instantaneously, it is an achievement; if it is carefully wrapped and takes time to open, then it is an accomplishment (Shirai and Andersen 1995). The information which makes it possible to reach this level of understanding of [open the box] is necessary to obtain a reliable classification. On the other hand, this does not mean that what is coded are ‘‘real-world situations’’. The reason we cannot code [open the box] by itself is that in this case its lexical aspect is ambiguous without contextual information. Here, situational information is used to disambiguate lexical aspect. Let us take another example from Verkuyl (1989). He suggests that walk a mile and walk a foot, which are usually considered accomplishment and achievement predicates, respectively, can be quite di¤erent if the actor is a giant or a dwarf. Walk a mile could be an achievement for a giant; walk a foot an accomplishment for a dwarf. This example illustrates why it is necessary to know exactly what the situation is that is being described by the lexical aspect. As pointed out earlier, what we are coding is lexical aspect that describes the real world situation, not lexical aspect without regard to the situation.13 Robison (1990), among others, removed verbal morphology from the transcripts when he coded lexical aspect to ensure that morphology did not influence coding of lexical aspect. For example, progressive morphology tends to give the coder the impression that the item being coded is an activity because of the strong association of both activity and progressive with dynamic duration. I believe it is best not to 13. Verkuyl (1989) used these examples to argue that the achievement versus accomplishment distinction is not useful. This is too static a view of lexical aspect. He considers that it is not necessary to make a linguistic distinction between walk a mile and walk a foot in view of the fact that each can be an achievement or an accomplishment depending on the actor (dwarf versus giant). In my scheme, walk a mile changes its lexical aspectual value depending on the actor because what is linguistically important is lexical aspect that describes a situation.

288

Yasuhiro Shirai

remove verbal morphology from the transcripts, considering that it is very di‰cult to arrive at an appropriate interpretation of the situation being described without verbal morphology, and that by applying operational tests in a principled manner, the bias can be minimized. In fact, there are advantages and disadvantages to deleting morphology. I prefer to take morphological markers into account to ensure accuracy of interpretation.14 Another important point regarding the reliability of coding is the treatment of time adverbials. How should the following sentences taken from Chung and Timberlake (1985: 217) be coded? (5) John painted until the sun went down. (6) John painted from morning till night. (7) John painted seventeen houses within three days. If we apply the operational test If you stop in the middle of V-ing, have you Ved? to these sentences, they are not activities but accomplishments. However, these types of sentences were coded as activities in Shirai (1991), not as accomplishments. Since time adverbials often function as a perspectivetaker (Talmy 1988), and therefore function like viewpoint aspect, they were not included in the verb constellation to be coded for lexical aspect.15 Exclusion of time adverbials was also practically motivated because one of the tests in step 3 has ‘‘in X time’’ and ‘‘during X time’’; if the test is applied to [He break it in 3 minutes], the test will become ‘‘He broke it in 3 minutes in 5 hours’’, which is absurd.16 It should be noted that in coding mother-child interaction, it was rarely necessary to make this kind of decision, because time adverbials were extremely rare. Probably in simple discourse such as mother-child interaction, it may not be necessary to set the ‘‘event frame’’ (Chung and Timberlake 1985), using time adverbials since event frames may be implicit in the 14. One can also remove morphology from transcripts and just look at morphology when it is necessary to disambiguate (Chapter 9; Comajoan 2001). I think this is a reasonble approach as well. In any case, it is not easy to determine which is a more serious threat to the study – the danger of misinterpretation (by removing morphology) or the bias in coding of lexical aspect (by keeping morphology). 15. Talmy (1988: 183) points out that the time adverbial ‘‘at exactly midday’’ (e.g., She climbed a ladder at exactly midday) involves a cognitive operation of ‘‘reduction’’ whereas ‘‘as we watched’’ (e.g., She climbed a ladder as we watched ) involves ‘‘magnifying’’. 16. Of course, time adverbials were included in the interpretation of discourse. It is just that they are not included in the verb constellations to be coded.

Lexical aspect

289

discourse. This, however, must be quite di¤erent for adult second language acquisition, because L2 learners are known to establish temporal reference using lexical information (Bardovi-Harlig 2000). 4.2.2. Unitary or repeated situation The distinction between unitary situations and repeated situations may have some relevance in terms of the acquisition of verbal morphology.17 To briefly summarize, unitary situations usually exhibit an unmarked association between lexical aspect and grammatical aspect/tense; i.e., (1) achievement/accomplishment with perfective or simple past, (2) stative/ activity with imperfective, and (3) activity with progressive (Andersen and Shirai 1994). On the other hand, repeated situations do not necessarily show these associations. For example, for languages with a perfective/ imperfective distinction, if a situation is habitual, it is more typically expressed with an imperfective marker, even if accomplishment/achievement verbs are used. In terms of the Distributional Bias Hypothesis (Andersen 1993; Andersen and Shirai 1994), for the hypothesis to be valid, the unmarked association (i.e., perfective/past morphology with accomplishment/ achievement verbs, and progressive morphology with activity verbs) must be kept strong in the input. There is some confusion regarding the di¤erence between iterative and habitual (Comrie 1976), which I clarify here because the distinction is important for the analysis of lexical aspect in discourse. For Comrie, iterative is simply a cover term for repeated actions, whereas habitual describes ‘‘a situation which is characteristic of an extended period of time’’ (Comrie 1976: 27–28). Therefore, He kicked a ball for an hour yesterday (in describing a soccer player’s practice) is iterative, but not habitual. He walked to the hospital for a month, on the other hand, is both iterative and habitual for Comrie. Chung and Timberlake (1985) also use iterative as a cover term for repeated situations, without using the term habitual. Bybee (1985) and Brinton (1988), however, restrict iterative to repetition on a single occasion. Brinton (1988: 54) states that ‘‘Habitual may be distinguished from iterative, because the habitual portrays actions repeated on di¤erent occasions, while the iterative portrays actions repeated on the same occasion’’. Therefore, He kicked a ball for an hour yesterday is 17. See also Talmy’s (1988: 176) notion of ‘‘plexity’’. ‘‘Uniplex’’ corresponds to unitary, and ‘‘multiplex’’ to repeated, though his notion encompasses nominal categories too.

290

Yasuhiro Shirai

iterative, whereas He walked to the hospital for a month is non-iterative and habitual. I follow Bybee’s and Brinton’s definition because it is necessary to make a distinction between repeated events that occur on one occasion and those that are spread over many occasions. He is kicking the ball, for example, should be qualitatively di¤erent from He is going to school by bus (these days), although both of them involve repetition. In sum, iteratives are taken to mean repeated actions on a single occasion, whereas habitual refers to repeated actions on di¤erent occasions, which (the speaker believes) persists for an extended period of time (see Huang 1999 and Shirai 2002 for L2 studies on the marking of habituality).18 It should be noted that most of the previous studies on lexical aspect (e.g., Dowty 1979; Mourelatos 1981) treat [Verb þ indefinite plural noun] (or, to be more precise, nouns whose quantity is not specified, see Brinton 1988; Verkuyl 1989) as an activity: (8) He ran for/*in three hours. (activity) (9) He built houses for/*in three months. (activity) However, in Shirai (1991), build houses in sentence (9) was treated as a repeated situation (in this case, habitual) of an accomplishment at the lexical aspectual level, not as an activity. Because the distinction is made between unitary and repeated situations, it is possible to make a finer aspectual distinction, e.g., habitual accomplishment, habitual achievement, etc., which in other studies may be treated as activities.19 This distinction between pure activity (e.g., play the guitar), which is unitary, and an activity consisting of repeated actions (e.g., build houses) may be important for L1 and L2 learners acquiring verbal morphology. For example, it may be easier to acquire progressive morphology for a unitary activity [play the guitar] than for a repeated habitual activity [build houses], and if we code them both as activities, we cannot di¤erentiate the two.

18. Comrie (1976: 27) stated that ‘‘a situation can be referred to by a habitual form without there being any iterativity [i.e., repeatedness in my terminology] at all’’, citing examples such as Simon used to believe in ghosts. It should be noted that all the examples he gave to support his point involve stative verbs. This suggests that statives can be habitual without repetition. In my classification, however, I chose to regard states that last over an extended period of time as unitary, because my focus is not on ‘extendedness’ of a situation, but on whether there is repetition or not. 19. Camps (2002), for example, classified multiple event activities as activities.

Lexical aspect

291

4.3. Problematic cases in classification Even with a su‰cient understanding of the speaker’s intent, there are many di‰culties in applying operational tests for lexical aspect. In this section, I discuss some of the problematic cases, and I provide some suggestions on how to code them. These choices are made so that the classification can be of use in addressing pertinent issues in the area of language acquisition (see Chapter 11 for an alternative approach). 4.3.1. Accomplishment or achievement The distinction between accomplishments and achievements is especially problematic. Shirai (1991) chose an entailment test from Dowty (1979) for this distinction (i.e., If ‘‘X Ved in Y time’’, then ‘‘X was Ving during that time period’’; see Step 3, test a). For example, He painted a picture in two hours entails He was painting a picture during those two hours; therefore, [paint a picture] is an accomplishment. On the other hand, He noticed the picture in two minutes does not entail He was noticing the picture during two minutes; therefore [notice the picture] is an achievement. These are clear-cut cases and not problematic. However, things are not always so easy. Let us take an example, reach the summit, which is often cited as an example of an achievement. He reached the summit in two hours appears to entail he was reaching the summit during those two hours. But in this case, the meaning of he was reaching the summit is di¤erent in that it denotes the process leading up to the endpoint meaning (or preliminary stages meaning, Smith 1991), that is, he was about to reach, on the verge of reaching, or getting closer to the goal of reaching the summit (he was not actually reaching the summit throughout those two hours). ‘‘X was Ving during that time’’ in the test implies that X was Ving all the time during that time. In other words, if reach the summit is an accomplishment, then it should be possible to say He is reaching the summit at any point during those two hours, even right after he started climbing the mountain, which is possible for more prototypical accomplishments such as [make a chair]. With reach the summit being an achievement, it is odd to say He is reaching the summit if he has just started climbing the mountain. On the other hand, it is perfectly all right to say He is running a mile right after he has started running. Thus, if test (a) is hard to apply, one additional criterion can be considered: ‘‘Can you say X is V-ing right after X started doing Y?’’ If yes, the predicate is an accomplishment.

292

Yasuhiro Shirai

Another di‰culty in making an accomplishment versus achievement distinction is that no single test can handle all the sentences to be coded, which is the reason why three tests are necessary for this step, and possibly more. First, test (a) cannot handle motion verbs that have both a starting point and an endpoint and duration between them in real world situations (e.g., come/go to school, bring something to a location). For example, He went to the beach is not felicitous if test (a) is applied: ?He went to the beach in two hours. This arises perhaps because the sentence, if acceptable, can mean two things: (1) He left for the beach two hours after some reference time in the past, or (2) it took him two hours to get to the beach. That is, it can refer to (1) a starting point focus versus (2) an endpoint focus. These kinds of cases necessitate the application of test (b), ‘‘ambiguity with ‘almost’ ’’. There is no ambiguity for He almost went to the beach because another interpretation (He almost got to the beach) is impossible. Then, why not use test (b) only? Test (b) also has its own problem, because if the sentence under analysis does not involve an action that the subject can control (i.e., something the subject can do if he decides to do it), the test does not work. For example, John, who is physically challenged, almost walked 20 feet can have only one reading despite the fact that it is an accomplishment, because walking 20 feet is not something John can do if he decides to do it. Therefore, ambiguity with ‘almost’ is absent, not because of the temporal contour of the action, but because of some other semantic elements (in this case perhaps self-controllability). Test (c) was used only when neither test (a) nor (b) worked (as in the cases discussed above). In other words, test (c) ‘‘X will VP in (Y time; e.g., 10 minutes)’’ ¼ ‘‘X will VP after (Y time)’’ was used as a last resort when neither test (a) or (b) works. I discuss below how I coded say and come/go, which are particularly problematic in terms of an accomplishment/achievement distinction. These are high-frequency verbs in most languages and therefore how they are coded has strong bearing on quantitative results, especially when a token count is used. Say X. Say often appeared in the data, as in She said ‘‘I’m hungry’’ or She said she ate breakfast. If the level of situation is being coded, say X should probably be regarded as an accomplishment in that there is duration that leads up to the point of finishing saying the sentence ‘‘I’m hungry’’. However, what is coded here is lexical aspect. As Smith (1983) claims, lexical aspect is the ‘‘idealization’’ of situations, so it is not crucial whether it takes time before you finish saying something. In other words,

Lexical aspect

293

lexical aspect is how each predicate is idealized in our linguistic system. The notion of saying X can be lexicalized as an achievement in one language (e.g., English), but may be lexicalized as an accomplishment in another language (e.g., French, Dunn 1998). I suggest that say X is not an accomplishment but an achievement, because when we use ‘‘say X’’ we rarely refer to its duration. Rather, we reduce it to a single point, as I will argue below. Let us apply Step 3 (the accomplishment/achievement test) and discuss the problems involved. Test (a): If she said ‘‘I’m hungry’’ in two seconds, then she was saying ‘‘I’m hungry’’ during that two seconds. This appears to hold, which suggests that say X is an accomplishment. But do we talk about the duration of our utterances? We do not normally refer to the duration (1 second, 2 seconds, etc.) of someone’s utterance. If these cases are taken to be accomplishments, because in some sense they last, then we would also have to code She said ‘‘Sorry’’ or She said ‘‘No!’’ as accomplishments, even though they last very little (We can say She said ‘‘Sorry’’ in 0,8 seconds). However, sentences like Say ‘‘Sorry’’ are generally coded as an achievement. Test (b): She almost said ‘‘I’m hungry’’. There appear to be two interpretations. One interpretation is She almost said ‘‘I’m hungry’’ but did not say it’’. The other interpretation is She did start to say ‘‘I’m hungry’’, but stopped in the middle and ended up saying ‘‘I’m hung . . .’’. However, this second interpretation is very unnatural for the sentence She almost said ‘‘I’m hungry’’. Test (c): She will say ‘‘I’m hungry’’ in two seconds is not necessarily the same as She will say ‘‘I’m hungry’’ after two seconds, because it is possible that the former can also mean that she will complete her utterance within two seconds, which argues for say X being an accomplishment. But we normally do not talk about the duration of utterances. This becomes apparent if we extend the time-frame from two seconds to two minutes. She will say ‘‘I’m hungry’’ in two minutes can only mean She will say ‘‘I’m hungry’’ after two minutes, because ‘‘I’m hungry’’ would normally be uttered in a matter of seconds, which suggests that say X is an achievement rather than an accomplishment. In sum, if we refer to the duration of the utterance ‘‘I’m hungry’’, which should take no more than a second or two, then it can be taken as an accomplishment. In other words, if we treat the utterance ‘‘I’m hungry’’ as having duration, and therefore internal structure, then it can be an accomplishment. On the other hand, if we do not focus on its duration but take the utterance as being reduced to a point, then it should be treated as an achievement. Then, what is our conceptualization of ‘‘say X’’? Do we see

294

Yasuhiro Shirai

its internal structure, or do we see it as totality reduced to a point? As noted above, Smith (1983, 1991) claimed that lexical aspect is an idealization of a real world situation. Do we idealize say X as an achievement, or as an accomplishment, i.e., having duration? When we quote someone by using the verb phrase say X, we do not often quote such a long utterance that we focus on its duration. This probably creates the idealization of say X, whose lexical aspect is best characterized as an achievement. Finally, the interaction of lexical aspect and grammatical aspect also supports my classification. A punctual event, if combined with progressive, gives either an iterative (He is punching a bag now) or a preliminary stage sense (He is reaching the summit) (see also Quirk et al. 1985: 208– 209). On the other hand, accomplishments, which refer to durative events, with the progressive yield a meaning of action in progress. When we hear a sentence in the progressive as She is saying she’s hungry, what interpretation do we have? Certainly, we do not sense an action in progress (i.e., She is in the middle of saying ‘‘she’s hungry’’), because it is practically impossible, at least in our daily life, to say She is saying she’s hungry in the middle of her utterance ‘‘I’m hungry’’. We usually interpret this as iterative: she must be repeatedly saying ‘‘I’m hungry’’ probably asking for food. Alternatively, it is also possible that this sentence conveys that the person’s state of being hungry still persists at the moment of this utterance.20 This e¤ect comes from the imposition of duration by viewpoint aspect. In any event, the action-in-progress sense is not normally possible. Therefore, say X (X ¼ content of the utterance), should be coded as an achievement, not as an accomplishment. The above discussion does not mean that say is always an achievement. For example, say a prayer is an accomplishment, as it typically has duration. When he was saying a prayer can have ‘‘action in progress’’ meaning, and He said his prayer in 2 minutes entails He was saying his prayer during the period of two minutes. Based on the above considerations, I coded say X as punctual. This, however, does not mean that I am claiming with absolute confidence that say X is categorically an achievement. This is an operational definition taken for the purpose of acquisition research. In the end, the achievement/accomplishment distinction is not clear-cut when compared to other distinctions.

20. This is what is observed in the analysis of Japanese conversational discourse (Shirai and Nishi 2005).

Lexical aspect

295

Come/go. Another major problem concerns the coding of the deictic verbs come and go. If what is coded is the situation, come/go to X, it might as well be coded as an accomplishment because there is duration between leaving the starting point and reaching the goal of coming and going. But again, what is being coded is lexical aspect; thus, it is necessary to go through the accomplishment/achievement tests. Because tests (a) and (c) do not work (He went to the beach in 10 minutes, as discussed above, is not acceptable for many native speakers of English), we can only rely on test (b). Test (b): He almost went to the beach. This has only one reading: He almost decided to go to the beach, but he did not after all. He almost went to the beach cannot mean that he almost got to the beach. It appears that go/ come to the beach reduces the action of going to the beach to a single point in time. Therefore, test b shows that go to the beach is an achievement. I tried three additional tests often used as tests for durativity: ‘‘stop Ving’’, ‘‘finish Ving’’, and ‘‘studiously/attentively/carefully Ved’’, which are not compatible with punctual verbs because these tests requires some duration (Dowty 1979). For example, one cannot stop doing something unless there is some duration in this particular action. All these tests, therefore, should result in anomalies for an achievement, but not for an accomplishment. In fact, come/go to the beach results in an anomaly in all three of them. Therefore, they should be taken as achievements, at least in terms of classification.21 4.3.2. Habitual or stative Another problematic distinction is that of stative versus habitual; namely, the distinction between state and the cases of achievement, accomplishment, and activity treated as habitual. Here, it should be made clear that ‘habitual’ is not lexical aspect. Therefore, in my classification scheme, this distinction has to be made at the first step (coding for repetition: habitual, iterative, iterative-habitual, or unitary). Many scholars observed similarities between states and habituals (e.g., Smith 1991, who calls habituals as derived states), but they are just similar and not the same thing, which is also acknowledged in the literature. My 21. These three additional tests were used only when a classification was di‰cult after applying the three regular tests, and they were not used very frequently. These tests were not included in the regular tests, because they are acceptability judgment tests. As additional means for classification, however, they are useful.

296

Yasuhiro Shirai

point in this section is not to address these similarities or di¤erences, but to discuss how to deal with borderline cases between the two: Real stative predicates (e.g., I love you) and derived stative predicates that are in fact repeated dynamic situation (e.g., I watch TV all the time, which is habitual repetition of an activity). Having said that, this is probably the case of forcing a clear-cut distinction even though there is not such a clear line to be drawn. Let us take an example: (10) I call him Jack, even though his name is John. Should I call him Jack be categorized as a state or a habitual of an achievement? Each occurrence of call him Jack is an achievement, but does (10) refer to each act of calling him, or does it only refer to a general state of my referring to him as Jack. What if I call him, say, ‘‘Condor’’ (his nickname)? Would it be a state, or a habitual of achievement? The distinction, as suggested above, would not be clear-cut. In our mind, there would probably be a continuum. At one end, we have a concrete instance of actually calling somebody (as in ‘‘Hey, Jack!’’), and at the other end, we have a highly abstract conceptualization of the ‘‘state’’ of people referring to him as Jack. Assuming that there is this continuity, how should we code call in (10)? In my classification, I treat this type of call as habitual because actual calling is involved.22 This type of call should be quite di¤erent from unitary states such as think, have, want, etc., which learners may encounter at early stages, and which cannot have a habitual interpretation when Step 1 of the tests of lexical aspect is applied. By classifying this class of predicates as habitual, we can avoid collapsing it with other state terms. 4.3.3. Activity or achievement There is a class of verbs that should be coded as activities according to the operational tests, but which proved somewhat problematic and, therefore, needs special consideration. I will call this class ‘‘resultative activity’’. In fact, the verb by itself signifies a punctual action, but if used with the progressive, the verb describes the resulting activity. This class of verbs is analogous to some stative verbs showing entry into state (e.g., Now I

22. Therefore, ‘‘say’’ used in such a sentences as ‘‘What does it say?’’ when referring to the instructions on a pamphlet for a toy, etc, is not treated as habitual, as it does not actually ‘‘say’’ anything verbally. It is interpreted as ‘‘indicate’’, which is state.

Lexical aspect

297

know it!) except that it shows entry into an activity.23 Let us review the following pairs of examples: (11) a. He looked at the table. b. He is looking at the table. (12) a. He touched the wall. b. He is touching the wall. (13) a. He kissed the girl. b. He is kissing the girl. In all these pairs, the past form describes a punctual event, whereas the progressive form expresses the activity or state that has arisen as a result of the punctual event.24 It should also be pointed out that these pairs can be conceptualized as iteration of punctual events (especially 12.b and 13.b), because if somebody is kissing somebody, it could be interpreted as an iterative event (multiple kisses). This argument depends entirely on the real world situation. For example: (14) *MOT: Nomi-’is touching the recorder. (Naomi, 2;1) This utterance, by the mother of Naomi in Sachs’ (1983) data, is coded as an iterative of an achievement verb, not as an activity, because Nomi (¼Naomi’s nickname) must have touched the recorder several times, in di¤erent ways, out of curiosity. If Nomi’s hand is static on the tape recorder, it should be coded as an activity in that it passes the test of an activity (If you stop in the middle of touching, have you touched, without iteration?). In the same vein, he touched the wall should be coded as activity, unless there is no indication that he touched the wall time and again.25 Another problem for this class was pointed out by Talmy (1985) with the following sentences (Talmy’s 39.a and 39.b): (15) a. He hid in the attic for an hour. b. He hid in the attic when the sheri¤ arrived. 23. For a more theoretical discussion of this class of verbs, see Shirai (1998b) and Onozuka (2008). 24. Actually, sentence (a) of each pair can be an activity, for example, if ‘‘for X time’’ is attached. But by default, the interpretation should be that of a punctual event of entry into the resulting activity. 25. The verbs that belong to this class include: hang, look (at), sit (down), stand (up), touch, hold, lie (down), hurt, hug, point to, stand up, and kiss.

298

Yasuhiro Shirai

This example shows that a particular term [hide in the attic] can be used e¤ectively to describe situations with di¤erent aspectual values: an activity in (15a) and an achievement in (15b). However, since time adverbials are excluded from coding, and only he hid in the attic is applied to the operational test, the above examples are coded in the present schema both as activities. This appears to create a problem if we are coding real world situations for the purpose of investigating how learners encode the mapping between real world situations and grammatical tense/aspect morphology. However, what we are coding is lexical aspect. To examine the consequence of the decision to code lexical aspect only at the level of language, it is necessary to separate two closely related, but di¤erent research questions in relation to the Aspect Hypothesis. They are: (16) Do learners use past marking more often to describe punctual verbs? (17) Do learners use past marking more often to describe punctual situations? Sentence (16) investigates the relationship between verb morphology and lexical aspect, whereas (17) investigates the relationship between verb morphology and real world situations.26 Intuitively, the results should be very similar, because punctual events are most probably described by inherently punctual terms. The problem arises when we have a discrepancy between real world situations and lexical aspect. For example, he looked at me when I screamed is punctual (i.e., instantaneous shift of look) in terms of real-world situation, whereas its lexical aspect is an activity. The frequency of such discrepancy cases determines the degree of confidence to which we can extend the results of the study which concerns (16) (the relationship between verb morphology and lexical aspect) to the research question in (17) (the relationship between verb morphology and situational characteristics). If such discrepancy cases are not frequent, we can safely extend the answer for (16) to (17); if not, we need to be cautious.27 To see the e¤ect of discrepancy between the two, it is necessary to code cases when such discrepancies are found. Shirai (1991) used the following definitions to classify the temporal characteristics of the situation: 26. It appears that the disagreements among researchers (Bickerton 1989; Cziko 1989; Weist 1989) stem from the lack of a distinction between the two, at least in part. 27. Such discrepancies may be more frequent in other languages. For example, in Japanese speakers often refer to stative situations by attaching imperfective -teiru to achievement verbs (Shirai 2000), as noted above.

Lexical aspect

299

– state: situations that last without any input of energy – activity: situations that have duration, but do not have an inherent endpoint – accomplishment: situations that have both duration and an inherent endpoint – achievement: situations that occur instantaneously

With this additional coding at the level of situations, the discrepancy between lexical aspect and situational characteristics can be investigated. Incidentally, Shirai (1991) found that there was not much di¤erence between the two coding systems for L1 acquisition in English. This of course does not guarantee that they yield similar results in L2 acquisition or in the acquisition of other languages.28 Another di‰culty in making distinctions between achievements and activities, which is very di¤erent in kind from that discussed above, involves verbs such as wave, gallop, and shake, which appear to be iteratives of an achievement verb, in the sense that these verbs describe an action which consists of a series of punctual events. In fact, Quirk et al. (1985) categorize ‘‘the branches were shaking’’ and ‘‘the tops of the trees were waving’’ together with hit and blink (achievement, or in the five-way classification of Smith 1991, semelfactive). These were, however, coded as activities in Shirai (1991). The di¤erence is that in the case of a punctual verb (achievement or semelfactive), it is possible to have one jump, one blink, etc., since they are by definition punctual and can occur instantaneously, whereas it is impossible for a tree to shake once and instantaneously, or at least we do not conceive shake in that way. This distinction is not always easy, since it is not clear what constitutes one instance of waving or shaking, which might suggest that there is a fuzzy boundary between achievements and activities in these cases.29 28. Most SLA studies are concerned with the first question: the relationship between morphology and lexical aspect, not situational characteristics. 29. In fact, many scholars point out the fact that activities involve repetition of small units of component activities (e.g., McClure 1993). The issue is how each language lexicalizes these units as unitary. Walking is conceptualized as unitary activity, and one cannot normally say He walked if one makes one step. One might argue if we are talking about a man who lost his ability to walk and one day suddenly moved his feet, one step can be conceived of as walking, hence it is possible to say He walked! However, this is a stretch, or flexibility of language being used in context, and normally one cannot say He walked if he just made one step. Thus, asking questions such as ‘‘Can you wave once?’’ or ‘‘If someone moves his hand left to right in a waving fashion, can you say ‘he waved’?’’ is pertinent to test whether a particular verb is an activity or an achievement.

300

Yasuhiro Shirai

It should be noted again here that these classifications are operational definitions for the purpose of acquisition studies, and that the decisions on many borderline cases are still debatable. However, the number of such borderline cases are not so large as to constitute a problem for studies. What we should strive for is to maximize methodological rigor by making the classification process as transparent and replicable as possible, while assuming some level of indeterminacy, stemming from (1) the non-discrete nature of lexical aspect categories, and (2) the di‰culty of interpreting the speakers’ intention (Shirai 2007).

5. Conclusion This chapter discussed methodological issues involved in coding for verbs into lexical aspect. Although many studies report linguistic tests used to classify verbs, not many studies report the details of how these tests were actually applied, which is not an ideal situation in terms of replicability and comparability of di¤erent studies. After discussing two issues involved in the classification of lexical aspect (i.e., the number of categories and crosslinguistic variation), I presented a detailed description of the classification system used in Shirai and Andersen (1995), to show (1) what procedures should be followed to enhance methodological rigor, and (2) the di‰culty involved in the classification procedure. By presenting such details, we can improve the methodological sophistication of studies in SLA and further our understanding of tense-aspect acquisition.

References Aksu-Koc¸, Ayhan 1988 The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aksu-Koc¸, Ayhan 1998 The role of input vs universal predispositions in the emergence of tense-aspect morphology: Evidence from Turkish. First Language 18. 255–280. Andersen, Roger 1986 The need for native language comparison data in interpreting second language data. Unpublished manuscript. Forum lecture 1986 TESOL Summer Institute, University of Hawaii.

Lexical aspect

301

Andersen, Roger 1989 La adquisicio´n de la morfologı´a verbal. Lingu¨´ıstica 1. 89–141. Andersen, Roger 1991 Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition. In T. Huebner & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories, 305–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Andersen, Roger 1993 Four operating principles and input distribution as explanations for underdeveloped and mature morphological systems. In K. ˚ . Viborg (Eds.), Progression and regression in lanHyltenstam & A guage, 309–339. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andersen, Roger & Yasuhiro Shirai 1994 Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16. 133–156. Antinucci, Francesco & Ruth Miller 1976 How children talk about what happened. Journal of Child Language 3. 169–189. Ayoun, Dalila & M. Rafael Salaberry 2008 Acquisition of English tense-aspect morphology by advanced French instructed learners. Language Learning 58. 555–595. ´ lvarez-Caldero´n & Sandra Schecter Bayley, Robert, Alicia A 1998 Tense and aspect in Mexican-origin children’s Spanish: A prototype account of language shift. In E. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Child Language Research Forum, 221– 230. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Anna Bergstro¨m 1996 Acquisition of tense and aspect in second language and foreign language learning: Learner narratives in ESL and EFL. The Canadian Modern Language Review 52. 308–330. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1998 Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 471–508. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 2000 Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bickerton, Derek 1981 Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers. Bickerton, Derek 1989 The child, the bioprogram and the input data: A commentary on Cziko. First Language 9. 33–37. Bloom, Lois, Karin Lifter & Jeremie Hafitz 1980 Semantics of verbs and the development of verb inflection in child language. Language 56. 386–412.

302

Yasuhiro Shirai

Bonilla, Carrie in-press

Tense or aspect? Initial past tense marking for beginning classroom learners of Spanish. Hispania.

Brinton, Laurel 1988 The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger 1973 A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bybee, Joan 1985 Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca 1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Camps, Joaquim 2002 Aspectual distinctions in Spanish as a foreign language: The early stages of oral production. IRAL 40. 179–210. Chen, Jidong & Yasuhiro Shirai 2010 The development of aspectual marking in Mandarin Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics 31. 1–28. Chung, Sandra & Alan Timberlake 1985 Tense, aspect, and mood. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 202–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collins, Laura 2002 The roles of L1 influence and lexcial aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology. Language Learning 52. 43–94. Collins, Laura 2004 The particulars on universals: a comparison of the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology among Japanese- and French-speaking learners of English. The Canadian Modern Language Review 61. 251–274. Collins, Laura, Pavel Trofimovich, Joanna White, Walcir Cardoso & Marlise Horst 2009 Some input on the easy/di‰cult grammar question. The Modern Language Journal 93. 336–353. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ 2001 The acquisition of Catalan L2 past morphology: Evidence for the aspect and discourse hypotheses. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ 2006 The Aspect Hypothesis: Development of morphology and appropriateness of use. Language Learning 56. 201–268.

Lexical aspect

303

Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cushing, Sara T. 1987 Use of verb morphology in the English interlanguage of a native speaker of Serahuli. Unpublished term paper, Applied Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles. Cziko, Gary 1989 A review of the state-process and punctual-nonpunctual distinctions in children’s acquisition of verbs. First Language 9. 1–31. Cziko, Gary & Keiko Koda 1987 A Japanese child’s use of stative and punctual verbs. Journal of Child Language 14. 99–111. ¨ sten Dahl, O 1985 Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dowty, David 1979 Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Dunn, William 1998 The E¤ect of Inherent Lexical Aspect and Grammatical Person on Tense-switching in Oral Narratives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics. Seattle, WA. Gabriele, Allison 2009 Transfer and transition in the SLA of aspect: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31. 371–402. Gabriele, Allison & William McClure 2011 Why only some imperfectives are learned imperfectly: A study of Chinese learners of Japanese. Language Acquisition 18. 39–83. Gavruseva, Elena 2002 Is there primacy of aspect in child L2 English? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5. 109–130. Gavruseva, Elena 2003 Aktionsart, aspect, and the acquisition of finiteness in early child grammar. Linguistics 41. 723–755. Giacalone Ramat, Anna 1997 Progressive periphrases, markedness, and second language data. In In S. Eliasson & E. H. Jahr (Eds.), Language and its ecology: Essays in memory of Einar Haugen, 261–285. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gonzales, Patrick 1989 The emergence of verbal morphology in early child language: A reanalysis of Eisenberg 1982. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, Ph.D. dissertation.

304

Yasuhiro Shirai

Gonzales, Patrick 1990 The imperfect/past progressive distinction in Spanish discourse: An aspectual analysis. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, Ph.D. dissertation. Huang, Chiung-chih 1999 Tense-aspect marking by L2 learners of English and native English speakers: Inherent lexical aspect and unitary versus repeated situation types. Issues in Applied Linguistics 10(2). 113–129. Izquierdo, Jesu´s & Laura Collins 2008 The facilitative role of L1 influence in tense-aspect marking: a comparison of Hispanophone and Anglophone Learners of French. The Modern Language Journal 92. 350–368. Jin, Limin & Henriette Hendriks 2003 The development of aspect marking in L1 and L2 Chinese. Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 9. 69–99. Labov, William 1975 What is a linguistic fact? Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Lako¤, George 1986 Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lardiere, Donna 2003 The comparative fallacy revisited: A reply to Lakshmanan and Selinker (2001). Second Language Research 19. 129–143. Lee, EunHee & Hae-Young Kim 2007 On crosslinguistic variations in imperfective aspect: The case of L2 Korean. Language Learning 57. 651–685. Li, Ping & Yasuhiro Shirai 2000 The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lo´pez-Ortega, Nuria 2000 Tense, aspect, and narrative structure in Spanish as a second language. Hispania 83. 488–502. Lys, Franziska & Kerry Mommer 1986 The problem of aspectual verb classification: A two-level approach. In A. M. Farley, P. T. Farley & K-E. McCullough (Eds.), CLS 22: Papers from the General Session at the Twenty-Second Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 216–230. Martelle, Wendy 2010 Aspectual production in L2 Russian written narratives: Evidence for the Default Past Tense Hypothesis. Paper presented at the Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Conference (SCLC – 2010), Brown University, Providence, RI. Martelle, Wendy 2011 Testing the Aspect Hypothesis in L2 Russian. University of Pittsburgh, Ph.D. dissertation.

Lexical aspect

305

McClure, William 1993 A semantic parameter: The progressive in Japanese and English. In S. Choi (Ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 3, 254–270. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Montrul, Silvina 2002 Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5. 39–68. Mourelatos, Alexander 1981 Events, processes, and states. In P. J. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 14: Tense and aspect, 191– 212. New York: Academic Press. Nishi, Yumiko 2008 Verb learning and the acquisition of aspect: Rethinking the universality of lexical aspect and the significance of L1 transfer. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Ph.D. dissertation. Nishi, Yumiko & Yasuhiro Shirai 2007 Where L1 semantic transfer occurs: The significance of crosslinguistic variation in lexical aspect in the L2 acquisition of aspect. In Y. Matsumoto, D. Oshima, O. Robinson & P. Sells (Eds.), Diversity in language: Perspectives and implications, 219– 241. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Onozuka, Hiromi 2008 On the resultative reading of the imperfective aspect in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 28. 1–16. Parsons, Terence 1989 The progressive in English: Events, states and processes. Linguistics and Philosophy 12. 213–41. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geo¤rey Leech & Jan Svartvik 1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Robison, Richard 1990 The primacy of aspect: Aspectual marking in English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12. 315–330. Robison, Richard 1993 Aspectual marking in English interlanguage: A cross-sectional study. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Ph.D. dissertation. Robison, Richard 1995 The aspect hypothesis revisited: A cross-sectional study of tense and aspect marking in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics 16. 344–370. Rocca, Sonia 2002 Lexical aspect in child second language acquisition of temporal morphology: A bidirectional study. In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology, 249–284. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

306

Yasuhiro Shirai

Rohde, Andreas 1996 The aspect hypothesis and the emergence of tense distinctions in naturalistic L2 acquisition. Linguistics 34. 1115–1137. Rothstein, Susan 2004 Structuring events. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Structuring events: a study in the semantics of lexical aspect, 1–35. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell. Sachs, Jacqueline 1983 Talking about the there and then: The emergence of displaced reference in parent-child discourse. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s language, Vol. 4, 1–28. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sag, Ivan 1973 On the state of progress on progressives and statives. In C. J. N. Bailey & R. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English, 83–95. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Salaberry, M. Rafael 1999 The development of past tense verbal morphology in classroom L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics 20. 151–178. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2000 The development of past tense morphology in L2 Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2008 Marking past tense in second language acquisition: A theoretical model. London: Continuum. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2011 Assessing the e¤ect of lexical aspect and grounding on the acquisition of L2 Spanish past tense morphology among L1 English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(2). 184–202. Shirai, Yasuhiro 1991 Primacy of aspect in language acquisition: Simplified input and prototype. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, Ph.D. dissertation. Shirai, Yasuhiro 1993 Inherent aspect and the acquisition of tense/aspect morphology in Japanese. In H. Nakajima & Y. Otsu (Eds.), Argument structure: Its syntax and acquisition, 185–211. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Shirai, Yasuhiro 1994 On the overgeneralization of progressive marking on stative verbs: Bioprogram or input? First Language 14. 67–82. Shirai, Yasuhiro 1995 Tense-aspect marking by L2 learners of Japanese. In D. MacLaughlin & S. McEwen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 2, 575–586. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Shirai, Yasuhiro 1996 Does accomplishment always have duration? The Dowty-Van Valin system versus the Smith system of inherent aspect. In L. M.

Lexical aspect

307

Dobrin, K. Singer & L. McNair (Eds.), CLS 32: Papers from the main session, 335–345. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Shirai, Yasuhiro 1998a The emergence of tense-aspect morphology in Japanese: Universal predisposition? First Language 18. 281–309. Shirai, Yasuhiro 1998b Where the progressive and the resultative meet: Imperfective aspect in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and English. Studies in Language 22. 661–692. Shirai, Yasuhiro 2000 The semantics of the Japanese imperfective -teiru: An integrative approach. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 327–361. Shirai, Yasuhiro 2002 The prototype hypothesis of tense-aspect acquisition in second language In M. Rafael Salaberry & Yasuhiro Shirai (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology, 451–474. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Shirai, Yasuhiro 2007 The aspect hypothesis, the comparative fallacy, and the validity of obligatory context analysis: A reply to Lardiere (2003). Second Language Research 23. 51–64. Shirai, Yasuhiro 2009 Temporality in first and second language acquisition. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time, 167–193. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Roger Andersen 1995 The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language 71. 743–762. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Atsuko Kurono 1998 The acquisition of tense-aspect marking in Japanese as a second language. Language Learning 48. 245–279. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Yumiko Nishi 2002 Lexicalization of aspectual structures in English and Japanese. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 267–290. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Yumiko Nishi 2005 How what we mean impacts how we talk: The Japanese imperfective aspect marker -teiru in conversation. In J. Frodesen & C. Holten (Eds.), The power of context in language learning and teaching, 39–48. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle. Smith, Carlota 1983 A theory of aspectual choice. Language 59. 479–501. Smith, Carlota 1991 The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Smith, Carlota 1997 The parameter of aspect. (2nd ed.) Dordrecht: Kluwer.

308

Yasuhiro Shirai

Stephany, Ursula 1981 Verbal grammar in modern Greek early child language. In P. S. Dale & D. Ingram (Eds.), Child language: An international perspective, 45–57. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Sugaya, Natsue & Yasuhiro Shirai 2007 The acquisition of progressive and resultative meanings of the imperfective aspect marker by L2 Learners of Japanese: Universals, transfer, or multiple factors? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29. 1–38. Talmy, Leonard 1985 Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, Leonard 1988 The relation of grammar to cognition. In Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 165–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tatevosov, Sergei 2002 The parameter of actionality. Linguistic Typology 6. 317–401. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1993 A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Robert Van Valin Jr. (Ed.), Advances in role and reference grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Vendler, Zeno 1957 Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 66. 143–160. Verkuyl, Hans 1989 Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12. 39–94. Weist, Richard 1989 Aspects of the roots of language: Commentary on Cziko. First Language 9. 45–49. Weist, Richard, Hanna Wysock, Katarzyna Witkowska-Stadnik, Ewa Buczowska & Emilia Konieczna 1984 The defective tense hypothesis: On the emergence of tense and aspect in child Polish. Journal of Child Language 11. 347–374. Weist, Richard M., Aleksandra Pawlak & Jenell Carapella 2004 Syntactic-semantic interface in the acquisition of verb morphology. Journal of Child Language 31. 31–60. Wiberg, Eva 1996 Reference to past events in bilingual Italian-Swedish children of school age. Linguistics 34. 1087–1114. Xiao, Zhonghua & Anthony McEnery 2004 A corpus-based two-level model of situation aspect. Journal of Linguistics 40. 325–63.

Chapter 9 Defining and coding data: Narrative discourse grounding in L2 studies Llorenc¸ Comajoan 1. Introduction Time is one of the central concepts of human experience and as such it is often expressed in language. A variety of linguistic devices can be used to mark time; namely, tense, aspect, lexical aspect, temporal adverbials, temporal particles, and discourse principles (Klein 2009: 39–40). This chapter deals with the last of the devices: discourse grounding principles. More specifically, it addresses how the concepts of foreground (F) and background (B) have developed in linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA) research, particularly in the investigation of the acquisition and the use of tense-aspect morphology in a second language (L2). The line of L2 research that has focused on this issue has been conducted in the frame of what is known as the Discourse Hypothesis (DH).1 The term discourse hypothesis was first used by Bardovi-Harlig (1994a), and it is currently used in studies of the L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology and its relationship to discourse. Briefly, following research in functional linguistics (Hopper 1979) and discourse analysis (Dry 1983), Bardovi-Harlig (1994a: 13) formulated the hypothesis as follows: ‘‘The discourse hypothesis for interlanguage development states that learners use emerging tense-aspect verbal morphology to distinguish foreground from background in narratives’’. Other terms used for the same hypothesis are discourse-pragmatic hypothesis (Housen 1997), discourse-functional hypothesis (Housen 1998), figure-ground distinction (Andersen 1993), and discourse motivation (Andersen and Shirai 1994). Even though the name of the hypothesis makes reference to ‘‘discourse’’, in reality the DH has mostly been studied from the perspective of narratives. Thus, a more appropriate term might have been the narrative discourse hypothesis. 1. This chapter does not address the results of studies focusing on the DH, but rather its methodology of research. For a discussion of results within the DH, see Bardovi-Harlig (2000), Comajoan (2005), Salaberry (2008, 2011), and the studies summarized in Appendix 3.

310

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

This chapter discusses how the two grounding constructs (F and B) have been defined in di¤erent linguistic approaches and how they have been used in L2 studies. Even though the focus will be on methodological issues related to the DH in narrative discourse and the L2 acquisition and use of tense-aspect morphology (i.e., appropriate use, not use of target-like forms), references will be made to other types of discourse and methodologies when necessary (see also Chapters 7 and 11). The chapter is divided into four sections. The first one presents the main object of study of the DH: narratives in L2 acquisition. The second section discusses how F and B have been defined from di¤erent linguistic perspectives. The next section deals with discourse grounding and SLA and examines the di¤erent approaches to the study of L2 text production and discusses how the F and B have been operationalized and coded in previous research. Finally, the conclusion provides some guidelines regarding methodology of tense-aspect research for future studies on discourse grounding. 2. Narrative discourse The linguistic material produced by language users can be classified into di¤erent types (or genres) of discourse.2 This section focuses on what De Fina and Geargakopoulou (2012) defined as the approach that views narrative as a type of text as opposed to narrative as a mode of thought that is part of human cognition, because early L2 studies mostly investigated the linguistic features of narrative texts rather than their cognitive epistemological features. Classifications of types of discourse go back to Aristotle, and they were mostly developed for pedagogical purposes and lacked a clear formulation (Georgakopoulou and Goutsos 1997). The traditional distinction between narration, description, and argumentation has been reclassified multiple times, and the current consensus is that there are no pure textual types but rather di¤erent features of each type can be present in a single text. Thus, Adam (1997) classified texts into five prototypes: narrative, description, argumentation, explanation, and dialogue (see Chapter 7).

2. For all intents and purposes, the terms text and discourse are used synonymously and interchangeably in this chapter.

Coding Grounding

311

A more basic distinction that cuts across various text types is that between narrative and nonnarrative discourse. Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (1997: 52) provided the characteristics of narrative and nonnarrative discourse displayed in Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of narrative and nonnarrative discourse (Georgakopoulou and Goutsos 1997) Narrative discourse

Nonnarrative discourse

Ordering

Temporal sequencing

Multiple sequencing (logical, temporal, etc.)

Particularity

Particular events

Generic truths

Normativeness

Disruption and re-establishment of equilibrium

Stating (arguing, etc.) what the norm is

Reference

Reconstructed events

Verifiable events

Perspective

Personal

Impersonal

Context

Under negotiation

Permanent across contexts

The main characteristic of narrative discourse is that it is ordered, that is, events are told in temporal sequencing. This is precisely one of the distinctive features provided in what became a seminal study of narrative discourse in discourse studies and, later, SLA, namely Labov and Waletzky (1967: 13).3 They provided the following definition of narrative: Narrative will be considered as one verbal technique for recapitulating experience, in particular, a technique of constructing narrative units which match the temporal sequence of that experience. [. . .] Normally, narrative serves an additional function of personal interest determined by a stimulus in the social context in which the narrative occurs. We therefore distinguish two functions of narrative: (1) referential and (2) evaluative.

The two distinctive features of their definition were temporal order and the double function of narratives. Two clauses are in temporal order when their textual/discourse order of mentioning follows the temporal sequence

3. See De Fina and Georgakopoulou (2012) for an appraisal of the Labovian model.

312

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

in which the events took place. In contrast, two clauses are not in temporal order when they can be moved around without altering the inference of the order of the series of non-linguistic, real-world events that they encode. The sequentiality of clauses is exemplified in Appendix 1, a sample narrative from a conversation between Barbara (B), an L1 English learner of L2 Catalan, and the researcher (L) (Comajoan 2001). The narrative in Appendix 1 is presented in Table 2 without the interaction of the interlocutor in order to distinguish the narrative, temporally ordered clauses (marked as N) from the non-narrative, non-temporally ordered clauses. Table 2. Temporally ordered clauses in a narrative Line

Narrative status

Clause

1.

When I was 10 years old,

2.

I was more reserved and shy

3.

and never talked in class.

4.

N

The teacher wrote a comment on the report card.

5.

N

My parents read the comment.

6. 7.

N

My parents explained to me that I needed to ask more questions.

8.

N

Next day we talked about a field trip.

9.

N

I had a question.

10.

N

I asked the question.

11.

I think

12.

it was a stupid question.

13.

Maybe the teacher had already talked about that thing

14.

and I had not understood.

15. 16.

N (Repeat)

I asked a question about this thing that the teacher had already explained.

17.

N (Repeat)

I asked the question.

18.

N

The teacher answered in a sarcastic manner.

When applying Labov’s (1972) definition of temporally ordered clauses to the narrative in Appendix 1 and Table 2, it can be seen, for instance, that clauses 1–3 in Table 2 could be moved around without altering the interpretation of the order in which the actions took place (Table 3):

Coding Grounding

313

Table 3. Change or order of clauses in a narrative I (without change in interpretation) Line

Narrative status

Clause

4.

N

The teacher wrote a comment on the report card.

5.

N

My parents read the comment.

6.

N

My parents explained to me

7.

that I needed to ask more questions.

1.

When I was 10 years old,

2.

I was more reserved and shy

3.

and never talked in class.

However, altering the order of lines 5–6 from Table 2 does trigger a change in the interpretation of how the actions occurred, since the parents read the comment before they explained to their daughter that she needed to talk more (Table 4): Table 4. Change or order of clauses in a narrative II (with change in interpretation) Line

Narrative status

Clause

1.

When I was 10 years old,

2.

I was more reserved and shy

3.

and never talked in class.

4.

N

The teacher wrote a comment on the report card.

6. 7.

N

My parents explained to me that I needed to ask more questions.

5.

N

My parents read the comment.

Narratives are not always told in the strict chronological order of the real-world events that they refer to. For instance, in lines 38–39 and line 41 (Appendix 1) (13–14 and 16 in Table 2) the speaker refers to situations that are not in order with the previous clause. In these cases, pluperfect morphology is used to mark deviance from chronological order. However, nonchronological order is not always explicitly marked (through linguistic devices), and languages di¤er in the amount and manner of such marking.

314

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

For instance, the narrative status of clauses 1 and 2 in Table 3 in English is not morphologically marked, but they would be morphologically marked in Spanish or Catalan through the use of imperfect morphology. Labov and Waletkzky (1967) argued that narratives that are purely referential are pointless in the sense that they do not fulfill the evaluative requirement. In their model, evaluation is defined as ‘‘that part of the narrative which reveals the attitude of the narrator towards the narrative by emphasizing the relative importance of some narrative units as compared to others’’ (37). Evaluative sections are crucial in their model, because evaluation helps define the structure of the narrative; that is, to make a distinction between complication and result. Narratives are not just a string of narrative clauses one after the other, but rather narratives have structure (Labov 1972; Labov and Waletzky 1967; see Adam 1997, 1994; Adam and Lorda 1999 for other features; Polanyi 1989 for a similar approach) and texture (Fleischman 1990).4 The structure of full narratives is presented in Figure 1 (adapted from Labov and Waletzky 1967).

Figure 1. Parts and structure of a narrative (Labov and Waletzky 1967)

4. Fleischman (1990) used the term texture to refer to the fact that some events in a narrative have more relevance or are more salient than others from the perspective of the speaker’s communicative goals, and thus the speaker may mark them di¤erently in terms of grounding.

Coding Grounding

315

Each of the six parts of a narrative has an associated underlying question regarding specific information (Figure 1). The abstract summarizes the narrative. The orientation sets the narrative frame by providing information regarding the characters, location, and their activity. The complicating action is the heart of the narrative and is composed of chronologically ordered narrative clauses that recreate an experience. The evaluation section allows the narrator to express the reason for telling the narrative. As pointed out by Labov (1972), good narrators will use evaluation in order to justify their narrative and avoid the underlying question ‘‘So what?’’ from the interlocutor. Evaluation is not localized in a specific part of the narrative, but it permeates the complicating action and resolution parts of the narrative (indicated by the wavy lines in Figure 1). The resolution part marks the end of the series of narrative events in the complicating action. Finally, the coda is a transition between the narrative and the moment of speech (present). These six sections constitute full-formed narratives, but they are not necessarily found in every narrative. For instance, Silva-Corvala´n (1983) analyzed oral Spanish narratives and found that very few had abstracts or codas. 3. Narrative discourse grounding: foreground and background This section provides a review of the di¤erent definitions of F and B. The approach is chronological, and the definitions are grouped in two periods for ease of discussion: early definitions and critical definitions. 3.1. Early definitions The meaning of grounding when applied to language refers to the di¤erent ways in which events in the real world are given prominence in and through language. The study of grounding from the perspective of how events are perceived and represented has been mostly carried out within the framework of cognitive linguistics. In fact, the development of cognitive linguistics as a field has spurred a number of terms and concepts that are related to grounding, such as ‘‘construal’’ and ‘‘perspectivization’’ (Verhagen 2007: 48), ‘‘salience’’ (Schmid 2007: 117), and ‘‘prominence’’ (Langacker 2007: 434). Although all these terms have specific characteristics in current perspectives in cognitive linguistics, L2 studies of the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology mostly deal with concepts discussed in earlier work in the functional-cognitive framework, namely F and B (e.g., Givo´n 1987; Hopper 1979; Talmy 1978).

316

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

Three general comments can be made with respect to the early definitions of F and B. First, the most oft-cited and influential paper for their definition is Hopper (1979), who characterized the F and B constructs as follows: 1. Discourse grounding is a universal of narrative discourse: The foreground is the actual story line, and the background is the supportive material. 2. The defining property of the foreground is sequentiality, that is, iconicity between the order in which events took place in the real, nonlinguistic world and the way they are narrated. Other properties of foreground can be derived from sequentiality (e.g., focus structure, punctual verbs, contingency, and narrativity). 3. Discourse – not the linguistic forms or categories of language – is primary, that is, linguistic categories emerge within discourse. 4. Grounding can be accomplished through di¤erent linguistic devices, including tense-aspect morphology, word order, and voice. Hopper (1979) provided some evidence for all characteristics, but in most cases it was based on very few data and languages, and thus most of the statements were open to further investigation (e.g., whether discourse grounding is a universal feature of narrative discourse or not, or the di¤erent linguistic devices that can be used to mark grounding). Second, earlier studies already pointed out that the F and B were two extremes of one continuum rather than two distinct categories. For instance, Jones and Jones (1979) used the metaphor of a string of beads of di¤erent sizes (prominence) to refer to the di¤erent degrees of prominence events are given in language. Thus, they rejected a bipartite structure (F versus B) and posited what they called the ‘‘multiple-level hypothesis’’, whereby discourse includes multiple levels (they mentioned five) of significant information, which may be marked by specific grammatical devices in various languages. Finally, already from the beginning, the definition of F and B has been a challenge for researchers in the study of discourse, because both concepts are intricately related to other linguistic notions. For instance, Givo´n (1984: 288) provided the linguistic correlates of foreground and background displayed in Table 5. The di¤erent features that characterize F and B point out that verbal morphology is just one of the devices that can be used to mark grounding. Other linguistic devices that contribute to the marking of F and B are those reminiscent of the expression of temporality (cf. Dietrich et al. 1995; Klein 1986, 1994b; Noyau 1990,

Coding Grounding

317

2002): adverbials (e.g., suddenly, then, no, lexical expressions providing adverbial information, etc.), conjunctions (e.g., and, before, after, etc.), clause structure (main versus subordinate, see Section 4.3.), and mood (indiciative versus subjunctive in those languages where the distinction is productive in verbal morphology, e.g., in the Romance languages). Table 5. Characteristics of foreground and background (Givo´n 1984: 288) Feature

Foreground

Background

Tense

past

present, future, habitual

Sequentiality

in-sequence

out-of-sequence, anterior, perfect

Durativity

compact/punctual

durative/continuous

Perfectivity

perfective/completive

imperfective/incompletive

Modality

realis

irrealis

(activeness)

(action/event)

(state)

(syntax)

(main clauses)

(subordinate clauses)

The multiple ways in which prominence and grounding could be marked in language, reflected in the F and B distinction, was more thoroughly and more critically investigated in later studies, which are discussed in the following section. 3.2. Critical definitions Even though the di¤erences between F and B may be clear intuitively (i.e., F ¼ backbone of a narrative, B ¼ supporting material), there is no commonly accepted, comprehensive definition, as illustrated by the variety of definitions listed below: (1) That part of a discourse which does not immediately and crucially contribute to the speaker’s goal, but which merely assists, amplifies, or comments on it, is referred to as background. By contrast, the material which supplies the main points of the discourse is known as foreground. (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 280) (2) The foreground is composed of sentences which refer to sequenced points on a timeline. The background is composed of those events that either do not refer to a single point (imperfectives, habituals, iteratives), or refer to a point that is not presented in fabula sequence (e.g., sentences with pluperfect tense). (Dry 1983: 46)

318

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

(3) The foreground, or the ‘‘narrative skeleton’’ is a (report of a) sequence of events ordered on a time axis. This chain of events, in and of itself, is meaningless. . . . Its interpretation or its significance can be determined only if we know the physical conditions of its events, their motivations, the preceding circumstances or events that led to them, the mental state of their agents, etc. In this sense, the background enables us to perceive or understand the foreground events. (Reinhart 1984: 789) All three definitions refer to the same concepts but emphasize di¤erent issues. The definition in (1) is the most general and focuses on the function of the F-B distinction: The F expresses the main point according to the speaker’s goal, whereas the B comments on it. The definition in (2) focuses on the composition of the two parts: The F is made up of single-point events that are sequentally ordered, whereas the opposite is true of the B. The definition in (3) retakes the notion of sequentiality from the definition in (2), but it emphasizes the notion of contrast and interpretation, indicating that the B is no less important than the F, because without B there could be no contrast, and consequently the F could not exist. After the early definitions of F and B, several papers critically examined both constructs, attempting to find clearer criteria for their definition and examining problematic cases. For instance, Givo´n (1987) titled his work ‘‘Beyond foreground and background’’ and Dry (1992) titled hers ‘‘Foregrounding: An assessment’’. Two basic conclusions can be drawn from these studies: (a) defining F and B is problematic, because too many factors intervene in their definition; and (b) consequently, no single defining characteristic can be found for the characterization of F and B, and thus a prototypical approach may be more appropriate than a categorical approach. Givo´n (1987) attempted to overcome the F and B dichotomy by tackling four main problems of their definition. Specifically, he showed that discourse grounding is dynamic rather than static in the sense that it presupposes an online interactive model of text production in which what is produced by a speaker is F because it is asserted or is pivotal, and it becomes B when it is a shared presupposition by the speaker. In other words, online production of linguistic material does not allow for a straightforward classification; only after-the-fact analyses allow for this. The second problem was that the correlation between B, presupposition, and old information was not clear. This problem became a major focus of investigation in other studies, which showed that subordinate clauses can

Coding Grounding

319

be used to advance time and contain sentences that are chronologically ordered with those of the main clause, and thus can be part of the F (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3). Third, Givo´n questioned the correlation between F, sequentiality and main-line or gist. The fourth problem concerned the binary or scalar nature of the F and B distinction, and it was argued that the distinction was not discrete, but rather scalar as was the case for many other morphosyntactic devices used to mark discourse grounding. Dry (1992: 335) assessed the concept of foreground and stated that ‘‘the term foregrounding has become so di¤use in its application that it requires redefinition, and that such redefinition would be furthered by clarifying the assumptions that di¤erent disciplines bring to the investigation’’. She reviewed most of the previous definitions and showed that linguistic, literary, and psycholinguistic methodologies di¤ered in their assumptions. Some of the major arguments regarding linguistic methodologies in Dry (1992) were the following three: First, the term foregrounding is used for two di¤erent concepts, which contributed to the term’s ambiguity: it was used to refer to the cognitive process and to the textual phenomena that activated the process. Second, foregrounding is often related to prominence, which itself can be interpreted as importance or salience (see also Binnick 1991: 380). At the same time, both importance and salience can be of di¤erent types, as shown in Figure 2 (from Dry 1992).

Figure 2. Characteristics of foreground (Dry 1992)

Finally, some of the problems with defining F are due to the application of one discipline to another (e.g., from linguistics to literary analysis), and for this reason, clear definitions and assumptions for each discipline are needed. From Givon’s and Dry’s studies reviewed here and from others that examined F and B (e.g., Couper-Kuhlen 1987; Depraetere 1996; Dry 1992;

320

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

Fleischman 1990; Givo´n 1987; Reinhart 1984), the general consensus seemed to be that there was no single defining feature for the two concepts: The foreground-background contrast is better viewed as a spectrum or continuum in which saliency is a matter of degree, the di¤erent degrees being expressed through an interplay of the semantic and grammatical oppositions available in the language. (Fleischman 1990: 184) However, even in those definitions that took into account several factors, there was one feature that stood out in the definition of F: sequentiality of events. Thus, Reinhart (1984: 801) argued for the following temporal criteria to define grounding5: – Narrativity: Only narrative units, i.e., textual units whose order matches the order of the real-world events they report, can serve as foreground. – Punctuality: Units reporting punctual events can serve more easily as foreground than units reporting durative, repetitive, or habitual events. – Completeness: A report of a completed event can serve more easily as foreground than a report of an ongoing event. It is worth noticing that the first criterion is categorical (‘‘only’’ ordered events can be foreground), but the other two are gradable (‘‘can serve more easily as foreground’’). Depraetere (1996: 715) defined F from the perspective of prototypicality and and also gave special status to the chronological order of sentences (Table 6). Table 6. Definition of foreground according to Depraetere (1996) Foreground:

Sequence of chronologically ordered bounded situations whose sequence is reflected in the linear order in which they are reported.

þPrototypical

Prototypical

Narrative present, past, future tense

Pluperfect

Bounded telic

Bounded atelic

Main clause Subclause with loose bonds with main clause

Subclause with tight bonds with the main clause

5. In her definition of grounding, in addition to temporal criteria, Reinhart (1984) also provided functional dependency and culture-dependent criteria.

Coding Grounding

321

The use of a prototypical scale, such as that in Table 6, stresses, for instance, that even though it is the norm to mark the F with present, past, or future tense, it may be possible to use pluperfect for a succession of past events reported in a previous past moment. The definition in Table 6 also includes aspectual criteria regarding telicity and its relationship to grounding. Finally, Khalil (2000, 2003) reviewed all major definitions of F and B and identified four main inadequacies (2000: 15). First, previous research did not identify explicit and independent criteria for the definition of F and B. Second, it was not clear whether F and B refer to the concept-level (i.e., the cognitive status of information formulated by the speaker) or to the linguistic level (i.e., the production of language per se). Third, there was a trend to conflate grounding with other discourse notions (e.g., coherence) and with its surface structure expression (e.g., how grounding is coded linguistically in main or subordinate clauses). Finally, most research focused on narrative discourse and linguistic markers of such discourse. As an alternative, Khalil (2006: 4) provided a framework in which ‘‘grounding is a language independent, universal principle of discourse organization’’ that is part of a continuum. Khalil argued that the ‘‘assignment of grounding values to propositions has its cognitive basis, namely the ways information is structured and distributed in mental models of events and situations’’ (5), which are independent of discourse. In sum, these assessments are a witness to the vitality of research in discourse grounding and to the evolution of the concepts in the last thirty years. The reviews have mainly shown an evolution toward treating F and B as part of a continuum that in terms of language is a reflection of mental models and that as such may vary depending on the speaker’s communicative purpose. The next section investigates to what extent the same evolution can be found in SLA studies. 4. Discourse grounding and L2 studies 4.1. Form-oriented and meaning-oriented approaches The acquisition of L2 temporality has been examined from several perspectives (Ayoun and Salaberry 2005; Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Montrul 2004; Montrul and Salaberry 2003; Salaberry 2008; Salaberry and Shirai 2002), and the role of how texts are produced by L2 learners and how discourse is structured has mainly been studied from two methodological approaches, which Bardovi-Harlig (2000) called the meaning-oriented and the form-

322

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

oriented approaches to the study of temporality. Whereas the former approach answers the question ‘‘Which temporal concepts and relations do learners express and how?’’ the latter answers ‘‘What is the distribution of the emergent verbal morphology?’’ or ‘‘How is a particular linguistic form or category (e.g., verbal morphology, adverbial expressions) used to encode a particular temporal construct (e.g., past time, imperfectivity)?’’ The two approaches di¤er in the sense that the first studies a number of devices used by learners to mark temporality, whereas the second one tends to focus on verbal morphology and its distribution. The di¤erences between the meaning-oriented and the form-oriented approaches have been mostly discussed in light of the acquisition of tense and aspect and its relationship to order of acquisition and the role of lexico-aspectual categories (What comes first, tense marking or aspect marking? cf. the Aspect Hypothesis (AH), Chapters 5, 8, and 11; Andersen and Shirai 1996; Bardovi-Harlig 2000). In general, fewer studies have examined the DH, and thus there has been little discussion on how the di¤erences in the approaches could account for the production of texts by L2 learners. Even though meaning-oriented approach studies have focused on discourse, they have not taken the concepts of F and B as central. Rather, early studies in the meaning-oriented approach discussed the pragmatic, lexical, and morphological means to mark temporality (Perdue 1993; Dietrich, Klein, and Noyau 1995). Later studies continued to study discourse, but, instead of examining F and B, they investigated three main issues (Hendriks 2005): (a) how learners expressed and integrated information from di¤erent semantic domains, (b) how their interlanguage developed over time, and (c) what causal factors (cognitive, universal, language specific, etc.) could explain the changes in interlanguage. On the other hand, studies in the form-oriented approach first focused on the AH, but little by little the emphasis shifted to include the DH and the interrelationship of the AH, the DH, and other tempo-aspectual dimensions (Andersen and Shirai 1994; Andersen 2002; Salaberry 2008, 2011; Comajoan 2001; BardoviHarlig 2000; Rosi 2009; Appendix 3 at the end of this chapter).6

6. The studies included in Appendix 3 are within the form-oriented approach. For a review of studies dealing with discourse grounding and the acquisition of temporality in the meaning-oriented tradition, see Bardovi-Harlig (2000); Comajoan (2005); Dietrich, Klein and Noyau (1995); and Watorek, Benazzo, and Hickmann (2012).

Coding Grounding

323

There are currently two strands of research that investigate how learners structure discourse, which can be seen as a continuation of meaningoriented and form-oriented studies, respectively. On the one hand, meaningoriented approaches, represented by studies such as Carroll et al. (2000), Carroll and von Stutterheim (2002), von Stutterheim and Lambert (2005), Hendriks (2005), and von Stutterheim, Carroll, and Klein (2009), study learner varieties at large and how texts are produced. These studies have mostly focused on narrative, descriptive, and conversation texts. The main question addressed by such studies is the ‘‘extent to which language-specific preferences in information structure are driven by grammaticized means. More specifically, it investigates the extent to which . . . L2 learners apply the principles of information structure of their target language, as contrasted with their native language (L1), in producing stretches of connected discourse as telling a story, giving route directions, or describing the layout of their home’’ (Carroll and Lambert 2006: 54). The meaning-oriented studies to L2 text production have the following theoretical bases. First, information structure is to some extent languagedependent, which means that events are structured temporally and discoursively in di¤erent ways in di¤erent languages. That is, narratives or descriptions are structured di¤erently in, for instance, German, Spanish, and Arabic (e.g., more or less focus on endpoints of actions, more or less emphasis on location of objects, etc.). Second, and as a consequence of the previous statement, the acquisition of a L2 can be a challenge for adult and young learners, because they may not be aware of the subtle differences in text production in di¤erent languages. Thus, meaning-oriented studies have tended to investigate the process whereby learners may (or may not) attain native-speaker competence in text production and at what stage of text production the di¤erences between learners and native speakers can be explained (conceptual level, selection of information, or selection of linguistic forms). Finally, this research approach is multivariable. That is, di¤erences in L2 text production cannot be explained by a single feature, but rather by the confluence of several variables (e.g., temporal concepts, the role of the syntactic subject, and word order constraints), which at the same time have di¤erent roles in the learner’s L1. On the other hand, current form-oriented studies have focused on the interrelationship between the use of a selected linguistic device to encode tense and aspect (most frequently, verbal morphology, but also other lexical devices, such as temporal adverbs) and discourse grounding (emer-

324

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

gence of F and B and distribution of forms in F and B).7 The main theoretical premises of this approach are three (Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Salaberry 2008). First, discourse is a central influence on the distribution of tense-aspect morphology, that is, discourse structure (F and B) and how learners build texture in narratives plays an important role in how tense-aspect morphology emerges (e.g., perfective first in the F, imperfective first in the B) and develops. In its formulation, the DH is more descriptive than explanatory; that is, as a hypothesis it allows for a description of specific observations (associations of morphology and other linguistic devices with F and B) that otherwise might go unnoticed, and it allows researchers to test its predictions. However, the DH does not explicitly explain why learners follow the patterns found in their interlanguage; that is, what makes the F emerge before the B and why specific combinations of lexical aspect, morphological aspect, and grounding are so commonly found. Previous research, such as Andersen and Shirai (1996), suggested that ‘‘strong cognitive or linguistic universals’’ can account for the explanation of the DH, but studies have not yet fully addressed the explanatory level of the DH. Some studies have attempted to explain its predictions as a confluence of di¤erent variables (e.g., Salaberry 2008), with some evidence that discourse grounding may be more powerful as a variable to explain L2 development than lexical aspect (cf. Comajoan and Pe´rez Saldanya 2005; Rosi 2009; Salaberry 2011), but further research still needs to investigate the psycholinguistic and cognitive validity of the DH as an acquisitional principle in L2 studies. Second, in form-oriented studies, the level of proficiency and, related to this, the developmental stage of the learners needs to be taken into account, because it is a likely factor in determining the distribution of tense-aspect morphology relative to grounding. Finally, studies within the form-oriented approach – as was the case for studies within the meaning-oriented one – also adopt a multivariable perspective in the sense that they investigate the interrelationship of lexical aspect and discourse grounding in the emergence and development of L2 verbal morphology (e.g., perfective morphology emerges in telic predicates in the F, whereas imperfective morphology emerges in atelic predicates in the B) and tries to account for the associations of developing morphology 7. Form-oriented studies have also begun to study the relationship between the DH and the AH and have searched for an answer to the following question: ‘‘Do the two hypotheses make the same predictions, and if so, which one best describes L2 development at di¤erent stages of acquisition?’’ For a discussion of the relationship of the two hypotheses, see Bardovi-Harlig (2000); Comajoan and Pe´rez Saldanya (2005); Rosi (2009); and Salaberry (2011).

Coding Grounding

325

and discourse structure (focusing on the constructs of F and B instead of information structure as was the case in meaning-oriented studies). The two approaches need not be seen as competing, but rather as complementary, because they share a multivariable perspective with the acquisition of temporality and they investigate one central question related to temporality: How do learners answer the question ‘‘What happened next?’’ (i.e., the quaestio model, Carroll and von Stutterheim 2003). The main di¤erence is that meaning-oriented studies adopt a more global perspective than form-oriented studies, because in addition to examining tense-aspect morphology they take into account a variety of linguistic devices and ways to structure information. Whereas current meaningoriented studies often use native-speaker data to compare learner data to target data, form-oriented studies tend to focus more on the development of interlanguage, and thus they do not emphasize target-like competence as much. This di¤erence is also related to the level of proficiency of learners that are under study in the two types of studies. Whereas most of the current meaning-oriented studies focus on very advanced learners, formoriented studies tend to focus on beginner-intermediate learners. Thus, meaning-oriented studies have focused more on the end-state, whereas form-oriented studies have centered on the development of interlanguage in the beginning and intermediate stages of acquisition. Finally, from a methodological standpoint, meaning-oriented studies have not exclusively focused on F and B and grounding, but also on other principles of information (e.g., information selection, perspective taking, management of events, etc.), whereas form-oriented studies (at least those focusing on the DH) have investigated how the L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology is distributed in the F and B.

4.2. Data coding in studies investigating the DH This section reviews the definition of F and B in form-oriented studies in SLA and their coding in the period from the first studies that investigated how verbal morphology was used in discourse to the formulation of the DH and current discussions.8 The discussion is based on a review of all 8. De Fina and Georgakopoulou (2012) discussed a number of issues related to the analysis of narrative from di¤erent perspectives (discourse and sociolinguistics) but do not include SLA studies or the definition and coding of F and B in their discussion.

326

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

major published studies that directly address the DH (see Appendix 3), and, for ease of presentation, they have been divided into three periods.9 In the early period, exemplified by studies such as Kumpf (1984), Flashner (1989), Bardovi-Harlig (1992), and Housen (1994), the main focus of research was to study the development of the learner’s interlanguage as an autonomous system (Andersen 1984) and, more specifically, how tense-aspect morphology developed in the F and the B. The main characteristic of these early studies, as far as the definition of F and B and their coding is concerned, was that the definitions and methodology were based on works of functional linguistics, namely Hopper (1979) and Givo´n (1982). Briefly, the F sections were those parts of a narrative that pushed events/the story line forward, and B those that did not. Early studies deserve special attention for two main reasons. First, some of the studies provided microanalyses of narratives and the way learners used their resources for the construction of narratives. For instance, Kumpf (1984) conducted a detailed analysis of one learner’s interlanguage in conversations and narratives, coded the data for seven variables (discourse type, aspect, verb type, verb form, clause type, time reference, and other), and she showed that tense-aspect morphology was not distributed equally in the F and B. Bardovi-Harlig (1992) observed that lower-level learners already use the few resources they have to mark the story line, suggesting that level of acquisition is an important variable to take into account. Second, already at this early period, researchers, such as Housen (1994), noted the di‰culty of coding discourse grounding mainly due to two reasons that further research will continue to mention: first, the researcher’s subjectivity in coding for F and B; and second, the use of a priori formal and functional categories for data coding, which does not provide an analysis of the development of interlanguage, but rather a purely linguistic analysis (Box 1). The second period of research in discourse grounding in L2 is characterized by the establishment of the DH per se, mostly in studies by BardoviHarlig (1998, 1999, 2000) that reviewed a number of studies in the acquisition of temporality and posited that the AH and DH may conspire in the emergence and development of tense-aspect morphology. In terms of methodology and the definition of F and B in L2 data analysis, this period 9. The periods are chronological but focus on the methodological characteristics of L2 studies. The chronology of L2 studies does not necessarily match the chronology of linguistic and discourse studies that are often taken as the basis of L2 studies.

Coding Grounding

327

Box 1. Early period of study of the DH. Example: Housen (1994) Definition of F and B: e Based on Hopper (1979), Hopper and Thompson (1980), and Givo´n (1982). e F: primary narrative information, pushes forward the story line. e B: ‘‘elements that do not directly contribute to the speaker’s primary communicative goal but which merely comment, modify, or assist’’ (270). Methodology: e No specific coding methodology in the method section, but coding was done independently of verbal morphology.10 e The last section of the paper, titled ‘‘Methodological considerations’’, mentioned the di‰culty of assigning categories to learner’s production because of the researcher’s subjectivity. The author suggested asking the learner what he or she meant in retrospect, but this may be too dependent on the learner’s metalinguistic skills. The second di‰culty is using a priori categories to code data.

added newer studies that contributed to the definition of the two constructs, namely Reinhart (1984) and Dry (1992), which would be the basis for definition of F and B from then on (Box 2). Box 2. Establishment of the DH. Example: Bardovi-Harlig (2000) Definition of F and B: e Based on Hopper (1979), Dry (1981, 1983, 1992), Fleischman (1985), and Reinhart (1984). e F: from Reinhart (1984): narrativity, punctuality, and completeness. e B: multifunctional, supporting the F. Importance of tense-switching as a device to produce narratives with discourse ground. Methodology: e F: clauses that moved the narrative time forward. e Coding was done independently of tense-aspect morphology. e Direct speech was excluded, but the verbs that introduced it were coded as F if they were sequenced with other verbs. e Interrater coding for reliable analysis (with a second experienced coder).

10. A specific section on coding methodology was cut by the editors of Housen (1994) (Alex Housen, personal communication, 10 April 2010). In contrast with Housen (1994), Housen (1995) provided a detailed discussion of coding grounding (260–266) and limitations of the coding (234–235).

328

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

The third period is one of consolidation of the study of the DH, and is characterized by two factors: studies take Bardovi-Harlig (2000) as the basis for the definition of grounding and apply it to other learners and languages, and data coding becomes more sophisticated with the establishment of learner corpora (Rosi 2009) and the use of statistical analyses (Salaberry 2011). In this period, research more openly discusses methodological problems, such as the interpretation of data in coding F and B (e.g., Salaberry 2008; Rosi 2009; see next section) (Box 3). Box 3. Consolidation of the study of the DH. Example: Rosi (2009) Definition of F and B: e Based on Hopper (1979) and Dry (1992) with emphasis on syntax (main versus subordinate clauses). e Definition of the DH and F and B from Bardovi-Harlig (2000, 2002). Methodology: e Establishment of an annotated corpus of learner data. e Coding for specific features, among them discourse grounding (others that may be relevant to grounding were lexical aspect, grammatical aspect, syntax, target and nontarget like forms). e The following grounding features were coded and analyzed: F, B, predicates of completive clauses depending on the F main clause, predicates of completive clauses depending on the B main clause, predicates of incidental clauses, metanarrative predicates (outside the story) (e.g., ‘‘the scene begins with . . .’’), and syntactic roles of the clause (main versus subordinate). e The author acknowledged that coding the discourse functions of predicates can be subjective (e.g., examples with the verb vedere ‘to see’ and subordinate clauses, 74–75).

In sum, in the three periods of study of the DH, there has been an evolution from dependence on references from studies and theories of functional linguistics to an increasing discussion of how such theories apply to research in SLA. This is of course related to the development of SLA as a field itself and to the development of research programs led by specific research teams. With regard to the definition of F and B, there is still a reliance on early references (e.g., Hopper, Dry, and so on), but current research has advanced by critically reviewing previous works and refining some definitions as they apply to L2 studies. In addition, some important issues – such as subjectivity in coding – have emerged as central in regard

Coding Grounding

329

to the coding of the learner’s interlanguage. This issue is not specific to the DH, as it also a¤ects meaning-oriented studies. Two possible solutions can be adopted. First, learner data can be compared to native-speaker data (as in most current meaning-oriented studies), or they can be interpreted by the researcher and investigated on their own, with references to interlanguageinternal dynamics and mechanisms (without comparing them to nativespeaker data), following Andersen’s (1984) call for the autonomous analysis of interlanguage data. The two approaches are complementary even though they are often related to di¤erences in theoretical perspectives. Finally, studies in the acquisition of L2 tense and aspect (and the DH) have also advanced in their adoption of innovative methodologies to tackle some of the complex issues in analyzing L2 text production. For instance, Rosi (2009), Li and Shirai (2000), and Li and Zhao (2009) used computational models of aspect to examine whether such models resemble child and adult language acquisition; that is, whether the networks could learn the oft-cited associations found in learner data (e.g., telic predicates with perfective morphology in the F). The results are promising because they show that ‘‘simple but biologically plausible computational principles in self-organizing neural networks can account for empirically observed patterns in children’s acquisition of lexical aspect and grammatical morphology, without a priori stipulations about the structure of meaning or concept’’ (Li and Zhao 2009: 266). These studies have shown that the networks do learn the prototypical associations of verbal morphology, lexical aspect, and discourse grounding, even though the L1 has an important e¤ect (i.e., associations are stronger in networks trained with SpanishItalian data than in German-Italian) (Rosi 2009) (see also Chapter 3). A second type of innovative methodology is based on the use of eye tracking in the acquisition of L2 tense and aspect. For instance, Stutterheim, Carroll and Klein (2009) studied how learners attend to di¤erent types of events (as on-going or not on-going) while watching a videoclip and by the use of eye tracking data they found that there was a direct relationship between having grammaticalized means to express an endpoint in the speaker’s L1 and how the event was tracked (e.g., German speakers attended more to on-going events than English speakers because German does not grammaticalize ongoingness as overtly as English). Finally, a third type of innovation is the design of experimental studies to test the AH and the DH that allow for the use of data that can be analyzed statistically (Salaberry 2011).

330

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

4.3. Coding F and B in L2 data: problematic cases This section addresses some of the most common problems in coding L2 data for the investigation of how the F and B are marked (see Chapter 8 for a similar approach to the coding of lexical aspect). Tomlin (1985) provided a good summary of some of the most important issues when investigating F and B, and even though he referred to the correlation between subordination and discourse grounding specifically, his recommendations are applicable to research in the DH in general. He mentioned that four issues needed special attention (88). First, the definitions of F and B must be made explicit (without introspection) and be syntax-independent. This means that not all main clauses must be coded automatically as F and all subordinate clauses as F, since the relationship between grounding and subordination is strong, but not categorical (see below). Second, it is important to establish clear criteria for coding F and B and their possible correlation with other linguistic variables. More specifically, four types of relationships (and possible correlations) can be established: syntactic coding, pragmatic coding, afunctional correlation, and no association. Syntactic and pragmatic coding are relations between form and function. In the case of syntactic coding, according to Tomlin, there is a causal connection between form and function, because the occurrence of one syntactic device necessarily marks a semantic or pragmatic function independent of speaker and text type (e.g., -s marks plural; independent clauses correlate with F information). Pragmatic coding is also independent of speaker and text type, but the causal connection between form and function is not as strong. For instance, the use of and in English (e.g., John wrote a message and sent it) indicates sequentiality even though there is nothing inherent in the conjunction that indicates sequentiality. It may also be the case that there is some association between form and function (due to their frequent co-occurrrence), but it is statistically weak or nonsignificant. Finally, it may be be the case that there is no association at all. Third, studies should not be based on a few speakers who produce the same types of data, but rather on a considerable number of participants in order to avoid individual variation. It needs to be noted that Tomlin (1985) adopted a quantitative approach that certainly requires a considerable number of participants, but this does not mean that case studies or other types of qualitative research are deemed inappropriate.

Coding Grounding

331

Finally, researchers need to collect di¤erent types of data and test the e¤ect of discourse type in the use or nonuse of specific linguistic devices. For instance, to examine the relation between grounding and syntactic subordination, Tomlin (1985) used online descriptions of narratives that participants watched on a television, oral-delayed narratives of the cartoon they had watched, written-delayed narratives, and written-edited narratives (the participants watched the cartoon, were allowed to take notes and were allowed to edit their narratives in a period of four days). Tomlin (1985) described what could be considered the ‘‘ideal’’ type of coding, and it seems warranted that L2 studies should attempt to fulfill all four recommendations. However, some of them – especially the first one – may not always be possible, as discussed in the following section. The second and third recommendations will also depend on the theoretical perspective adopted by the researcher (somewhere on the quantitativequalitative continuum, see Chapter 11). Regarding the fourth recommendation, since use of verbal morphology as well as other linguistic devices is well known to depend on type of text, it is important to give it special attention (see Chapter 7). Taking Tomlin’s (1985) recommendations as a point of departure, four issues are discussed below regarding di‰culties in coding F and B in L2 data, namely morphology-independent coding, syntax-independent coding (subordination), coding in di¤erent types of texts, and interpretation of the learner’s intended meaning (for lexical aspect coding, see Chapters 8 and 11). Ideally, one would want to apply the definitions of F and B without being biased by morphology. This problem has been mentioned by several researchers (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Housen 1995), and in some respects it may well be impossible to solve in a completely satisfactory way, because both verb morphology and syntax contribute to the marking of F and B. In other words, F and B are discourse-pragmatic phenomena, not real-world phenomena, and they do not exist independently of their marking in language (including their morphosyntactic marking). Thus, one possible solution may be to carry out two codings, the first one just looking at the propositional content (verbs without morphology) of predicates, and a second one with morphology. In this case, one avoids the bias of morphology but not that of syntax, which is completely unavoidable. For instance, Comajoan (2001) carried out both types of coding. When the two types of coding are done, it is possible that di¤erences arise (e.g., one clause with propositional content without verbal morphology is coded as F, and the

332

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

same clause with verbal morphology is coded as B). In these cases, an additional coder may be necessary to reach consensus.11 Regarding syntax-independent coding and its relationship to the coding of F and B, temporal and relative subordinate clauses are the most problematic because they occur early and frequently in learner data and beg the following question: Can subordinate clauses produced by L2 learners be coded as F? Preposed temporal clauses with when, as argued by Ramsay (1987), have the characteristics of F even though they are subordinate clauses (see Dry 1983; Bardovi-Harlig 1995; Thompson 1987 for a discussion of grounding and subordination). Thus, one possible solution to the problem of coding when-clauses is to establish that preposed when-clauses are considered F only if they move the story forward, answer the question ‘‘What happened?’’ and are chronologically ordered. Preposed whenclauses that contain old information, that is, information that has already been mentioned or new information that does not move the story forward can be coded as B. On a few occasions, preposed when-clauses may move the story forward and contain new information. For instance, the material in line 13 in (4) can be coded as B because the information in the whenclause (s’asusta ‘gets scared’) is old (it had already been mentioned in line 4) and not chronologically ordered (examples from narrative retellings and conversations from Comajoan 2001). (4)

1. D: #ah# despre´s #ahm# #ahm# sı´ # la: la dona de la//þ del rei #ahm# sı´, passa #ahm# po//þ por el campo [¼sp] D: ah, then, ahm, ahm, yes, the woman of the king, ahm, yes, goes by the field 2. D: i viu #ah# e:l el drac D: and sees ah the dragon 3. L: #mhm# L: mhm 4. D: i #ahm# ella #m# s’asusta D: and ahm she gets scared 5. D: i #ahm# sierra [¼sp] D: and ahm closes

11. In cases where coding of grounding di¤ered in the clauses with verbal morphology and those without, Comajoan (2001) adopted the coding obtained from the clauses with verbal morphology (thus, favoring to some extent what the learner had intended to produce).

Coding Grounding

333

6. D: sierra [¼ct pronunciation] #ahm# las #ahm# orelles? [¼ct pronunciation] D: closes her ears? 7. L: ulls L: eyes 8. D: ullsþ/ D: eyes 9. L: orelles e´s aixo` [¼pointing at ears, laughing] L: these are ears 10. D: ah! d’acord D: oh, ok 11. D: # #ah# #ahm# quand #ahm# la prince`s #ahm# la dona o #ah# potser la princesa de la del rei D: ahm, when, the princess, ahm, the woman, or, maybe the princess of the king 12. L: #mhm# L: mhm 13. D: #ahm# s’asusta D: ahm gets scared 14. D: i potser grita D: and maybe yells The preposed when-clause in line 3 in (5) contains new information, but it does not move the story forward (rather it answers the question ‘‘Under what circumstances did something happen?’’), and therefore it can be coded as B. (5) 1. D: i la #m# el policia no e´s conscient D: and the policeman is not conscious 2. L: #mhm# L: mhm 3. D: i [¼sp] #ahm# levantar-se [¼ct] D: and but when he tries to stand up 4. D: #ahm# Charles Chaplin agafa #ahm# el #ahm# [¼sp] #ahm# D: Charles Chaplin takes the stick

334

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

5. L: em sembla que es diu la porra, em semblaþ/, o el pal L: I think it is called a ‘‘porra’’, I think, or the stick 6. D: þþla po//þ la p//þ la poda #ahm# del policia D: the policeman’s stick 7. D: i #ahm# # #ahm# tira la pola [¼sp] [¼laughing] del policia D: D: and hits the policeman’s head. In line 3 in (6), the when-clause moves the story forward and is chronologically ordered, and thus it can be coded as F. (6) 1. D: i despre´s #ahm# #ah# el policia #ah# no est://þ no esta` conscient D: and then the policeman is not conscious 2. L: #mhm# L: mhm 3. D: i i ca//þ can #ahm# va #ah# despertar-se [¼ct] D: and when he woke up, 4. D: #ahm# el Charlie Chaplin #ah# li va li va agafar el, la barra?þ/ de la policia 5. 6. 7. 8.

D: Charlie Chaplin took the stick from him L: þþ#mhm# L: mhm D: i #ahm# li va trucar el el cabell? D: and hit his hair L: el cap L: his head D: cap, el cap, el cap D: head, his head, his head

The same principle of chronological order can be used for complex and relative clauses, which can be coded as F if they are in chronological order with the previous material in the narrative. For instance, in the main clause in line 8 in (7), the action of ‘‘saying that he took the bread’’ is chronologically ordered, and thus it is considered F. However, the subordinate clause in line 9 in (7) is not chronologically ordered (it had been mentioned in line 2), and thus it is considered B.

Coding Grounding

(7) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

335

D: hi ha una dona D: there is a woman D: i a dona #ah# agafa #ahm# el pa en la pastiteria D: and the woman takes the bread in the bakery L: #mhm# L: mhm D: i ella #ahm# no paga D: and she does not pay L: #mhm# L: mhm D: i #ahm# el gerent #ahm# de #ahm# de la patisseria #ahm# grita D: and the manager of the bakery yells D: i i llama una policia D: and calls the police D: i # e´l [¼spanish e] diu que D: and he says that D: #ahm# la dona agafa la el pa s//þ sin pagar [¼sp] D: the woman takes the bread without paying

The relative clause in line 4 in (8) (‘people who saw. . .’) is not chronologically ordered and, consequently, it can be coded as B. (8) 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

D: i la policia//þ el el policia #ahm# #ahm# [¼sp] #ahm# ir [¼sp] #ahm# poner [¼sp] #ah# a l’hom #ahm# en la ca´rcel [¼sp] D: and the policeman tries to go and put the man in jail L: #mhm# L: mhm D: mais [¼fr pron] pero` hi ha altres persones #ahm# qui D: but there are other people who D: #ah# viuen que D: see that D: la la dona #ahm# ha sacat la #ahm# el pan D: the woman has taken the bread.

336

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

Coding F and B in narratives produced during retell tasks is relatively straightforward, because such narratives are usually easy to identify and there is minimal intervention from the interlocutor. However, in other types of data (e.g., conversational data), narratives are embedded in or mixed with other language material and interlocutors often interrupt. For instance, conversation data in Comajoan (2001) often started with a question, e.g., ‘‘What did you do for Christmas?’’ Should the answer to this question be counted as F or B? The following trend was observed in the data in Comajoan (2001). The beginnings of narratives (e.g., an answer to a question) usually began with an abstract (Labov 1972) that summarized the narrative. For example, the answer to the question about Christmas might be ‘‘I visited my family’’. Abstracts tended to have action words that summarized the most salient events of the narrative, which makes them similar to the F. By contrast, the ends or codas (Labov 1972) of the narratives tended to have evaluative comments, such as ‘‘It was fun’’, which are often related to B functions. In opposition to Bardovi-Harlig’s (1992b) practice of coding abstracts as B because they anticipate and summarize a following narrative, abstracts may be considered F although they do not technically move the story forward, and codas can be coded as B. For instance, in line 5 in (9) vaig anar ‘I went’ and anem menjar ‘we ate’ (line 10) were considered F, and havia muches regales ‘there were many gifts’ (line 25) was considered B. Coding the form vaig anar in line 5 in (9) as F may seem contrary to the definition of F as that part of the narrative that moves the story line forward, but it is often di‰cult to discern whether sentences like this one are abstracts (and outside the story line, and thus, B) or they are already part of the beginning of a narrative (beginning the story line, and thus F). In sum, the main recommendation is that the definition of F and B is well established and that counterexamples or exceptions be made explicit (Tomlin 1985) and, if necessary, be analyzed separately. (9)

1.

2.

L: molt be´ [¼name] et volia demanar #ahm# com que fa poc que va passar el Nadal et volia demanar: com va anar el Nadal? me´s o menys que` vas fer? et va arribar la meva postal? L: very good [¼name] I wanted to ask you, since Christmas just finished, I wanted to ask you: How did Christmas go? more or less, what did you do? did you receive my postcard? D: #ah# no, no todavı´a [¼sp] D: no, not yet

Coding Grounding

3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16.

L: no? L: no? D: no D: no D: per Nadal #ahm# #ah# he, sı´, sı´ vaig anar a #ahm# la la casa a la meva casa D: For Christmas yes yes I went home L: #mhm# L: mhm D: amb [¼or #ahm#] la meva mare i el #ahm# avui i unes #ah# a//þ a`viesþ/ no unes #ahm# ties tambe´ D: with my mother, grandfather and grandmothers, no, I mean aunts also L: þþ#mhm# L: mhm L: #mhm# L: mhm D: i # i con [¼hard to understand] sı´, anem # co//þ sı´, anem menjar? D: and yes and we ate? L: #mhm# L: mhm D: #ahm# el pernil dolc¸, the honey baked ham [¼en] D: honey baked ham L: [¼laughing] e´s bo, no? L: it is good, right? D: una vegada me´s, sı´, i les patatesþ/ #ahm# com se diu #ahm# amb miel [¼sp] D: once more, yes, and the potatoes with how do you say honey? L: þþ#mhm# L: mhm L: amb mel L: ‘‘amb mel’’

337

338

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

D: amb amb mel D: with honey L: wow, e´s bo, no? L: wow, it is good, right? D: sweet sweet potatoes D: sweet potatoes L: #mhm# L: mhm D: i #ahm# unes caserolesþ/ i com se diu #ah# shrimp? D: and casseroles with how do you say shrimp? L: þþ#mhm# shrimp e´s gambes, ah! jo tambe´ L: shrimp is ‘‘gambes’’, yeah me too D: gambes gambes pequen˜as [¼sp] D: shrimp, small shrimp L: #mhm# L: mhm D: i i despre´s #ahm# havia #m# muches [¼ct] regalesþ/ que abrir D: and then there were many presents to open.

When there is a narrative within a narrative, the two narratives can be coded separately. For instance, in Comajoan (2001) one learner told in a conversation that he went to the recording of a talk show and there was a woman who told a joke. In this conversation, the joke becomes a narrative within the narrative, and it was coded independently for grounding. After telling the joke, the learner continued to narrate what happened at the recording, and the coding of the macronarrative continued after the embedded mininarrative. A final matter that deserves special attention regarding the coding of F and B is the interpretation of the learner’s intended meaning as opposed to the researcher’s inferred meaning (see also Chapters 8 and 11). As argued by Housen (1995), it is practically impossible to discern exactly what a learner may have meant when producing a narrative (or any other type of uncontrolled task) and code it accordingly for grounding. In other words, how does the researcher know that the learner considered an event as part of the skeleton or main story line of a narrative (F) or,

Coding Grounding

339

otherwise, it was considered part of what amplifies, describes, or explains the main story line (B). Dealing with such a problem is not straightforward as it is not possible to find out what learners have meant to convey as they produce narratives or other types of text spontaneously. It is possible that the researcher will listen to the interaction after the recording of data and interpret a posteriori what the learner intended to say. In this sense, it may be argued that the researcher-interviewer is not truly communicating, but rather the researcher elicits data for the sake of the study and the learner produces language for the sake of practicing the language and following instructions. Thus, as argued by Schumann (1984: 58), ‘‘the communication is between the recording/transcription and the researcher, not between the interviewer and the subject’’. One way to deal with the problem of the learner’s intended meaning is to use rich interpretation (Housen 1995); that is, resort to the multiple sources of information about the learner and the text being produced to interpret the intended meaning (e.g., use contextual knowledge, performance of similar learners doing the same task, topic of narrative or conversation, and so on). However, no matter how rich the interpretation is, the coding of grounding in particular is likely to be subjective, as evidenced by the fact that agreement between one coder and four more in Housen (1995) was in 84% of the cases for tense meaning, in 76% of cases for lexical aspect, and in 63% of cases for grounding. An alternative method to eschew the problem of interpretation of learner data is to compare two types of coding, one based on operational tests (often based on the prototypical meaning of verbal predicates) and the other based on the learner’s intended meaning. Ahmadi (2010) compared the two types of coding for lexical aspect and found that the number of verb morphology tokens distributed in the four lexical aspect categories di¤ered in the two types of coding (e.g., decrease of states and accomplishments and increase of activities and achievements in the coding based on prototypical meaning of verbal predicates), although no statistical di¤erences were found between the two types of coding. Applying a similar methodology to coding of grounding may prove even more di‰cult than applying to lexical aspect, because there are well established tests for lexical aspect and the prototypical meaning of verbs can often be established reliably (but see Chapters 8 and 11), whereas tests for grounding are not well established and prototypicality cannot be applied to coding for grounding because in principle it is completely the speaker’s choice to construct an event as F or B (i.e., it is relatively easy to establish the prototypical lexicoaspectual meaning of a predicate like ‘close

340

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

the door’, but it is practically impossible to reconstruct whether ‘close the door’ is F or B from a prototypical perspective). In sum, coding for grounding is particularly thorny because it a¤ects coding for a construct that goes beyond the sentence level and thus it incorporates many of the intervening linguistic and nonlinguistic variables in discourse (e.g., subordination and speakers’ intentions). This problem notwithstanding, research in the study of grounding and L2 learning continues to develop and find new methods to circumvent some of the problems. The final section of this chapter reviews some of the questions that researchers carrying out studies that incorporate coding of F and B need to consider in order to minimize the e¤ect of coding procedures in their studies.

5. Conclusion The study of the concepts of F and B has gone a long way from the early straightforward application of functional linguistics to current discussions of the definition and coding of F and B. Researchers interested in embarking upon research in the DH or studies related to (narrative) discourse grounding are encouraged to consider the following questions to guide their research, some of which are similar to any kind of SLA study and some of which are specific to research related to the study of F and B and become particularly relevant when investigating the DH. Regarding the theoretical approach to be adopted, a set of questions needs to be considered: What is the objective and the general research question under investigation? Which analytic framework or approach is the most appropriate for pursuing this objective? Is the overall aim to investigate how the learners’ use and acquisition of verbal morphology may be influenced by discourse grounding (form-oriented approach) or, rather, how learners build and structure (narrative) discourse (using a variety of pragmatic, lexical and morphosyntactic devices)? The role of the learner’s L1 also plays an important part in choosing what framework is more appropriate to explain the learner’s interlanguage. Thus, whereas current studies in the meaning-oriented approach (e.g., in studies by Carroll and von Stutterheim) give a prominent role to the L1 and attempt to describe and explain how the learner’s interlanguage functions and develops, other studies (e.g., those investigating the AH and DH) do not focus on the L1 as much.

Coding Grounding

341

Regarding methodology, three main questions need to be addressed. First, what kind of L2 tasks will be used to study the development of interlanguage and its relation to grounding? Normally the type of task chosen to investigate any issue in SLA must be in accordance with the research objectives and research questions, but in the case of the DH this is particularly important since it has been found that narratives elicited in di¤erent types of tasks may display di¤erences in the development of L2 tense-aspect morphology (see Chapter 7). Second, what variables will be considered in the analysis of data? As mentioned previously, early research tended to focus on the e¤ect of one variable on the acquisition of temporality (e.g., lexical aspect, discourse grounding), but current studies tend to examine how several variables interact. Thus, it may be useful to design a database that includes coding of several variables in order to examine their possible interaction.12 One main issue related to the design of the database is to consider how the researcher will code the problematic cases of data, such as those described in the previous section of this chapter. Thus, it is important to acknowledge that a certain degree of subjectivity is part of the analysis of discourse and that some possible ways to deal with such subjectivity is to operationalize definitions (of F and B), acknowledge the problematic cases, discuss how they have been handled in previous research, and specify clearly how some cases were not included in the analysis or coded di¤erently (using tags such as ‘‘ambiguous’’). Third, is a native-speaker benchmark needed? The answer to this question is complex, since it may seem obvious that any welldesigned study in SLA should include a control group that allows for a comparison of learners and native speakers. If the study focuses on how one language may predetermine how texts are produced (e.g., in studies by Carroll and von Stutterheim), it is compulsory to include native speaker data. However, if the study focuses on the development of the learner’s interlanguage, a native speaker comparison baseline may not be required, especially when the study focuses on the early stages of acquisition. In these cases, data from di¤erent groups of learners with di¤erent L1s or data from the same learners performing the narrative task in their L1 may be more appropriate than having a native speaker control group. Finding appropriate answers to the previous questions will contribute to the advancement of research in discourse grounding in SLA – be it 12. Rosi (2009) may be a good example of a database that allows the researcher to study how di¤erent variables interact in the acquisition of L2 tense-aspect morphology.

342

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

within the DH or other research frameworks – and set a research agenda for further studies. More specifically, future studies could focus on the following three issues. First, they should provide clear presentations of the methodological points discussed in the current chapter so that other researchers can replicate results and refine the hypotheses and results. For instance, taking into account the importance of di¤erences in results according to di¤erent types of text, as discussed in this chapter and Bardovi-Harlig (see Chapter 7), future studies should investigate the e¤ect of text types in spontaneous conversations as well as experimental settings and refine the DH. Second, further studies should study the interaction of the marking of F and B with other variables that typically interact with grounding, such as lexical aspect and morphological aspect. As mentioned in the current chapter, previous and current studies have been studying the interaction, but there is not yet a body of research that has provided for an explanation of the interaction within one theoretical framework. Andersen and Shirai (1994) and Bardovi-Harlig (1998, 2000) pioneered the study of the interaction of grounding and aspect, and works such as Rosi (2009), Salaberry (2011) and Vraciu (2012) have continued it within the framework of the AH and DH, but as of today we do not yet have a comprehensive explanatory theory of how the hypotheses interact or may be subsumed one within the other. A final issue, which is related to the previous one, has to do with the explanatory power of the hypotheses that are related to the marking of F and B in SLA. Calls for a search for the explanatory power of the DH are not new (cf. Andersen 2002), and further research should tackle the always di‰cult mission of crossing research boundaries and doing interdisciplinary work within di¤erent theoretical frameworks in order to reach an answer to the question regarding explanation of the DH (and AH) (see also Chapter 12). In this view, a future research agenda should be able to bring together several frameworks and methodologies to focus on the explanation of how L2 learners express temporality. Finally, although it may not be fashionable anymore to refer to pedagogical applications of research, as anyone who has taught in an L2 classroom knows, teaching features related to tense and aspect (e.g., how to use the di¤erent past tenses in narratives and conversations) occupies a considerable amount of time and takes remarkable e¤ort from the students. Thus, it would be expected that after years of study of the expression of L2 temporality and improvements in the design of studies, researchers would be in a position to exchange with practitioners their perspective on

Coding Grounding

343

the teaching of tense and aspect features and how they relate to the production and understanding of narratives (see also Chapter 12). No doubt this would highly contribute to a better understanding of how classroom learners develop in their interlanguage and to the development of SLA research in general.

References Adam, Jean-Michel 1994 Le texte narratif. Paris: Nathan. Adam, Jean-Michel 1997 Les textes: Types et prototypes. Paris: Nathan. Adam, Jean-Michel & Clara-Ubaldina Lorda 1999 Lingu¨´ıstica de los textos narrativos. Barcelona, Spain: Ariel. Ahmadi, Newsha 2010 Instructed second language learning of English tense and aspect by Persian speakers. Saarbru¨cken: Lambert Academic Publishing. Andersen, Roger 1993 Four operating principles and input distribution as explanations for underdeveloped and mature morphological systems. In K. Hyltenstam & A. Viborg (Eds.), Progression and regression in language, 309–339. New York: Cambridge University Press. Andersen, Roger 2002 The dimensions of pastness. In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology, 79–106. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Andersen, Roger & Yasuhiro Shirai 1994 Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16. 135–156. Ayoun, Dalila & M. Rafael Salaberry 2005 Tense and aspect in Romance languages: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1992 The telling of a tale: Discourse structure and tense use in learner’s narratives. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Monograph (Vol. 3., 144–161). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1994 Anecdote or evidence? Evaluating support for hypotheses concerning the development of tense and aspect. In S. Gass, A. Cohen & E. Tarone (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition, 41–60. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

344

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1995 A narrative perspective on the development of the tense/aspect system in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17. 263–291. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1998 Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 471–508. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1999a Examining the role of text type in L2 tense-aspect research: Broadening our horizons. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Representation and process: Proceedings of the 3rd Pacific Second Language Research Forum (Vol. 1), 129–138. Tokyo: The Pacific Second Language Research Forum. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1999b From morpheme studies to temporal semantics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21. 341–382. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 2000 Telling of the tale. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1(45). 456–560. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 2000 Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 2002 Analyzing aspect. In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Tenseaspect morphology in L2 acquisition, 129–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Binnick, Robert 1991 Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. New York: Oxford University Press. Bronckart, Jean-Paul & Be´atrice Bourdin 1993 L’acquisition des valeurs des temps des verbes. Langue Franc¸aise 93. 102–124. Carroll, Mary & Monique Lambert 2006 Reorganizing principles of information structure in advanced L2s: A study of French and German learners of English. In H. Byrnes, H. Weger-Guntharp & K. Sprang (Eds.), Educating for advanced foreign language capacities, 54–73. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Carroll, Mary, Jorge Murcia-Serra, Marzena Watorek & Alessandra Bendiscioli 2000 The relevance of information organisation to second language acquisition studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22. 441–466.

Coding Grounding

345

Carroll, Mary & Christiane von Stutterheim 2003 Typology and information organisation: perspective taking and language-specific e¤ects in the construal of events. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 365– 402. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Clachar, Arlene 2005 Creole English speakers’ treatment of tense-aspect morphology in English interlanguage written discourse. Language Learning 55. 275–334. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ 2001 The acquisition of Catalan L2 past morphology: Evidence for the aspect and discourse hypotheses. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ 2005 The acquisition of perfective and imperfective morphology and the marking of discourse grounding in Catalan. In D. Ayoun & M. R. Salaberry (Eds.), Tense and aspect in Romance languages, 35–78. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ & Manuel Pe´rez Saldanya 2005 Grammaticalization and language acquisition: Interaction of lexical aspect and discourse. In D. Eddington (Ed), Selected proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages, 44–55. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth 1987 Temporal relations and reference time in narrative discourse. In A. Schopf (Ed.), Essays on tensing (Vol. 1), 7–25. Tu¨bingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer. De Fina, Anna & Alexandra Geargapoulou 2012 Analyzing narrative. Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press. Depraetere, Ilse 1996 Foregrounding in English relative clauses. Linguistics 34. 699– 731. Dietrich, Rainer, Wolfgang Klein & Colette Noyau 1995 The acquisition of temporality in a second language. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Dry, Helen 1981 Sentence aspect and the movement of narrative time. Text 1. 233–240. Dry, Helen 1983 The movement of narrative time. Journal of Literary Semantics 12. 19–53.

346

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

Dry, Helen 1992

Foregrounding: An assessment. In S. J. Hwang & W. R. Merrifield (Eds.), Language in context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, 435–450. Arlington, TX: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Flashner, Vanessa 1989 Transfer of aspect in the English oral narratives of native Russian speakers. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production, 71–97. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Fleischman, Suzanne 1985 Discourse functions of tense-aspect oppositions in narrative: Toward a theory of grounding. Linguistics 23. 851–882. Fleischman, Suzanne 1990 Tense and narrativity: From medieval performance to modern fiction. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra & Dionysis Goutsos 1997 Discourse analysis: An introduction. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Edinburgh University Press. Givo´n, Tomas 1984 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction (Vol. 1). Philadelphia: Benjamins. Givo´n, Tomas 1987 Beyond foreground and background. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 175–188. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Gu¨ell, Lourdes 1998 La adquisicio´n del tiempo verbal en el aprendizaje del espan˜ol como lengua extranjera. Barcelona, Spain, Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona, Ph.D. dissertation. Hendriks, Henriette 2005 The structure of learner varieties. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hopper, Paul 1979 Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givo´n (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax, 213–241. New York: Academic Press. Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson 1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. Housen, Alex 1994 Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: The Dutch interlanguage of a native speaker of English. In C. Vet & C. Vetters (Eds.), Tense and aspect in discourse, 257–291. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Housen, Alex 1995 It’s about time. The acquisition of temporality in English as a second language in a multilingual educational context. Brussels, Belgium: University of Brussels, Ph.D. dissertation.

Coding Grounding Housen, Alex 1997

Housen, Alex 1998

347

Inherent semantics versus discourse-pragmatics in the L2-development of tense-aspect. In L. Dı´az & C. Pe´rez (Eds.), Views on the acquisition and use of a second language, EUROSLA’7 Proceedings, 299–312. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Facteurs semantico-conceptuels et discursivo-fonctionnels dans le developpement des syste`mes temporo-aspectuels: Aperc¸u de l’acquisition de l’anglais comme langue etrange`re. In S. Vogeleer, A. Borillo, C. Vetters & M. Vuillaume (Eds.), Temps et discours, 257–279. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters. Howard, Michael 2004 On the interactional e¤ect of linguistic factors in interlanguage variation. The case of past time marking. International Review of Applied Linguistics 42. 319–334. Jones, Larry & Linda Jones 1979 Multiple levels of information in discourse. In L. Jones (Ed.), Discourse studies in Mesoamerican languages, Vol. 1, 3–27. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Khalil, Esam N. 2000 Grounding in English and Arabic news discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Khalil, Esam N. 2001 Grounding and its signalling: Evidence from short news texts. Discourse Studies 3. 97. Klein, Wolgang 2009 How time is encoded. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time, 39–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kumpf, Lorraine 1984 Temporal systems and universality in interlanguage: A case study. In F. Eckman, L. Bell & D. Nelson (Eds.), Universals of second language acquisition, 132–143. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Labov, William 1972 Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky 1967 Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts, 12–44. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. La¤ord, Barbara 1996 The development of tense/aspect relations in L2 Spanish narratives: Evidence to test competing hypotheses. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Second Language Research Forum, Arizona State University, Tempe.

348

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

Langacker, Ronald 2007 Cognitive grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 421–462. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Li, Ping & Yasuhiro Shirai 2000 The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Li, Ping & Xiaowei Zhao 2009 Computational modeling of the expression of time. In W. Klein and P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time, 241–272. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Liskin-Gasparro, Judy 1996 Narrative strategies: A case study of developing storytelling skills by a learner of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal 80. 271–286. Lo´pez-Ortega, Nuria 2000 Tense, aspect, and narrative structure in Spanish as a second language. Hispania 83. 488–502. MacWhinney, Brian 1995 The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Montrul, Silvina 2004 The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Montrul, Silvina & M. Rafael Salaberry 2003 The development of tense/aspect morphology in Spanish as a second language. In B. La¤ord & M. R. Salaberry (Eds.), Spanish second language acquisition, 47–73. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Perdue, Clive 1993 Adult language acquisition: cross-linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Polanyi, Livia 1989 Telling the American story: A structural and cultural analysis of conversational storytelling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ramsay, Violeta 1987 The functional distribution of preposed and postposed ‘‘if ’’ and ‘‘when’’ clauses in written discourse. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 383–408. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Reinhart, Tanya 1984 Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts. Linguistics 22. 779–809.

Coding Grounding Rosi, Fabiana 2009

349

Learning aspect in Italian L2: Corpus annotation, acquisitional patterns, and connectionist modelling. Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2008 Marking past tense in second language acquisition. London: Continuum Press. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2011 Assessing the e¤ect of lexical aspect and grounding on the acquisition of L2 Spanish past tense morphology among L1 English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(2). 184–202. Salaberry, M. Rafael & Yasuhiro Shirai 2002 The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schmid, Hans-Jo¨rg 2007 Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 117–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Silva-Corvala´n, Carmen 1983 Tense and aspect in oral Spanish narrative: Context and meaning. Language 59. 760–780. Talmy, Leonard 1978 Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences. In Joseph H. et al. Greenberg (Eds.), Syntax, 625–649. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Thompson, Sandra 1987 Subordination and narrative event structure. In. R. S. Tomlin (Ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse, 435–454. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Tomlin, Russell S. 1985 Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination. Text 5. 85–122. Verhagen, Arie 2007 Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 48–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press. von Stutterheim, Christiane, Mary Carroll & Wolfgang Klein 2009 New perspectives in analyzing aspectual distinctions across languages. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time, 195–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. von Stutterheim, Christiane & Wolfgang Klein 1987 A concept-oriented approach to second language studies. In C. W. Pfa¤ (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes, 191–205. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. von Stutterheim, Christiane & Monique Lambert 2005 Cross-linguistic analyses of temporal perspectives in text production. In H. Hendriks (Ed.), The structure of learner varieties, 203–262. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

350

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

Vraciu, Eleonora Alexandra 2012 Verbal morphology in advanced varieties of English L2: Aspect or Discourse Hypothesis? In M. Watorek, S. Benazzo & M. Hickmann (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on language acquisition. A tribute to Clive Perdue, 153–169. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Watorek, Marzena, Sandra Benazzo & Maya Hickmann 2012 Comparative perspectives on language acquisition. A tribute to Clive Perdue. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Coding Grounding

351

Appendix 1. Sample narrative between Barbara (B, English L1, Catalan L2) and the researcher (L). For transcription codes, see Appendix 2. Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Catalan

English translation

B: [¼laughing] #ahm# quan tenia # quants anys? B: tenia com dot//þ dotze?, no, deu, deu anys L: #mhm# B: #ahm# era era me´s reservada i me´s tı´mida L: #mhm# B: i mai parlava en la en la classe B: i per aixo` el #ahm# el mestre va va escriure en el report card? [¼en] L: #ah# a la, al butlletı´ de notes, es diu B: butlletı´þ/ L: þþbutlletı´ de notes B: butlletı´ de notes que no parlava bastant B: i que havia de de fer me´s preguntes en la classe B: i #ah# per aixo` # el els meus pares van llegir aixo` B: iþ/ van explicar-me que B: havia de parlar me´s i fer me´s preguntes, L: þþ#mhm# B: que quan tenia una pregunta B: havia de de dirþ/ al:/þ alguna cosa L: þþ#aha# B: i per aixo` el # el dia el dia proper? L: el seg//þ el proper o el segu¨ent dia B: el segu¨ent dia #ahm# vam parlar d’un #ah# viatge, un #ahm# [¼en] L: un viat//þ #ah# una excursio´ B: un excursio´ i, no se´, B: tenia una pregunta B: i vaig fer [¼laughing]þ/ B: vaig fer-la i, B: no se´, B: crec que B: era una una pregun//þ pregunta una mica estu´pida [¼laughing] L: þþ[¼laughing] L: [¼laughing] pero` quina pregunta era? no te’n recordes? B: noooþ/ #ahm# pot ser que:þ/ he de: L: þþah! L: þþon anem? B: [¼laughing] L: [¼laughing] B: ja havia #ahm# parlatþ/ d’aquesta cosaþ/ B: i que no va entendre molt be´ B: i #ah# vaig #ahm# #ah# vaig fer una preguntaþ/ sobre aquesta cosaþ/ B: que #ah# ja havia explicatþ/ el mestre B: i vaig preguntar i, B: no se´, [¼laughing]þ/ B: el mestre va #ah# respondre d’una mena molt sarca`stica

B: when I was, how old? B: I was twelve, no, ten, ten years old L: mhm B: I was was more reserved and more shy L: mhm B: I never talked in class B: and for this reason the teacher wrote in my report card? L: report card, that’s how you say it B: report card L: report card B: report card, that I did not talk enough B: and that I had to ask more questions in class B: and for this reason my parents read this B: and they explained to me that B: I had to talk more and ask more questions L: mhm B: that when I had a question B: I had to say something L: mhm B: and for this reason on the next day? L: next day or following day B: the next day we talked about a trip, a school trip L: a school trip B: a trip, and, I don’t know B: I had a question B: and I asked it B: I asked it B: I don’t know B: I think that B: it was a question, a little bit stupid L: [laughing] L: [laughing] but what was the question? don’t you remember? B: no! #ahm# maybe L: oh L: where are we going? B: [laughing] L: [laughing] B: he had already talked about this thing B: and I did not understand very well B: and I asked the question about this B: that the teacher had already explained B: and I asked and B: I don’t know B: the teacher replied in a very sarcastic manner.

352

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

Appendix 2.

Transcription codes

Most of the transcription codes were adapted from the CHAT transcription in CHILDES (MacWhinney 1995). Each participant is identified by a name (pseudonym) followed by a colon. The researchers is identified by L:. #ahm# and #ah# are hesitation marks. Square brackets with an equal sign [¼] provide information about the immediately previous sentence. When the information refers to more than the previous word, the a¤ected words are inside < >. The information can be about pronunciation, language (en: English, fr: French, sp: Spanish, ct: Catalan), emotion, and so on. In the following example, the information within brackets indicates that the word ‘‘fitness’’ was used in English. D: e´s un fana`tic de fitness [¼en] D: he is a fitness fanatic Long utterances are indicated by :, and the sign @ indicates laughter. The signs //þ indicate that the word is unfinished and will be reformulated. For instance: D: pero` pero` el el el hom//þ el home deia D: but but the the the ma the man said The signs þ/ indicate interruption by the listener. þþindicates the listener’s intervention. Thus, material marked with þ/ and þþ overlaps. D: els acudits #ahm# tenen que ser limpias [¼sp]þ/ D: the jokes had to be clean D: pero` no: no era muy [¼sp] D: but no, they were very L: þþah net! L: oh! clean! L: þþno ho eren? [¼laughing] L: they weren’t?

Coding Grounding

353

Appendix 3. Studies that investigate the emergence and development of verbal morphology in the foreground and background (Discourse Hypothesis). Study

Definition of foreground (F) and background (B) and coding methodology

Kumpf (1984)

e F: clauses that push the event line forward; B: clauses

that do not

e Analysis of grounding in conversations and narra-

tives: in conversations, tense-aspect morphology is less structured than in narratives. e It examines how discourse structure (conversation versus narrative; foreground versus background) is related to aspect, verb types (e.g., transitive versus intransitive), verb forms, clause types, and time reference. Flashner (1989)

e Application of discourse analysis to interlanguage

data

e Analysis: clauses are coded according to the semantic

function within the text (foreground, background, and subdivisions). Bardovi-Harlig (1992)

e Little information on how F and B were coded. e Learners put to use the linguistic resources they have

to produce narratives: low-level learners mark the story line. Housen (1994)

e Extraction of narrative episodes from conversations

and coded for F and B

e F: It provides primary narrative data and carries the

action forward; B: all other narrative clauses

e Attempts to code independently of grammatical form

to avoid circularity.

e Methodological concerns: (a) researcher’s subjectivity

in coding F and B, and (b) use of a priori formal and functional categories

354

Llorenc¸ Comajoan

Bardovi-Harlig (1995)

e Specific research questions related to F and B and

e e e e

e

Liskin-Gasparro (1996)

coding of morphology regarding emergence of morphology, presence of verbal forms in F and B, and development of interlanguage Definition of F: Reinhart (1984): narrativity, punctuality, and completeness; Dry (1983): newness Coding of F: Sequencing: move the narrative time forward Coding of grounding independent of verbal morphology Quoted speech was not counted as F, but the verb that introduces quoted speech was counted as F if sequenced. Interater coding

e Microanalysis of narratives: storyword (narrative)

versus nonstoryworld (evaluative)

e Di‰culties in coding: researcher’s interpretation of

what is evaluative and what is not La¤ord (1996)

e Little reference to how coding was done

Housen (1997)

e F: situations in sequence and push the narrative plot

forward, answer ‘‘What happened?’’, B: remaining situations e Reference to more rigorous procedures to code F and B independent of morphology and to subjectivity of coding Housen (1998)

e Similar to Housen (1997)

Bardovi-Harlig (1998)

e Main reference for the establishment of the AH and

DH

e Methodology: same as Bardovi-Harlig (1995)

Gu¨ell (1998)

e No definition of F and B per se. Reference to Pollak

(1960): base, framework, introduction and nucleus. Nucleus is F, the rest is B. e Coding of F and B made a priori by researcher and what native speakers do. Bardovi-Harlig (1999b)

e Proficiency is an important variable in the study of

how learners build texts.

e Reference to ‘‘studies of narrative’’ rather than

discourse Lo´pez-Ortega (2000)

e Definition of F and B according to Hopper and

Reinhart.

e No reference to how the data were coded.

Coding Grounding Bardovi-Harlig (2000)

355

e It reviews syntactic and semantic criteria to define F

and B and adopts a semantic approach arguing that it is more apt for L2 data for early learners. e The F has a single function, whereas the B has several ones. Howard (2004)

e Narrative discourse: sequentiality, quaestio model e Di‰culties in coding: dependent and independent

relative clauses; advancing time clauses in subordinate clauses were coded as B. Comajoan (2005)

e F: It moves the story forward, answers the question

‘‘What happened?’’ and is chronologically ordered. Easiest to verify: chronological order e Issues in coding: priority of chronological order and influence of verbal morphology and syntax: relative clauses and when-clauses. Clachar (2005)

e DH: ‘‘Narrative discourse hypothesis’’ e F and B: Dry (1983): F: ‘‘What happened next?’’ e No clear criteria on coding F and B

Salaberry (2008)

e Three main strands of discourse-based approaches:

grounding, text structure, and sentence sequencing

e Coding: di‰culties and issues of interpretation

of data Rosi (2009)

e F: new information, not given, push the story

forward and ordered. B: descriptive functions

e It examines subjectivity of coding

Salaberry (2011)

e F: chronological order, punctuality, and completeness e Use of 3 additional raters for reliability of analysis e ‘‘Tests of narrative grounding’’: sequentiality

Chapter 10 Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches Robert Bayley 1. Introduction The quantitative analysis of the acquisition of tense and aspect in a second language (L2) presents a number of challenges, particularly when examining natural speech of the type discussed by Bardovi-Harlig (Chapter 7). The di‰culty arises for several reasons. First, although we have a great deal of evidence that shows that aspectual class influences the extent to which L2 learners mark tense, aspect is not the only influence involved (Chapter 11; Bardovi-Harlig 1998, 2000; Bayley 1994; Wul¤ et al. 2009). That is, like other interlanguage features, tense and aspect are subject to what Young and Bayley refer to as ‘‘the principle of multiple causes’’, which states that ‘‘it is unlikely that any single contextual factor can explain the variability in the [interlanguage] data’’ (1996: 253). Several studies have shown, for example, that saliency, operationalized as the extent of the di¤erence between the present or base form of the verb and the past tense form, significantly a¤ects the degree to which learners make tense (e.g., Bayley 1994; Hakuta 1976; Wolfram 1985). In addition, in the case of English regular verbs, the past tense marker may be absent as a result of a phonological process, -t, -d deletion, that exists in all dialects that have been studied to date (Bayley 1996; Wolfram 1985). As well, Goad, White, and Steele (2003) have argued that cases of missing inflections may be the result of prosodic transfer from the L1. In other cases, the position of the aspectual marker in the sentence can have a significant e¤ect, as in the case of the Chinese perfective aspect marker -le (Jia and Bayley 2008). In addition, recent research suggests that frequency and prototypicality also drive acquisition (Langman and Bayley 2002; Wul¤ et al. 2009). Social factors also a¤ect an L2 speaker’s use of bare or inflected forms. Bayley (1994), for example, found that Chinese L1 learners of English were more likely to mark verbs for past tense when they were conversing with another Chinese learner than when they were conversing with a native speaker of English.

358

Robert Bayley

Given the multiple factors that influence whether a learner marks a verb for tense, it is clear that either we must control for a large number of potential influences or employ a form of multivariate analysis that allows us to examine the e¤ects of multiple independent variables simultaneously if we wish to analyze natural speech where forms are unevenly distributed among aspectual categories as well as among other relevant potentially influencing factors. The need to control for many potential influences or to use multivariate analysis results not only from the possible influences enumerated in the previous paragraph, but also from the distributional imbalance in the input that is one of the defining features of the Aspect Hypothesis. Prototypical forms, such as preterite punctual verbs in Spanish partirse (‘to break’) (e.g., se partio´), are far more common than non-prototypical forms such as imperfect punctual verbs (e.g., se partı´a) (Anderson 1991; Anderson and Shirai 1994). Hence, if we wish to analyze learner production and to follow the principle of accountability, i.e., to account for all of the possible forms in our data (Sanko¤ 1990: 296), conventional statistical procedures, which require the kind of balanced distributions characteristic of experimental data, are inadequate for our analysis. Rather, to analyze data produced in natural conversation, the analytical methods that have long been used in sociolinguistics may prove most useful. Varbrul (Rousseau and Sanko¤ 1978), a specialized application of logistic regression, has long been sociolinguists’ preferred program for the analysis of naturally occurring language data, and the current implementations, GoldVarb X and GoldVarb Lion (Sanko¤, Tagliamonte, and Smith 2012), are still widely used. Although Varbrul has a number of advantages, particularly ease of recoding and output that is relatively easy to understand, it does have limitations and other programs, including the logistic regression modules in most commercially available software programs such as SPSS, produce equivalent results and have the advantages of easier handling of interactions and being more familiar to many researchers in second language acquisition (Morrison 2005). In addition, a version of Varbrul, Rbrul, has recently been developed for R, the open source statistics package (Johnson 2009; Gorman and Johnson, 2013). Unlike GoldVarb, which is limited to nominal variables, Rbrul is able to handle continuous variables, such as age or time in the target language environment, variables that are obviously important for acquisition research. Rbrul also enables the researcher to model the individual speaker as a

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

359

random variable, an important consideration for second language research where it is not always clear that learners all follow the same path.1 In the following sections, I briefly consider a number of issues that arise prior to any statistical analysis of tense and aspect. These include coding and how verbs should be grouped into categories for further analysis. I then consider appropriate analysis for di¤erent kinds of data used to examine the acquisition of tense and aspect. Finally, I illustrate ways of analyzing natural language data with examples from studies of the acquisition of tense and aspect in a variety of languages.

2. Preparing for quantitative analysis Although we are concerned primarily with the appropriate means of quantitative analysis, a number of questions must be considered prior to any analysis. Here, I consider issues that arise in determining the meaning of learner utterances, the need for reliable coding of aspectual categories to allow comparisons to be made across studies, and what features need to be accounted for (or controlled) in addition to tense and aspect. 2.1. Coding For any analysis of natural language data, coding is among the most important and at times the most tedious of steps, particularly when large quantities of data are involved. In the case of L2 speech, additional complications may arise. For example, when we study fully proficient native speakers, we can assume that the surface meaning is the intended meaning. Thus, we are safe in assuming that a present tense form refers to the present. However, such an assumption can break down when we examine interlanguage production, particularly the speech of less proficient learners, as I found when conducting a study of interlanguage tense marking (Bayley 1991). In an interview with an intermediate speaker of English, I asked about the participant’s family. The speaker o¤ered a long account about his grandfather, a government o‰cial in China. All of the verbs in the account were unmarked for tense, that is, they appeared to be present 1. Goldvarb X and Goldvarb Lion may be downloaded from /individual. utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/goldvarb.htm. The most recent version of Rbrul and several helpful papers and exercises may be downloaded from www.danielezrajohnson.com/rbrul.html.

360

Robert Bayley

tense. I then asked: ‘‘How old is your grandfather?’’ The speaker responded: ‘‘Oh, he die in 1969’’. It was fortunate that I thought to ask about the grandfather’s age. Otherwise, the unmarked past tense forms would simply have been coded as present-tense forms, with 3rd person singular -s missing. Geeslin and Gudmestad (2010) provide a further example of the di‰culty in interpreting non-native speaker utterances. In Spanish, the verbs ser ‘‘to be’’ and estar ‘‘to be’’ both occur with adjectives and alternate depending on the intended meaning: (1) a. b.

Mario esta´ muy guapo. ‘Mario looks very handsome (today)’. Mario es muy guapo. ‘Mario is very handsome’.

In analyzing a fully proficient speaker we would have no di‰culty in interpreting the intended meaning. In the case of an L2 learner, however, clearly we need additional evidence to determine whether the learner has acquired the contrastive meaning of ser and estar.2 Of course, potential misunderstandings about the time of an event are much less likely to arise in the case of narratives that deal with the interviewee’s own experience, where events are necessarily in the past (see Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 11 for further discussion of interpreting what the speaker intends). Moreover, impersonal narratives where the speaker is asked to retell the story of a brief film or wordless picture book allow the researcher to interpret both the time of the events described and provide guidance as to the meaning of the verbs. Nevertheless, problems can still arise even when the time of the event is clear. For example, Sebastia´n and Slobin (1994) reported that the present was the dominant tense used in narratives of Mercer Mayer’s (1969) wordless picture book, Frog where

2. The issue is actually somewhat more complicated than acquiring an obligatory target language distinction. As shown by Silva-Corvala´n (1994) for U.S. Spanish and Geeslin and Guijarro-Fuentes (2008) for several contact varieties of Spanish, estar is expanding at the expense of ser in a number of di¤erent Spanish varieties. Hence, to interpret an L2 speaker’s use of the two copular verbs, we need to know the patterns that exist in the dialect to which the learner is exposed.

361

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

are you?, by Spanish 9 year-olds and adults.3 The past was the dominant tense only in the narratives produced by the Spanish 4 and 5 year-olds. However, a study of Frog narratives produced by Mexican American and Mexican immigrant children in Texas, Bayley (1999) found that the past was the dominant tense in the narratives produced by children from 6 to 12 years old, while the 4 and 5 year-olds were nearly evenly divided in their use of the past and mixed tenses. Table 1 compares the results from the two studies. Table 1. Dominant tense in Mexican-origin and Spanish narratives (Source: Bayley, 1999: 11; source of Spanish data: Sabastia´n and Slobin, 1994: 244) Speakers

Present

Past

Mixed

Mexican-origin 10–12 year-olds (n ¼ 27)

0

23

4

Mexican-origin 6–8 year-olds (n ¼ 11) Mexican-origin 4–5 year-olds (n ¼ 11)

0 0

9 6

2 5

10

2

0

Spanish 9 year-olds (n ¼ 12)

8

4

0

Spanish 5 year-olds (n ¼ 12)

3

7

2

Spanish 4 year-olds (n ¼ 12)

2

8

2

Spanish adults (n ¼ 12)

There are a number of plausible reasons for the di¤erences between the two studies, including di¤erences in elicitation technique (Bayley 1999) as well as the possible influence of English narrative style on the Mexican background children.4 That issue is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, as Berman and Slobin observe, although the past is the unmarked tense for telling a narrative in English, speakers ‘‘may choose to depart from this tense by adopting the more marked ‘narrative’ or historic use of present tense for the main thread of their narrations’’ (1994: 131). Given the variability in native speech, how can we know that a language learner did not intend to use the narrative present? That is, how do we know that what appears at first glance to be a missing past tense form is not an attempt by a learner to use a rhetorical device that is found in native speech? (Wolfson 1982). 3. Sebastia´n and Slobin used a criterion of 80% to determine the dominant or anchor tense of a narrative. 4. In a related study of English speakers in the same volume, Berman and Slobin (1994) found that the past was the dominant tense for 9 year-olds and half of the 5 year-olds, but not for the adults or 3 year-olds.

362

Robert Bayley

Two answers are possible. First, we might simply posit that we are examining learners’ use of their verbal morphology to express temporal states. Hence, if a certain number of verbs with past temporal reference are either unmarked or marked for present tense, we simply report that fact, presumably along with aspectual categories. However, as suggested in the latter part of this chapter, multivariate analysis provides a more satisfactory answer at the level of the individual speaker if not at the level of the individual token. If we code not only for temporal reference and aspectual class, but also for potential influences, such as the saliency of the di¤erence between the past and present tense forms, and in the case of English regular verbs, for the phonetic features of the following segment, we can determine whether speakers are indeed using the narrative present, as Bayley (1996) did in a study of past tense marking and consonant cluster reduction by Chinese learners of English. In that study, speakers marked more past reference verbs as past in elicited narratives than in relatively informal interviews. For example, speakers marked 53% of regular verbs in the elicited narratives, but only 35% in the conversational sections of the interview. Had the learners been using the narrative present, we would expect the opposite result. To summarize, although interlanguage production data are influenced by a wide range of factors and we cannot always be certain what a learner intended in any particular instance, an examination of overall patterns across a range of styles, produced in response to a range of tasks, can provide reasonable assurance about the speaker’s internal system. In L2 English, for example, the patterning of regular verbs that are subject to consonant cluster reduction (e.g., [mist] can be reduced to [mis] before a consonant), provide an especially useful diagnostic because the phonological processes involved are independent of temporal or aspectual categories. We turn now to issues involved in coding for aspect. 2.2. Coding for aspect Most studies of the Aspect Hypothesis have used Vendler’s (1967) categories and many, although certainly by no means all, have focused on the relationship between lexical aspect and past tense marking (e.g., Anderson 1991; Bardovi-Harlig 1994, 1998, 2000; Bardovi-Harlig and Reynolds 1995; Bayley 1999; Collins 2002; Salaberry 2000). Table 2 summarizes the features of Vendler’s categories, which are also illustrated in examples (2) to (7), taken from the Spanish data used in Bayley (1999). Note that the data come from working-class Mexican American children and do not always follow the prescriptive norms of Spanish grammar.

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

363

Table 2. Features of the four verb classes (Andersen 1991: 113) State

Activity

Accomplishment

Achievement

Punctual

–

–

–

þ

Telic

–

–

þ

þ

Dynamic

–

þ

þ

þ

As illustrated in Table 2, stative verbs extend over an indefinite period of time, have no clear end point, and do not require a continuing input of energy to continue, as in (2) and (3). (2) Un dı´a habı´a un nin˜o y un perrito y una rana. ‘One day there was a boy and a dog and a frog’. (3) y creı´a que estaba muerta. ‘and he believed that it was dead’. Activity verbs, like statives, are [–punctual] and [–telic]. However, they are [þdynamic]. That is to say, they describe an action that takes place over a period of time and that has no inherent endpoint as in (4): (4) y e´l estaba pescando. ‘and he was fishing’. Telic, or accomplishment, verbs are [–punctual] and [þdynamic]. They are also characterized by an inherent endpoint, as in (5): (5) se la llevo´ pa’ su casa. ‘he brought it [the turtle] home’. Finally, punctual, or achievement, verbs are [–durative] (or [þpunctual]), [þtelic], and [þdynamic]. They are distinguished from accomplishment verbs by the fact that the actions they describe have no perceptible duration, as in (6) and (7): (6) se cayo´ el nin˜o al agua. ‘the boy fell into the water’. (7) y luego la rana se desperto´. ‘and then the frog woke up’. According to Andersen (1991), in languages like Spanish that grammaticalize both the perfective and the imperfective, children acquiring an L1 and older learners acquiring an L2 will use perfective morphology first to

364

Robert Bayley

mark punctuals.5 Somewhat later, learners will use imperfect morphology to mark states. However, as Salaberry and Shirai (2002: 6) point out, researchers do not always agree on the relevant aspectual categories even for a single language, much less cross-linguistically. At the very least, then, it is necessary to clearly indicate the categories used and to provide su‰cient examples so that our studies may be compared within and across languages (see also Chapter 8). 2.3. Additional factors Table 3 illustrates some of the factors that have been hypothesized to influence the L2 acquisition of tense and aspect in a variety of languages. When we consider the extensive (and still incomplete) list of possible influences, all of which have been shown to have an e¤ect in one or more studies, we can begin to appreciate some of the di‰culties in modeling variation. Moreover, not only do we find a large number of possible influences, but also a number of possible influences may well interact. For example, in narrative, foreground clauses tend to be perfective and usually contain accomplishments or achievements, whereas background clauses tend to be imperfective and the verbs are most frequently stative or activity verbs. Other possible combinations of factors present additional di‰culties. For example, as noted earlier, accomplishments and achievements are prototypically perfective. Thus, in a study of past tense marking we would expect to find most perfectives to be either telic or punctual. In contrast, as we have seen, states and activities have the characteristics of ongoingness. Hence, we would expect most to be imperfective. Results from Tajika’s (1999) study of the acquisition of English past tense marking by intermediate-advanced Japanese women college students in Japan illustrate the problem.

5. In Spanish, the preterite is most frequently used to mark telic events, i.e., events that have an inherent endpoint, and punctual events, i.e., events that take no perceptible time. The imperfect is more often used to mark past states or activities that have no inherent end point. Many Spanish imperfect tense verbs may be translated into English using the progressive, e.g., estaba pescando, ‘he was fishing’. However, verbs of all lexical classes may occur with both the preterite and the imperfect tenses, even if non-prototypical examples are comparatively rare.

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

365

Table 3. Possible linguistic influences on L2 tense and aspect marking Possible linguistic influence

Target Language(s)

Studies

Lexical aspect

Spanish, English, French, Japanese

Andersen, 1991; Ayoun & Salaberry, 2008; Bardovi-Harlig, 1994, 1998, 2000; Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds, 1995; Bayley, 1999; Collins, 2002; Salaberry, 2005; Shirai & Kurono, 1998

Grammatical aspect

English

Bayley, 1991, 1994; Tajika, 1999

Foregrounding/ backgrounding

Catalan, English, Spanish

Bardovi-Harlig, 1998; Comajoan, 2005; Kumpf, 1984; Salaberry, 2011; Tajika, 1999

Saliency

English

Bayley, 1991, 1994; Collins et al., 2009; Hakuta, 1976; Wolfram, 1985

Frequency

English, Hungarian

Collins et al., 2009; Langman & Bayley, 2002

Position of aspectual particle in the sentence

Mandarin

Jia & Bayley, 2008

Transfer from L1 to L2 or L2 to L3

English, Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian

Bayley, 1991, 1994; Cai, 2010; Flashner, 1989; Salaberry, 2005

Discourse genre, task

English, Mandarin

Bayley, 1994; Jia & Bayley, 2008; Tajika, 1999

Presence of temporal adverbs

English

Teutsch-Dwyer, 1994

Optionality (i.e., whether a grammatical marker is optional or obligatory in the target language)

Mandarin

Jia & Bayley, 2008

Phonetic features of the preceding and following segments

English

Bayley, 1996; Wolfram, 1985

Semantic universals

Spanish

Slabakova & Montrul, 2003

Note: The listed studies are intended as examples only, not as a comprehensive list. Other studies have treated some of the same influences mentioned here and other influences have also been proposed.

Tajika (1999) used Varbrul to analyze her data. The independent variables examined included the foreground-background distinction, lexical aspect, and perfectivity-imperfectivity. Of these three independent variables, she reported that only grounding achieved statistical significance, with verbs

366

Robert Bayley

in foreground clauses more likely to be marked for past tense than verbs in background clauses. Overall the analysis appears sound, but there is a potential problem. Foreground clauses are more likely to be perfective and background clauses imperfective. Similarly, foreground clauses are more likely to contain achievement or accomplishment verbs, i.e., they are more likely to be ‘‘events’’, while background clauses are more likely to contain stative or activity verbs. That is, the three independent variables are likely to interact. Tajika did not give measures of goodness-of-fit in her tables, that is, she did not provide information about how well the statistical model fit the data, nor did she provide cross-tabs that would allow us to judge whether in fact there was interaction among these variables. It would be surprising, though, if there were no interactions. Clearly, then we need to consider a range of alternative analyses, and include or control for possible sources of interaction. As shown in Table 3, numerous other factors have been found to constrain L2 learners’ use of tense and aspect morphology. Some, such as the position of the perfective aspect marker -le in Mandarin, may be language specific, while others, such as frequency, if indeed they apply, should have a similar e¤ect across languages. In analyzing interlanguage data for tense and aspect, not only are we faced with numerous possible linguistic influences, we also need to account or control for numerous social factors and characteristics of the learner. These include the first language and any other languages spoken, proficiency level, the conditions under which the language was or is being acquired (formal classroom or untutored acquisition), age at which acquisition began, and the learner’s social network(s) (predominantly or exclusively native-language speakers or speakers of the target language). Finally, we need to consider the discourse context and task type, both of which have been shown to a¤ect L2 speakers’ use of target-language forms (Bayley 1994, 1996; Tarone and Liu 1995; Tajika 1999). In the following section, I illustrate some of the ways that the numerous potential influences on learners’ use of tense and aspectual forms may be analyzed, using methods drawn from sociolinguistics.

3. Multivariate analysis As Young and Bayley (1996) note, a considerable number of early studies that examined variation in L2 performance investigated only a single variable that the researcher hypothesized would influence the learner. Ellis (1987), for example, attributed variation in the use of the past tense by intermediate

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

367

learners of English from diverse backgrounds to the amount of planning time available, while Selinker and Douglas (1985) found that variation in discourse organization by a Spanish-speaking learner of English could be attributed to the discourse topic. However, as the previous section indicates, statistical models that consider only a single possible influence on variation are inadequate for understanding the issues involved. This is because, in cases where many factors are known to influence variation, our question is not does X or Y influence Z, but rather, which of the multiple possible influences significantly influences a learner’s choice of a particular form and what is the relative strength of those influences? This problem is one that sociolinguists, who study natural language produced in the speech community, have long dealt with. As noted above, for many years, Varbrul (Cedergren and Sanko¤ 1974; Rousseau and Sanko¤ 1978) has been the sociolinguist’s preferred tool. Varbrul, which is designed to handle the type of unevenly distributed data found in natural language, enables the researcher to model the many factors that can potentially influence a speaker’s choice of one or another variant, for instance whether a past reference verb is marked for tense or not, to determine which factors significantly a¤ect the choice of a variant, and to assess the relative strength of the various influences. The details of how to conduct a Varbrul analysis are beyond the scope of this chapter, and they are covered in detail elsewhere (Bayley 2002; Paolillo 2002; Tagliamonte 2006; Young and Bayley 1996). In this section, I illustrate the use of Varbrul with data from several studies. The first example comes from a recent study of the acquisition (and reacquisition) of the perfective aspectual particle -le by students in a Chinese heritage language program in the southwestern United States (Jia and Bayley 2008). Participants included 36 children and adolescents, 18 born in China and 18 in the U.S., ranging in age from 5 to 15 years old. Children performed three tasks. The first consisted of a narrative retelling of Mayer’s (1969) Frog, where are you? Next, 24 students who were in their second year at the school or beyond, divided evenly by birthplace and age group, were given a multiple choice cloze test consisting of 15 sentences and 20 verbs and asked to fill in the blanks with -le, Ø, or another appropriate aspect marker. Sentences were presented in Chinese characters, with pinyin supplied for di‰cult words that students might not know. Finally, the 24 students who participated in Task 2 were presented with 10 pictures and 10 sentences describing the pictures and asked to complete the sentences with -le or Ø. As in Task 2, sentences were presented in Chinese characters,

368

Robert Bayley

with pinyin supplied when necessary.6 Thus, we had both relatively free data, with tokens distributed unevenly, as well as the type of controlled data typical of experimental studies. We will focus on the procedures used for the analysis of the narrative data. 3.1. Coding for -le The status of the perfective aspect marker -le has been frequently studied in Chinese linguistics, including studies of both first and second language acquisition (see e.g., Du¤ and D. Li 2002; Erbaugh 1983; Kwan-Terry 1979; P. Li and Bowerman 1998; Shi 1989; Thompson 1968; Wang 1965; Wen 1995, 1997). Grammatically, -le indicates a completed action, but the completion of such action has no relationship to the time of speaking, so it is possible to use -le to refer to actions in the present or future, as well as to completed actions in the past. For language learners, acquisition of aspectual marker -le is complicated by the existence of the homophonous sentence final particle le, which, among other functions, may indicate a currently relevant state (CRS) rather than perfectivity (Li and Thompson 1981): (8) 然后 这 个 蜜蜂 就 出 来 了。 ranhou zhe ge mifeng jiu chu lai le then this CL bee soon exit come CRS ‘Then the bee came out right away’.7 The situation is further complicated because both particle le and verbal su‰x -le may be sentence final. (9) 孩子 他 醒 了。 haizi ta xing -le child 3sg awake PFV ‘The child woke up’. (10) 孩子 已经 醒 了。 haizi yijing xing le child already wake CRS ‘The child is already awake’. 6. The 12 lowest level students were excluded from Tasks 2 and 3 because they had not yet acquired su‰cient skill in reading Chinese characters. 7. The following abbreviations are used in the mopheme-by-morpheme glosses in the Chinese examples: CL, classifier; CRS, Currently Relevant State (le); NOM, nominalizer (de); PFV, perfective aspect (-le); 1pl, first person plural pronoun; and 3sg, third person singular pronoun.

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

369

To examine children’s use of -le, we coded the ‘‘frog narratives’’ for a wide range of factors, or independent variables, all of which had been shown to have some influence in one or more studies: Dependent variable: -le used grammatically, -le used ungrammatically, -le absent where expected or allowed. Two Mandarin native-speaking graduate students with strong backgrounds in linguistics conducted a reliability check and achieved an inter-rater reliability rate of over 95%. Independent variables (factors): (1) Position of -le in the sentence: sentence final; post verbal within sentence. Sentence final:

孩子 他 醒

了。

haizi ta xing -le child 3sg awake PFV ‘The child is awake’. Post verbal within the sentence:

小

狗 看见

了

蜜蜂 窝。

xiao gou kanjian -le mifeng wo little dog see PFV bee hive ‘The little dog saw the beehive’. (2) Optionality: -le required in standard Mandarin; -le optional in standard Mandarin. Required:

男孩 听

见

了

一 个 声 音。

nanhai ting (jian) le yi ge shengyin boy hear PFV one CL noise ‘The boy heard a noise’. Optional:

小

男孩 爬

上

(了) 石头, 抓 住 了

个 树枝。

xiao nanhai pa shang (-le) shitou zhuazhu -le ge shuzhi little boy climb up PFV rock hold PFV CL branch. ‘The little boy climbed up the rock and took hold of a branch’.

370

Robert Bayley

The optional -le occurs after the verb ‘‘climb’’ in the above example, which is grammatically acceptable when the action ‘‘took hold’’ follows as part of the series of actions (for a similar example, see notes in Du¤ and D. Li 2002). (3) Lexical aspect: punctual; telic-stative; semelfactive; activity; stative.8 (4) Grounding: foreground; background:

那 男孩 睡 着

了， 小

青蛙

跑 了。

na nanhai shuizhao -le xiao qingwa pao -le that boy sleep PFV little frog run PFV ‘The boy fell asleep while his frog ran away’. Here, the verb ‘‘fell asleep’’ is background, while the verb ‘‘run away’’ is foregrounded. (5) Birthplace/age of arrival of student: U.S.; China, arrived in U.S. at age 5 or younger (that is, while they were still acquiring major features of their L1 grammatical system); China, arrived in U.S. at age 6 or older. (6) Age of student: 5–7; 8–10; 11–13; 14–15. (7) Number of years at the Chinese Heritage Language School: 1, 2, 3 or more. (8) Language use at home (student): Mandarin primarily or exclusively; Mandarin and English; English primarily or exclusively. (9) Language use at home (parents): Mandarin primarily or exclusively; Mandarin and English. In distinguishing between perfective aspect marker -le and CRS sentencefinal particle le, we followed Li and Thompson (1981), who distinguish between the two homophonous forms on the basis of use. All recent implementations of Varbrul enable the researcher to test the significance of factor groups (or independent variables) through the step-up step-down procedure, analogous to step-wise regression in commercial implementations of logistic regression. During the step-up procedure one factor group at a time is added to see if the model improves 8. There is a considerable literature on Chinese aspectual categories, which is briefly summarized in Du¤ and Li (2002) and Jia and Bayley (2008). For a fuller explanation, see Li and Thompson (1981).

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

371

significantly (with .05 as the alpha level). The reverse procedure is followed in the step-down procedure. The program then generates output indicating the best model from each procedure. Normally these are the same. Varbrul assumes that factor groups are independent of one another. In most cases, this is not a problem with well-defined linguistic factors, particularly in phonology (although see Howard 2004 and Sigley 2003). However, non-linguistic factors often interact. For example, we might well expect children’s patterns of language use to change as they spend more time in the target language community. In fact, we found that age and birthplace interacted in our data. Therefore, following the procedure outlined in Young and Bayley (1996: 279–280), we recoded the data to combine the factors from these two groups. That is, we combined the two factor groups for age and birthplace into a single factor group consisting of the following factors: age 5–7, born in China; age 5–7, born in the U.S., etc. In addition, to produce the most parsimonious model that still accounted for the observed variation, we combined factors within groups that did not di¤er significantly from one another. Table 4 shows the results of the final analysis. The results may be interpreted as follows. A weight, sometimes loosely called a ‘‘probability’’, of between .5 and 1.0 indicates that the factor favors the application value, in this case the appropriate use of -le. A weight between 0 and .5 indicates

Table 4. Use of -le by Chinese heritage language learners Factor group

Factor

N

% -le

Weight

Position of -le

Sentence final Postverbal in sentence

200 349

83 43

.779 .327

Optionality

Obligatory Optional

484 65

63 15

.556 .156

Birthplace X age

China 5–10 China 11–15 United States

130 143 276

80 60 46

.709 .521 .386

Home language

Mandarin Mandarin/English, English

186 363

74 49

.613 .442

Total

Input

549

58

.603

Notes: Application value: suppliance of -le. Factors within groups that did not di¤erent significantly from one another have been combined. Chi-square/ cell ¼ 0.7368; log likelihood ¼ –282.623; all factor groups significant at p < .05.

372

Robert Bayley

that the factor disfavors the application value. The results, however, must be interpreted in light of the input value, or corrected mean. In the study under discussion, aspectual marker -le was supplied in 58% of the cases where it could be used, resulting in an input value of .603. When -le is not sentence final, it has a weight of only .327, although -le is used appropriately in 43% of such cases. This is because the rate of -le use in such cases is considerably lower than the overall rate of use, with a corrected mean of .603. Note that only four factor groups achieved statistical significance at the .05 level: the position of -le in the sentence, optionality, age by birthplace, and the child’s home language use. In contrast to our expectations and to the results reported in Wen (1997), lexical aspect did not reach significance. This lack of significance may stem from the fact that the study examined a relatively small number of tokens, only 549. However, it does serve to point out that studies of L2 aspect and tense need to consider the role of other potential influences in their design. Our analysis for the other two tasks was much more straightforward. With a controlled number of observations, we were able to use one-way ANOVAs. Because ANOVA is covered extensively elsewhere (see e.g., Reitveld and van Hout 2005; Larson-Hall 2010), those results will not be illustrated here. Interested readers may refer to Jia and Bayley (2008) for details.9 3.2. The question of the individual Typically sociolinguistic studies in the variationist tradition have concentrated on the social group rather than the individual as the unit of analysis. Studies of variation in native languages, particularly in phonology, have shown that, given su‰cient data, individual and group patterns match in fine detail. Guy’s (1980) study of coronal stop deletion, e.g., just may be pronounced as jus’, in the English of New Yorkers and Philadelphians is perhaps the best-known example. As Bayley and Langman (2004) note, however, when it comes to L2 learners, we are on much less firm ground. L2 learners, particularly immigrant learners, are exposed to varying types of input and have varying degrees of access to the target language. Although several studies have shown that L2 learners follow similar paths of acquisition (Bayley and Langman 2004; Regan 2004), those studies are fairly small. Hence the question remains open. 9. For an interesting use of repeated measures ANOVA to study the relative e¤ects of lexical aspect and grounding in L2 Spanish acquisition, see Salaberry (2011).

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

373

Here, I illustrate a case of multivariate analysis that considers the role of individual speakers – Langman and Bayley’s (2002) study of the acquisition of Hungarian verbal morphology by adult Chinese residents of Budapest. The study, based on sociolinguistic interviews collected by Langman in the early 1990s, presents a number of interesting issues. First, it is among the earliest studies to examine the acquisition of an agglutinative language (Hungarian) by speakers of an analytic language (Chinese). Second, only one of the speakers examined had studied Hungarian formally. Hence, the study deals primarily with informal acquisition. Third, Hungarian has a number of typologically unusual properties that pose particular challenges to a learner. Perhaps most unusual is the Janus-like double agreement morpheme that marks person and number of the subject and definiteness of the object (see Langman and Bayley 2002: 59–61 for a summary of the Hungarian verbal system), e.g., tanul-ok, 1 sg present indicative indefinite ‘‘study’’ or ‘‘learn’’ versus tanul-om, 1 sg present indicative definite; tanul-sz, 2 sg present indicative indefinite; tanul-od, 2 sg present indicative definite, etc. The morphemes -ok, -om, -sz, and -od indicate the person and number of the subject and the definiteness or indefiniteness of the object. As is typical in studies of variation, whether in first or second languages, we performed several di¤erent analyses. Initially we coded four variants of the dependent variable: 1) corresponds to native speaker usage; 2) inflected form, but does not correspond to native speaker usage; 3) base form, but lacks inflection where inflection is required; 4) interlanguage form that is not part of native speech. Forms that corresponded to native speaker usage included third person singular indefinite verbs, which correspond to the base form that does not require inflection. Because we wished to focus on what speakers had acquired, forms that do not require inflection were excluded from the final analysis. In addition to the dependent variable, we coded for the following independent variables: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Definiteness of the verb: definite; indefinite Tense: present; non-present (overwhelmingly past) Vowel harmony Verb class: regular verbs; -ik verbs, where the 3 sg ends in -ik as opposed to Ø; irregular verbs, which consist of jo¨nni ‘come’ and menni ‘go’; two highly frequent verbs, tudni ‘know’ and forms of the verb ‘to be’ (i.e., vanni for present and past and lenni for the future). 5. Speaker: 9 speakers participated in the study, including 4 women and 5 men in their 20s and 30s.

374

Robert Bayley

Overall, speakers inflected 43% of the verbs coded according to native speaker norms; however, accuracy varied widely, ranging from 29% to 89%. Results of multivariate analysis with GoldVarb showed that all of the linguistic factor groups coded proved to be statistically significant. Of perhaps most general interest, highly frequent verbs and irregular verbs favored native-like usage, while regular verbs, which comprised nearly half of the tokens, disfavored native-like usage. The results for individuals, however, are our primary concern here. Table 5. Verbal marking by Chinese acquirers of Hungarian, with verbs that do not require inflection excluded (application value ¼ correctly marked) Speaker (pseudonym)

Weight

Xiao Wang Zhou Chang Xiao Hong Ai Hua Liu Pan Mei Lan Input

.921 .649 .590 .432 .342 .338 .219 .215 .203 .429

Table 5 shows the factor weights for the 9 speakers who participated in the study. Using the log-likelihood test summarized above, we combined data from speakers whose accuracy level did not di¤er significantly from one another. This procedure resulted in four groups of two plus one highly advanced speaker. We then ran separate analyses for each group. While running separate analyses did result in rather small samples and in the loss of some tokens that were either categorically marked or unmarked for native-speaker usage, as well as some statistical fluctuation due to small sample size, it had the advantage of allowing us to determine which factors had the strongest influence for speakers of di¤erent proficiency levels. We were also able to investigate whether factors had the same e¤ect on all learners, regardless of proficiency level, or whether learners at di¤erent proficiency levels were constrained by di¤erent types of influences. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 6.

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

375

Table 6. Analysis of Chinese-Hungarian verbal inflectional marking by accuracy level (Langman and Bayley 2002: 73) Group Speaker(s)

N

% inflected Input Significant correctly factors

1

Xiao Wang

124 89

.923

Verb type (other, .729; regular, .238)

2

Zhou, Chang

108 56

.631

Verb type (frequent, .789; irregular and -ik, .677; regular, .208); Tense (present, .629, non-present, .137); Definiteness (definite, .725; indefinite, .252)

3

Ai Hua, Liu

216 36

.299

Verb type (vanni, .938; tudni, .698; irregular and -ik, .518; regular, .211); Person/number (1 sg, .609; 3 sg, .391; other, .365); Tense (present, .611, non-present, .293); Definiteness (definite, .656; indefinite, .362)

4

Lan, Xiao Hong 277 31

.277

Verb type (vanni, .938; irregular and -ik, .568; tudni, .525; regular, .287); Person/number (1 sg, .615; 3 sg, .351; other, .293); Definiteness (definite, .658; indefinite, .392)

5

Pan, Mei

.189

Verb type (tudni, .855; vanni, .554; all other verbs, .348); Person/number (3 sg, .751; 1 sg, .558; other, .129)

113 25

Notes: Group 1, X2/cell ¼ .000, log likelihood ¼ –38.328; Group 2, X2/cell ¼ .3360, log likelihood ¼ –45.579; Group 3, X2/cell ¼ 1.6133, log likelihood ¼ –144.693; Group 4, X2/cell ¼ 1.1893, log likelihood ¼ –144.730; Group 5, X2/cell ¼ .0908, log likelihood ¼ –50.534.

The results in Table 6 illustrate several general tendencies. First, and perhaps most importantly for the current discussion, verb marking by all speakers except Xiao Wang, who achieved an accuracy rate of 89%, is constrained by more than one linguistic influence. For the lowest proficiency speakers, Pan and Mei, the frequent verbs tudni and vanni as well as 3 sg and 1 sg favor native-like use (although only 25% of the verbs analyzed were used according to native-speaker norms). For speakers at the next highest level, Lan and Xiao Hong, definite verbs significantly favor native-speaker usage, while the e¤ects of frequent verbs and 1 sg

376

Robert Bayley

are similar to their e¤ects for speakers at the lowest level. Continuing up the proficiency scale, tense begins to have an e¤ect with Ai Hua and Liu, with the present tense favoring native-like usage. At the next highest level, tense continues to be significant, as are verb type and definiteness. Person/ number is no longer significant, but that may be an artifact of the smaller number of tokens for Chang and Zhou compared to Ai Hua and Liu. Finally, when we reach the most proficient speaker, Xiao Wang, whose corrected mean, .923, has reached the usual criterion for acquisition, we find that only the distinction between regular and irregular verbs is significant. These results suggest that, given su‰cient data, we can use Varbrul and other implementations of logistic regression to trace individual patterns of acquisition.10 Indeed, as Berdan (1996) shows in his reanalysis of Schumann’s (1978) data on negation by Alberto, such analysis can even enable us to correct long-held misconceptions. Although he does not deal with tense and aspect, Berdan does show clearly that Alberto, although he certainly was not a rapid acquirer, was making some progress in acquiring the English system of negation during the time Schumann recorded him. Finally, although I have used GoldVarb to illustrate the advantages of multivariate analysis, as noted above, commercial implementations of logistic regression produce equivalent results, as Morrison (2005) demonstrates.11

4. Testing alternative hypotheses As we have seen, multiple influences constrain L2 tense marking and sometimes the distribution of forms in learner production makes it di‰cult to disentangle various possible influences. In this section, I briefly consider one method of disentangling the roles of narrative structure and lexical aspect, both of which have ample theoretical and empirical support. In one of the more important of an extensive series of studies of L2 tense and aspect, Bardovi-Harlig (1998) illustrated a solution to what she 10. Paolillo (2002) estimates that we need at least 100 tokens for a Varbrul analysis, although more tokens are obviously better. Guy (1980), using English nativespeaker data to examine coronal stop deletion, suggests that individual and group patterns converge once we reach 20 tokens per cell for each speaker. 11. For an example of how to convert GoldVarb output into the regression coe‰cients produced by the logistic regression module in SPSS, see Morrison (2005). See Rietveld and van Hout (1993) for a clear discussion of the interpretation of the output of the logistic regression module in SPSS.

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

377

referred to as the problem of ‘‘conspiring factors’’ in L2 tense-aspect marking. Bardovi-Harlig elicited both oral and written narratives based on a film excerpt from 37 learners of English representing a wide range of proficiency levels. The total corpus contained 2,779 verb tokens, 1,318 in the written narratives and 1,461 in the oral narratives. Table 7 shows the distribution by modality, grounding, and aspectual class. Table 7. Distribution of English verbs by grounding, modality, and aspectual class (Bardovi-Harlig 1998: 483) # Verbs

Stative

Activity

Accomplishment

Achievement

Written Total

1,318

226

223

206

663

Background

402

214

73

29

86

Foreground

916

12

130

177

577

1,461

246

235

314

666

Background

482

223

108

47

104

Foreground

979

23

127

267

562

Oral Total

Overall, the results show a clear e¤ect for grounding, particularly in the written narratives. The more advanced the learners, the greater the use of the past tense and, in both written and oral narratives, learners used more past tense forms in foreground than in background clauses (see BardoviHarlig 1998: 489). However, as we see in Table 7, tokens were very unevenly distributed. For example only 1.85% of the verbs in foreground clauses were statives and only 21.5% of the verbs in background clauses were achievements. To deal with this case of interaction, or ‘‘conspiring factors’’, BardoviHarlig (1998) presented separate analyses by level, grounding, and aspectual class. Although there is some fluctuation, particularly in the oral narratives, the results show clearly that both grounding and aspectual class constrain tense marking. Table 8 summarizes the results for all levels by grounding, modality, and aspectual class (with statives excluded). On the basis of results such as those presented in Table 8, which are presented in much more detail in the original article, Bardovi-Harlig concludes that achievements are the most likely verbs to be inflected for

378

Robert Bayley

Table 8. Percentage of use of simple past by grounding, modality, and aspectual class (Bardovi-Harlig 1998) Activity

Accomplishment

Achievement

Foreground

52

70

74

Background

10

35

70

Foreground

20

47

64

Background

15

30

69

Written

Oral

simple past regardless of grounding. Accomplishments are next most likely to be inflected for simple past, but they are also a¤ected by grounding, with foregrounded accomplishments more likely to be inflected than backgrounded accomplishments. Activity verbs are the least likely of dynamic verbs to be inflected for simple past and again, foregrounded activities are more likely to be marked than backgrounded activities (1998: 498).12 Perhaps most importantly, Bardovi-Harlig clearly shows the importance of attending to multiple possible explanations of the patterns observed in interlanguage production and she does so in a way that is highly transparent.

5. An alternative method: Implicational scaling Implicational scaling, introduced to linguistics by David De Camp (1971) and subsequently used extensively in the study of creole languages, o¤ers a number of advantages, including transparency and a clear display of individual speaker patterns. This section outlines those advantages, with particular reference to testing the Aspect Hypothesis. Table 9, adapted from De Camp’s work on the Jamaican post-creole continuum, provides a convenient example of implicational scaling. This particular example shows seven speakers ranged on various points from 12. Bardovi-Harlig’s (1998) result concerning the importance of lexical aspect is contradicted, at least for L2 Spanish, in a recent study by Salaberry (2011), who found that ‘‘grounding is the construct that most clearly distinguishes learners from native speakers’’ (184).

379

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

basilectal creole to relatively standard English and six variables: nyam/eat, nanny/granny, no ben/didn’t, pikni/child, /t/ varying with /y/, and /d/ varying with /ð/. A plus sign on the right implies that a speaker will use the more standard forms of all variables to the left, while a minus sign implies that a speaker will use the creole form of all variables to the right. Speaker 4, for example, who uses didn’t rather than no ben will also use granny rather than nanny and eat rather than nyam. Speaker 4, however, uses the creole term pikni rather than the more standard child. Thus, this speaker does not vary between /t/ and /y/ or between /d/ and /ð/. Finally, a plus implies that all of the speakers higher on the scale will also use the more standard variant of that form, while a minus implies that all speakers lower on the scale will use the creole form. Thus, speakers 1, 2, and 3, like speaker 4, all use the more standard didn’t rather than no ben, whereas speakers 5, 6, and 7, again like speaker 4, all use the creole pikni rather than the more standard child. Table 9. Implicational scale for the Jamaican creole continuum (Adapted from DeCamp 1971: 356 by Rickford 1991) Variables Speakers

A

B

C

D

E

F

1

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

2

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

–

3

þ

þ

þ

þ

–

–

4

þ

þ

þ

–

–

–

5

þ

þ

–

–

–

–

6 7

þ –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

Key: Minus (–): Plus (þ):

nyam eat

nanny granny

no ben didn’t

pikni child

/t/ /tPy/

/d/ /dPð/

When we consider the Aspect Hypothesis as proposed by Andersen (1991), it is fairly obvious that we have implicational patterns for past marking. Table 10, for example, shows an implicational model of the acquisition of the Spanish preterite. Speaker 1 has yet to acquire any past tense morphology and hence all aspectual categories are marked with a minus sign.

380

Robert Bayley

Speaker 3 has acquired some inflectional morphology and marks telics and punctuals with preterite morphology, but not activities or states. Speaker 5 has acquired the full system of preterite marking and uses it with verbs of all aspectual classes. Note that for the imperfect, we would simply reverse the aspectual classes. Table 10. An implicational model of the acquisition of the Spanish preterite Speaker

Punctual

Telic

Activities

States

1

–

–

þ

– –

–

2

–

3

þ

þ

– –

4

þ

þ

þ

– –

5

þ

þ

þ

þ

Several years ago, I used implicational scaling to document the loss of tense-aspect distinctions among Mexican-background children in northern California and south Texas (Bayley 1999). Children ranged in age from 4 to 12 and had various levels of proficiency in Spanish and English (see Schecter and Bayley 2002 for an account of the families involved in the study). Because we were interested in children’s proficiency in both Spanish and English we used two wordless picture books to elicit narratives: Mayer’s (1969) Frog, where are you? and Mayer and Mayer’s (1971) A boy, a dog, a frog, and a friend. Half of the children were asked to retell Frog, where are you? in Spanish and half were asked to retell the alternate story. We followed the same procedure in the English narrative elicitation task. As the results in Table 11 suggest, both stories provided opportunities for children to use verbs of all aspectual classes. The basic question underlying the study was whether inflectional morphology is lost (or not fully acquired) by speakers in a community undergoing language shift in the reverse order that the Aspect Hypothesis predicts that it will be acquired. Hence, in contrast to the example in Table 10, I placed the most proficient speakers, those who used appropriate inflectional morphology with verbs of all aspectual classes on the top of the scale. Table 11 shows the results for use of the preterite by aspectual class. Note that 96.4% of the cells follow the predicted implicational pattern.

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

381

Table 11. Preterite tense use by aspectual class in Mexican-origin children’s Spanish narratives (Bayley 1999) Subject

Narrative

Achievement

Accomplishment

Activity

State

SF03 SF05 SF12 SF13 SF15 SA15.2 SAN2 SAN11 PK08 PK11 SF07 SF08 SF09 SAN1 SA03 PK13 SF02 SF17 SF06 PK07 SAN3 SAN8 SAN9 SAN12 SF10 SF01 SF16 SF18 SA01 SA04 SA09 SA15.1 SA21 PK02 PK09 SAN5 SAN7 SAN10 SF11 SF19 SF20 SAN4 SA16 PK01 PK05 PK06 PK10 PK12 SA02

Friend Friend Frog Friend Friend Friend Friend Frog Frog Friend Friend Frog Frog Friend Friend Frog Frog Friend Frog Frog Friend Friend Frog Friend Frog Friend Frog Frog Frog Friend Friend Frog Friend Frog Friend Friend Friend Friend Friend Friend Frog Friend Friend Friend Friend Friend Friend Frog Frog

þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ –

þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ (–) þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ – – – – – – – – – – –

þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Notes: IR ¼ .964; cells that do not scale are in parentheses; SA - San Antonio 10–12 year olds, SF - San Francisco 10–12 year olds, SAN – San Antonio 6–7 year olds, PK – San Antonio 4–5 year olds.

382

Robert Bayley

Analysis of imperfect marking by aspectual class produced similar results. It was thus possible to conclude that verbal inflectional morphology did in fact seem to be lost in the reverse order to which the Aspect Hypothesis predicts that it will be acquired. However, the study does contain a major limitation. Children were scored with a plus if they produced any examples of a particular form for each aspectual class. This was necessary because the elicited narratives were generally quite brief and because nonprototypical forms such as preterite statives or imperfect achievements are relatively rare. Hence, the results show that children who produced preterite and imperfect forms of verbs of all aspectual classes had those forms in their repertoire. The results do not, however, show the extent to which they had full control of verbal morphology. In summary, implicational scales, although widely used in creole studies (Rickford, 2002), have been somewhat neglected in studies of L2 acquisition (see, e.g., Gatbonton 1978; Trofimovich, Gatbonton, and Segalowitz 2007 for implicational studies of L2 phonology). However, given the fact that the Aspect Hypothesis predicts an implicational pattern, such scales appear highly suitable for the study of tense and aspect, particularly since they enable us to clearly display results for individuals.

6. Conclusion This chapter has provided examples of three ways of analyzing tense and aspect in learner production: logistic regression with Varbrul, analysis by separate factors, and implicational scaling. These types of analysis are useful primarily for studies that rely on production data, particularly data collected in interviews and in narrative elicitation tasks. For controlled experiments, including cloze tests, where the distribution of verbs of di¤erent aspectual classes can be controlled to deal with the distributional imbalance that characterizes natural language, more conventional statistical methods such as ANOVA are preferred. Finally, to paraphrase Allan Bell (1984), we have the issue of statistics as ‘‘audience design’’. Although Varbrul has been used in a variety of implementations for more than three decades and a number of recent articles in the major SLA journals have used the program to analyze their data (e.g., X. Li 2010; Rau, Chang, and Tarone 2009), it is unfamiliar to many outside of sociolinguistics. Therefore, we might be advised to use the logistic regression modules in commercial packages or in R when we address audiences who are likely to be more familiar with the type of output those programs produce.

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

383

References Andersen, Roger 1991 Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition. In T. G. Huebner & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and learning theories, 305–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Andersen, Roger & Yasuhiro Shirai 1994 The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition. In William Ritchie & Tej J. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 527–570. San Diego: Academic. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1994 Anecdote or evidence? Evaluating support for hypotheses concerning the development of tense and aspect. In Elaine Tarone, Susan M. Gass & Andrew D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition, 41–60. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1998 Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 471–508. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 2000 Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Dudley Reynolds 1995 The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense and aspect. TESOL Quarterly 29. 107–131. Bayley, Robert 1991 Variation theory and second language learning: Linguistic and social constraints on interlanguage tense marking. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Ph.D. dissertation. Bayley, Robert 1994 Interlanguage variation and the quantitative paradigm: Past-tense marking in Chinese-English. In E. Tarone, S. M. Gass & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition, 157–181. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bayley, Robert 1996 Competing constraints on variation in the speech of adult Chinese learners of English. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, 97–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bayley, Robert 1999 The primacy of aspect hypothesis revisited: Evidence from language shift. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18(2). 1–22.

384

Robert Bayley

Bayley, Robert 2002

The quantitative paradigm. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 117–141. Oxford: Blackwell. Bayley, Robert & Juliet Langman 2004 Variation in the group and the individual: Evidence from second language acquisition. IRAL 42. 303–319. Bell, Alan 1984 Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145– 204. Berdan, Robert 1996 Disentangling language acquisition from language variation. In Robert Bayley & Dennis R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, 203–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Berman, Ruth A. & Dan Slobin 1994 Development of linguistic forms: English. In Ruth A. Berman & Dan I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study, 127–188. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cai, Jinting 2010 The influence of Chinese aspect marker le on the simple past marking in English interlanguage: An empirical study of university students in China. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 33 (2). 35–47. Cedergren, Henrietta & David Sanko¤ 1974 Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50. 333–355. Collins, Laura 2002 The roles of L1 influence and lexical aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology. Language Learning 52. 43–94. Collins, Laura, Pavel Tromfimovich, Joanna White, Waclir Cardoso & Marlise Horst 2009 Some input on the easy/di‰cult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal 93. 336–353. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ 2005 The acquisition of perfective and imperfective morphology and the marking of discourse in Calalan. In Dalia Ayoun & M. Rafael Salaberry (Eds.), Tense and aspect in Romance languages, 33–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. De Camp, David 1971 Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole continuum. In Dell Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages, 349– 370. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

385

Du¤, Patricia & Duan Duan Li 2002 The acquisition and use of perfective aspect in Mandarin. In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tenseaspect morphology, 417–453. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dunn-Rankin, Peter 1983 Scaling methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ellis, Rod 1987 Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9. 1–20. Erbaugh, Mary S. 1992 The acquisition of Mandarin. In Dan I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 3, 373–455. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Flashner, Vanessa E. 1989 Transfer of aspect in the English oral narratives of native Russian speakers. In Hans W. Dechert & Manfred Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production, 72–97. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Gatbonton, Elizabeth 1978 Patterned phonetic variability in second-language speech: A gradual di¤usion model. Canadian Modern Language Review 34. 335–347. Geeslin, Kimberly & Aarnes Gudmestad 2010 An exploration of the range and frequency of occurrence of forms in potentially variable structures in second-language Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32. 433–463. Geeslin, Kimberly & Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes 2008 Variation in contemporary Spanish: Linguistic predictors of estar in four cases of language contact. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11. 365–380. Goad, Heather, Lydia White & Je¤rey Steele 2003 Missing inflection in L2 acquisition: Defective syntax or L1constrained prosodic representation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 48: 243–263. Guy, Gregory R. 1980 Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In William Labov (Ed.), Locating language in time and space, 1–36. New York: Academic Press. Gorman, Kyle & Daniel Ezra Johnson 2013 Quantitative analysis. In Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron & Ceil Lucas (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, 214– 240. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hakuta, Kenji 1976 A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second language. Language Learning 26. 321–351.

386

Robert Bayley

Howard, Martin 2004 On the interactional e¤ect of linguistic constraints on interlanguage variation: The case of past time marking. IRAL 42. 319– 334. Jia, Li & Robert Bayley 2008 The (re)acquisition of perfective aspect marking by Chinese heritage language learners. In Agnes Weiyun He & Yun Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry, 205–222. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Johnson, Daniel Ezra 2009 Getting o¤ the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixede¤ect variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 359–383. Kumpf, Lorraine 1984 Temporal systems and universality in interlanguage: A case study. In Fred Eckman, Lawrence H. Bell & Diane Nelson (Eds.), Universals of second language acquisition, 132–143. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Kwan-Terry, Anna 1979 Two progressive aspect markers in Chinese. In D. L. Nguyen (Ed.), South-East Asian Linguistic Studies, Vol. 4 (Pacific Linguistics, Series C, No. 44), 213–232. Canberra: the Australian National University. Langman, Juliet & Robert Bayley 2002 The acquisition of verbal morphology by Chinese learners of Hungarian. Language Variation and Change 14. 55–77. Larson-Hall, Jennifer 2010 A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge. Li, Charles & Sandra A. Thompson 1981 Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Li, Ping & Melissa Bowerman 1998 The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect in Chinese. First Language 18. 311–350. Li, Xiaoshi 2010 Sociolinguistic variation in the speech of learners of Chinese as a second language. Language Learning 60. 366–408. Mayer, Mercer 1969 Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press. Mayer, Mariana & Mercer Mayer 1971 A boy, a dog, a frog, and a friend. New York: Dial Press.

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

387

Morrison, Geo¤rey 2005 Dat is what the PM said: A quantitative analysis of Prime Minister Chre´tien’s pronunciation of English voiced dental fricatives. Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottawa 33. 1–21. Paolillo, John 2002 Analyzing linguistic variation. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Rau, D. Victoria, Hui-Huan Ann Chang & Elaine Tarone 2009 Think or sink: Chinese learners’ acquisition of the English voiceless fricative. Language Learning 59. 581–621. Regan, Vera 2004 The relationship between the group and the individual and the acquisition of native speaker variation patterns: A preliminary study. IRAL 42. 335–347. Reitveld, Toni & Roeland van Hout 1993 Statistical techniques for the study of language and language behaviour. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Reitveld, Toni & Roeland van Hout 2005 Statistics in language research: Analysis of variance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rickford, John R. 2002 Implicational scales. In J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 142–167. Oxford: Blackwell. Rousseau, Pascal & David Sanko¤ 1978 Advances in variable rule methodology. In David Sanko¤ (Ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods, 57–69. New York: Academic. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2000 The development of past-tense morphology in L2 Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2005 Evidence for transfer of knowledge of aspect from L2 Spanish to L3 Portuguese. In Dalia Ayoun & M. Rafael Salaberry (Eds.), Tense and aspect in Romance languages, 179–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2011 Assessing the e¤ect of lexical aspect and grounding of L2 Spanish past tense morphology among English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14. 184–202. Sanko¤, David, Sali A. Tagliamonte & Eric Smith 2005 GoldVarb X. A multivariate analysis application. [Computer program]. Toronto and Ottawa: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto and Department of Mathematics, University of Ottawa.

388

Robert Bayley

Sanko¤, David, Sali A. Tagliamonte & Eric Smith 2012 GoldVarb Lion. A multivariate analysis application for Macintosh. [Computer program]. Toronto and Ottawa: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto and Department of Mathematics, University of Ottawa. Sanko¤, Gillian 1990 The grammaticalization of tense and aspect in Tok Pisin and Sranan. Language Variation and Change 2. 293–312. Schumann, John 1978 The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Sebastia´n, Eugenia & Dan I. Slobin 1994 Development of linguistic forms: Spanish. In Ruth A. Berman & Dan I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study, 239–284. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schecter, Sandra R. & Robert Bayley 2002 Language as cultural practice: Mexicanos en el norte. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Selinker, Larry & Dan Douglas 1985 Wrestling with ‘context’ in second language acquisition theory. Applied Linguistics 6. 67–92. Shi, Ziqiang 1989 The grammaticalization of the particle le in Mandarin Chinese. Language Variation and Change 1. 99–114. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Roger Andersen 1995 The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language 71. 743–762. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Atsuko Kurono 1998 The acquisition of tense-aspect marking in Japanese as a second language. Language Learning 48. 245–279. Sigley, Robert 2003 The importance of interaction e¤ects. Language Variation and Change 15. 227–253. Silva-Corvala´n, Carmen 1994 Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Slabakova, Roumyana & Silvina Montrul 2003 Genericity and aspect in L2 acquisition. Language Acquisition 11. 165–196. Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006 Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajika, Hiroko 1999 Variable patterns of tense/aspect marking in interlanguage. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Ph.D. dissertation.

Data Analysis: Quantitative approaches

389

Tarone, Elaine & Liu, Guo-Qiang 1995 Situational context, variation and SLA theory. In Guy Cook & Barbara Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson, 107–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Teutsch-Dwyer, Marya W. 1994 Means of expressing temporality in untutored adult second language acquisition learner variety: A longitudinal analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Ph.D. dissertation. Thompson, J. Charles 1968 Aspects of the Chinese verb. Linguistics 38. 70–76. Trofimovich, Pavel, Elizabeth Gatbonton & Norman Segalowitz 2007 A dynamic look at L2 phonological learning: Seeking processing explanations for implicational phenomena. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29. 407–448. Vendler, Zeno 1967 Linguistics and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Wang, William S.-Y 1965 Two aspect markers in Mandarin. Language 41. 457–470. Wen, Xiaohong 1995 Second language acquisition of the Chinese particle le. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5. 45–62. Wen, Xiaohong 1997 Acquisition of Chinese aspect: An analysis of the interlanguage of learners of Chinese as a foreign language. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 117/118. 1–26. Wolfram, Walt 1985 Variation in interlanguage tense marking: A case for the obvious. Language Learning 35. 229–253. Wolfson, Nessa 1982 On tense alternation and the need for analysis of native speaker usage in second language acquisition. Language Learning 35. 229–253. Wul¤, Stefanie, Nick Ellis, Ute Ro¨mer, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig & Chelsea LeBlanc 2009 The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora, cognition, and learner constructions. Modern Language Journal 93. 354–369. Young, Richard & Robert Bayley 1996 Varbrul analysis for second language acquisition research. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, 253–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chapter 11 Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli 1. The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language Qualitative research in second language (L2) acquisition is based on descriptive data that do not make use of statistical procedures (Mackey and Gass 2005: 163). According to Mackey and Gass, qualitative research is an open-ended process: research questions are inductive and – rather than being defined before data collection – they emerge and are fine-tuned as data are examined. By qualitative analysis in this study we mean a corpus-driven research that attempts to describe the actional content1 of the verbs used by L2 learners in the light of the independent nature of the interlanguage (IL) and of its development. The analysis presented in this article is qualitative because its conclusions (a) are inductive, (b) are based on the observation of a few subjects, and (c) are not falsifiable (i.e., the conditions of learners’ productions are not controlled and replicable). 1.1. Actionality in a second language and the comparative fallacy Despite its evident flaws, a qualitative analysis of L2 actionality is not only necessary, but also it is a pre-requisite for quantitative analysis in order to avoid the comparative fallacy. Our point stems from a question formulated in the title of Lakshmanan and Selinker (2001): How do we know what learners know? This question gave rise to a lively point-counterpoint debate in the following years (see first Lardiere 2003 and then Shirai 2007). In their article, Lakshmanan and Selinker provided some reasons why the suppliance rate of a given form in an expected (mandatory) context alone should not be considered a valid criterion for evaluating L2 acquisition. They pointed out that the relationship between the emergence 1. By actional content of a predicate we mean the lexical aspect features matrix of that predicate; that is, its specification for being [edurative] and [etelic] in learners’ representations.

392

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

and the use of an item (e.g., the inflectional morphology) on one side and the development of the representation of the corresponding abstract category (e.g., Tense or Aspect) on the other side is not a direct one. In other words, what a learner produces does not necessarily coincide with what that learner meant to say and the recoverability of the learner’s intention ‘‘may be quite a di‰cult task to accomplish’’ (401). Lakshmanan and Selinker suggested that we need more rigorous criteria if we want to avoid the comparative fallacy, which consists of super-imposing the targetlike categories on learner data (Bley-Vroman 1983; Klein and Perdue 1992). This section deals with the importance of discussing these criteria (see also Chapters 8 and 9). Reviewing the findings of an earlier work by Lardiere (1998), Lakshmanan and Selinker suggested that verb semantics (Actionality) and discourse grounding distinctions as proposed in the Aspect Hypothesis (AH, Andersen 2002; Bardovi-Harlig 2000) studies are valid criteria to discriminate genuine (non target-like oriented) obligatory contexts for past tense markings because telic verbs and foreground events attract past perfective markings independently of the standpoint of the target language. In her reply to Lakshmanan and Selinker, Lardiere (2003) pointed out that the matter of investigating a learner’s past tense marking in relation to inherent lexical aspect (according to the Aspect Hypothesis) and discourse foregrounding is in fact at high risk of committing the comparative fallacy. Lardiere stated that ‘‘the Aspect Hypothesis studies appear to assume native speakers’ intuitions about the meaning of verb stems in assigning coding categories such as activity, achievement, etc. to the data, and in applying diagnostic tests for those categories . . . these assumptions may indeed obscure our understanding of the L2 idiolect’’ (136). Lardiere added that in SLA literature she could not find any discussion about whether the linguistic tests normally utilized to code data for L1 aspectual categories (operational, compatibility tests) were applicable to learner data (138). Actually, this point is taken up by Giacalone Ramat and Rastelli (2008) and Rastelli (2008, 2009), who argue against the predictive power of actional tests designed for mature languages when used for IL data (see Section 4.2). For instance, our data show that – unlike in L1 Italian – in L2 Italian for-x-time expressions seem to be compatible also with achievements, and in-x-time expressions seem to be compatible with activities to the extent that it is di‰cult to conclude whether the L2 learners’ semantic representations coincide or di¤er from those of native speakers. Shirai (2007), in his reply to Lardiere (2003), acknowledged that AH studies might have assumed more semantic representations on

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

393

the part of the learners than warranted and concluded that: ‘‘. . . in the analysis of production data, one should attempt maximum rigour in classification without reading in too much about learners’ semantic representation’’ (60). Shirai attempted to reduce the risk taking into account the cross linguistic variations of actional value (see Chapter 8, Sections 1, 2 and 3.1.1). In this and in the following sections, we argue that the problems do not arise from actional misclassification, but from taking for granted that L2 learners have clear and steady actional representations of the verbs they are using. A previous and rigorous qualitative analysis is necessary not only to validate production data – as Shirai seems to suggest – but also for both preparing the field and for narrowing the scope (thus increasing the reliability) of quantitative analysis. Going beyond Lardiere (2003), we ask: How do we know – for example – that a verb that is classified telic in the target-language is also telic in the interlanguage? Shirai (Chapter 8) suggests that L1 transfer and L1-L2 discrepancies should be taken into account in order to answer this question. Unlike Shirai, we would like to suggest that – especially in initial IL – the actional content of predicates remains largely underspecified and that L2 learners are more concerned about the general meaning of the verbs they use, rather than about the actional content of those verbs. The question about learners’ representations is the kind of a crucial and unavoidable question that quantitative research alone cannot answer directly, but that it can benefit from it indirectly. Quantitative research can tell us, for instance, if the percentage of verbs conjugated in the perfective past is significantly higher for telic verbs than for atelic verbs or whether perfective past is overextended more frequently with telic verbs rather than with atelic ones. Instead, qualitative research could be directed to understand whether learners know the peculiar properties of telicity of the second language. Investigating the properties of telicity means answering three fundamental questions at least (which will be possibly answered in Section 3): (1) Are prospective telic verbs in the IL used also in virtually incompatible temporal frames (such as for x-time expressions)? (2) Do L2 learners overuse a small number of basic verbs regardless of their actional content? (3) Can qualitative longitudinal studies on learner corpora reveal the existence of a bias for compositional or for lexical expressions of actionality over time? We are aware that qualitative analysis based on a limited number of data (typically, on a convenience sample – as Do¨rnyei 2007 puts it) is not su‰cient to draw conclusions about the significance of facts (1)–(3). Nevertheless, qualitative analysis might be useful to cast doubts on the

394

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

fact that – especially to L2 initial learners – learning and knowing the general meaning of a L2 verb entails knowing also its actional content. To sum up, quantitative research alone runs the risk of being biased by the assumption that L2 learners know the actional content of L2 verbs the way native speakers do. In some important sense, the initial, not proved assumptions made by qualitative research through the analysis of a few, not representative data are the necessary, bad medicine for quantitative, statistical analysis in order to avoid the comparative fallacy. This paper is articulated as follows. In Section 1.2, three criteria of qualitative research are described in detail. In Section 1.3, we try to explain why our proposal is alternative to the Distributional Bias Hypothesis. Section 2 is dedicated to a critical evaluation of the main findings on the acquisition of aspect in L2 Italian. In Section 3, our data are presented, and in Section 4 they are discussed in the light of the hypothesis that L2 learners – independently of their L1s – may leave the actional content of predicates underspecified also for a long time after they have learned the general meaning of a verb. Finally, Section 5 underlines the advantages of qualitative investigation for future experimental research. 1.2. Rationale and procedures of qualitative research on L2 aspect Do¨rnyei (2007: 37) stated some important methodological points about the characters of qualitative research that apply also to the procedure of investigating qualitatively L2 actionality. Do¨rnyei argued that the advantage of qualitative research is its exploratory nature; that is, its capacity to deal with ‘‘new details or openings that may emerge during the process of investigations’’. In the case of learners’ actionality, when approaching data, one should not think of a verb being telic or atelic in virtue of its lexical properties before having looked carefully at the context where it occurs. Learners can use on target-like phrasal features (e.g., prepositions, adverbs) to convey a telic interpretation for what we consider as being atelic verbs. These phrasal features are often unpredictable, inconsistent, and elusive. As such, they cannot be used as independent variables in a correlation analysis, but they can only be deduced on a posteriori basis. Do¨rnyei also stated that qualitative research is more useful than quantitative research for the purpose of longitudinal examination of dynamic phenomena (Do¨rnyei 2007: 40). If we advance the hypothesis that verb lexical aspect too is learned gradually (it is a dynamic phenomenon) and that learners do not begin by projecting the actional properties of verbs, then we must have a considerable amount of longitudinal data at our disposal

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

395

to support such a hypothesis. Thus, qualitative analysis relies on longitudinal data. Among the weaknesses of qualitative research quoted by Do¨rnyei (2007), sample size and generalizability are the most evident. Actually, the replication of findings is a problem that a¤ects all empirical studies (both qualitative and quantitative) in the field of SLA research: the inconsistent and unstable nature of second language knowledge also makes exact replication quite impossible (Gass and Selinker 2008: 72). In Section 3, we will try to make even clearer that the goal of qualitative research – at least as we conceptualize it – is to provide insights for quantitative research simply by widening the scope of investigation to all phrasal features and by casting doubts about the initial assumption that learners’ aspectual representations resemble or even coincide to ours. In this respect, we do not think that qualitative data should be counted or – to put it di¤erently – that the analysis of qualitative data can be quantitative, for instance, by means of percentage comparison (Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005: 253). In Section 3, we thus suggest a sense in which qualitative research can be used as a starting point for quantitative research in the field of L2 actionality. The procedure of qualitative analysis we are going to illustrate in the following paragraphs is set out in three points: (a) Referent check and within-subject variability. The first point is trying to establish to what degree we are in control of the referent, which is the state of a¤airs described by a learner when recounting a scene. Let us assume that the elective field of application for qualitative research is re-telling task data (see Chapter 7). The main goal of researchers should be to reach an acceptable degree of control over the intended meaning; that is, over what is being told by learners about a picture or a film scene. There is an additional source of confusion that complicates the task: L2 learners are likely to use non target-like words and expressions that may mislead or bias the interpreters towards one or another reading. One possible solution is to look closely at within-subject variation; that is, at instances where subjects serve as their own controls in repeated identical elicitation tasks at di¤erent times. For instance, to elicit our data, the same subjects are asked to re-tell the Frog story (see Section 3.1) twice or three times, at an interval of 3 to 5 and 11 months (See Section 3). Within-subject variations are more likely to be attributed to a modification in a learner’s competence rather than to a di¤erence in the researchers’ interpretation (even though the latter can never be neutralized).

396

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

(b) L1-L2 comparison against ‘‘verb pairs’’. The second point is choosing pairs of verbs in learner data which are both found to be very frequent in the input and whose basic, general meaning seems to be already clear to learners. These pairs are of two kinds: actional pairs and phasal pairs. In native Italian, verbs of the former type share the basic meaning and di¤er for one or two actional traits, in this case for the trait [etelic]. For example, guardare ‘to look’, ‘to watch’ is atelic, while vedere ‘to see’ – in its basic meaning of ‘perceiving that something entered the visual field’ – is telic (see Section 3). Instead, verbs that form phasal pairs can be looked at as being di¤erent phases of the same event (for the meaning of phase in the event structure, see Moens 1987). For example, cercare ‘to search’ may serve as the preparatory phase of the event, while trovare ‘to find’ can serve as its culmination point. Comparable to phasal verbs (to some extent at least) are the reversive verbs (Cruse 1997) such as ‘to teach / to learn’, ‘to give / to receive’. Verkuyl (2005: 27) specified that the notion of culmination is ontological, not a linguistic one. According to Verkuyl, this notion is rooted in our tendency to give the final limit of any event a prominent place given the time course, but there is no detectable linguistic material at the VP-level that can be said to express specifically a culmination point. We too assume that the notion of culmination is pre-linguistic. That is, learners might want or need to express it long before they know which verbs are telic and which are not in the lexicon of the target language. In this case, the structural encoding of telicity may precede the lexical encoding (Rastelli 2008). Our hypothesis (Section 4) is that verbs belonging to actional and phasal pairs are frequently exchanged by initial learners, regardless of their actional content and that frequency in the input is not a relevant factor to the choice of either verb. It is important, in order for the verbs to be valid candidates for entering one or another pair, that learners are aware of their general meaning, that is, of what is common between verbs such as see and look (perception with the eyes), walking, going, coming (displacement), listening and hearing (perception with the ear), etc. This condition is not in contradiction with our research hypothesis: in fact the general meaning of guardare and vedere is the physiological act of perceiving something with the eyes, whereas the general meaning of cercare and trovare – at least in the situation that we will analyze below – is the overall event that encompasses both. Through the analysis of the sentences where learners exchange such verbs in Section 3.2, we conclude that general meanings and phasal meanings have primacy in acquisition over aspectual features (namely over the [etelic] distinction) and – more in

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

397

general – that our (native) semantic representations should not be compared to those of learners if we want to avoid the risk of committing the comparative fallacy. Finally, all verbs entering both actional and phasal pairs should be checked carefully against the corresponding learners’ L1 forms (see Section 3). We believe, in fact, that the actional templates of the first language might also a¤ect the path and the rate of acquisition of the actional distinctions in the second language (see Chapter 8). This is true in two broad senses at least. First, much more input is needed to gear a learner’s representation from L1 to L2 when verbs which seem similar in their general meaning di¤er in their actional content. Second, more generally, one-to-one correspondences between verb meaning and actional traits do not contribute to overload a learner’s working memory and are likely to be incorporated more quickly in the L2 system. In Section 3.3, we argue that the phenomena pointed out by our qualitative research on the acquisition of lexical aspect in L2 Italian are not limited to a particular group of learners but they spread independently from the learners’ L1s. (c) Scope widening. The third point is observing and comparing contexts where verbs that form aspectual and event pairs occur in learner data. Particular attention should be given to contexts where verbs occur in a precise temporal framework, with expressions of time, or with phrasal items that are used to define temporal relations. Other important features to be held in consideration are the number and the semantics of both internal and external verb arguments, as it is widely reported in literature about aspect. Fortunately, when the same elicitation task is repeated over time (as it is in our research protocol), this very fact ensures that verb arguments can be treated as independent variables without running the risk of being taken as factors motivating changes occurring in the learners’ lexical choices. 1.3. Qualitative analysis and the Distributional Bias Hypothesis In this section, we discuss in what sense the target-language input may a¤ect directly a L2 learner’s aspectual competence. The question is whether a learner’s knowledge of the actional content of L2 verbs is reinforced by their exposure to the biased native input (for a critical review of the main findings of the Distributional Bias Hypothesis in L2 Italian, see Section 2). We argue that qualitative analysis can possibly show that there exist features or actional properties that initial L2 learners may not be aware of, despite the fact that the verbs are very frequent in the input both in absolute and in distributional terms.

398

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

The Distributional Bias Hypothesis states that native speakers in interactions tend to use ‘‘each verb morpheme with a specific class of verbs, also following the aspect hypothesis’’ (Andersen and Shirai 1994: 137). According to this hypothesis, frequency of verbs in native input, strength and exclusivity of form-function associations and paucity of non-prototypical exemplars are predictors for primacy in acquisition of form-function mappings. Wul¤ et al. (2009) discussed how these di¤erent features in the native input (among which frequency and prototipicality of lexical aspect) a¤ect the acquisition of the tense-aspect system. The authors reported findings that showed that – in the native corpus – the frequency with which verbs occur with a certain tense-aspect category is inversely proportional to its rank in the frequency table. The authors concluded that L2 learners are sensitive to the systematic correlation among three factors: item frequency, distinctiveness (of the form-function mapping), and lexical aspect (366). Ellis (Chapter 3) discusses this issue at length. Our qualitative analysis of a longitudinal learner corpus shows things from a di¤erent point of view. Namely, we want to address cases in which L2 learners use pairs of verbs whose meanings seem exchangeable, the preference for one or another being inconsistent over a long period of time, mutable and not directly attributable to any factor reported in Wul¤ et al. (2009). Giacalone Ramat and Rastelli (2008) commented upon narrative data elicited from MK, a Tigrinya (semitic language spoken in Ethiopia) untutored adult learner of Italian who had been recorded for seven months while reporting orally about his life in Italy. At the time of the first recording, MK had been living in Italy for one month. The study focused on how MK gradually developed his awareness of the di¤erence between the verbs imparare ‘to learn’, studiare ‘to study’ or ‘to attend class’ and insegnare ‘to teach’ throughout twelve recording sessions spaced over twelve months. The verb imparare ‘to learn’ in Italian is a gradual completion verb (for a discussion on this category, see Bertinetto-Squartini 1995). Semantically, gradual completion verbs (such as sorgere ‘to rise’, maturare ‘to ripe’), though being telic, express events made of a sequence of successive partial attainments rather than only one final achievement. In contrast, studiare ‘to study’ and insegnare ‘to teach’ are atelic, activity verbs in native Italian. The first occurrences of imparare were found only in the ninth recording, where MK used imparare in place of insegnare and studiare, as sentences (1), and (2) respectively show: (1) Cane se io imparato bene. dog if I learned-PAST well ‘If I taught the dog well’.

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

399

(2) Fino a mercoledı` ho imparato al classe. until to Wednesday (I) have-AUX learned-PASTP at the classroom ‘Until Wednesday I have attended class’. In Italian, the verb imparare in the perfective passato prossimo (ho imparato) is not compatible with durative-culminative adverbials of the kind used by MK ( fino a mercoledı`, ‘until Wednesday’), unless it is completely detelicized and is used as synonymous of the activity verb studiare ‘to study’ or ‘to attend class’. Again, in the eleventh recording, we found an attempt to fit the verb imparare into a bounded time-span frame, which was expressed by the adverbial expression tre quattro mesi (‘three four months’): (3) Quando ho imparato la lingua tre when (I) have-AUX learned-PAST the language three quattro mesi. four months ‘When I had been learning the language (for) three four months’. In sentence (3), MK seems to be aware of the perfective and past values associated with the Italian passato prossimo, but he still does not seem to recognize any telicity (neither gradual nor punctual or semelfactive), in the verb imparare, since he is not aware of the incompatibility with the expression of duration. Our claim is that, to MK, the actional content of the verb imparare might be roughly the equivalent of the Italian verb studiare, even though a target-like alternation between imparare and studiare is displayed in the same recording and even in the same sentence, as in (4): (4) Io non studio solo l’ elettricista . . . io sto imparando I not study only the electrician I AUX learning-GER la teoria. the theory ‘I’m not studying only electricity, I’m also learning theory’. Only in the twelfth and last recording, MK seems to contrast sto imparando ‘I’m learning’ with non ho imparato bene ‘I did not learn well’. By combining properly the actional content of imparare alternatively with imperfective and perfective aspectual morphemes, MK finally seems to fully acknowledge the peculiar two-fold [þtelic] and [þactivity] features of this verb:

400

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

(5) Pero` ancora non sto parlando bene la lingua . . . non but still not AUX speaking well the language not ho imparato bene. (I) have-AUX learned well ‘But I’m not speaking the language well yet, I have not learned it well yet’. The analysis of sentence (5) – uttered only a few minutes after (4) – suggests possibly that at that point MK knows what distinguishes imparare from studiare from the eventive standpoint (imparare can be the resulting phase of studiare), even though he does not distinguish the two verbs from the aspectual point of view. We hypothesize that the verbs imparare and studiare form a phasal pair of the kind exemplified in Section 1.2, and that the telic-atelic distinction is not yet operative or it is outranked in MK’s competence until the last recording at least. We hypothesize that MK might know the general meaning of both studiare and imparare without (yet) knowing their actional content (that is, what the belonging to one or another actional class entails in terms of (in)compatibility with temporal expressions). We do not know to what extent frequencies of lemma and of form-function associations in native input have played a role in MK’s lexical choices. We do not think that counting the occurrences of studiare and imparare in written and spoken Italian would be of any significance because we cannot factorize the kind of input MK was exposed to. We have good reasons only to assume that especially MK’s teachers and also his interviewer utilized many times studiare, imparare, and insegnare, and that they distinguished these verbs and used them in a target-like manner. The source of the non target-like uses of MK is not in native input, and thus it must be searched in some developmental factors, among which perhaps the tendency of treating on a par verbs with similar meaning and of grouping together verbs belonging to the same event irrespectively of their actional endowments.

2. Some results from the acquisition of tense and aspect in L2 Italian In this section, we o¤er a review of longitudinal studies on Italian L2 and critically evaluate the implications of the Aspect Hypothesis, which has represented a major issue in the literature on first and second language acquisition (Andersen 2002). Analyses of tense and aspect marking in learner Italian were first carried out paying attention to the acquisition of

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

401

morphological distinctions. As it is known, in early learners’ languages, morphology is absent, irrespective of whether the target language and/or the source language are rich in morphology (Giacalone Ramat 2009: 261). Early analyses took into account both the form-to-function and the function-to-form approaches (Bernini and Giacalone Ramat 1990, Giacalone Ramat 2003).2 Investigations of the meaning associated with early morphology led to discover the emergence of a first temporal and aspectual contrast between a generic, temporally unspecified, present-like base form and a compound perfect form labeled passato prossimo in the Italian tradition. The latter form mostly expresses a temporal/aspectual meaning of pastness and perfectivity. In all the learners observed (Giacalone Ramat 1992, 2003), the functional opposition between the perfective aspect expressed by the passato prossimo and the imperfective aspect represented by the imperfect was acquired later than the present-passato prossimo opposition. Even later, the means were acquired for the morphological expression of the future. These analyses were couched in functional terms, looking for the means to express semantic functional categories of tense and aspect. They were influenced by the learner varieties approach, which obtained relevant results on the acquisition of temporality in the languages of Europe (Klein 1986; Klein and Perdue 1992). The interest to investigate the role of lexical aspect originated in the field of first and second language acquisition (starting from Antinucci and Miller 1976). The formulation based on Andersen’s work, the so-called Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen 1991, Shirai and Andersen 1995, Andersen and Shirai 1996), was broadly supported by results concerning learner Italian (Giacalone Ramat 1995, 2003). Lexical aspect or Aktionsart has indeed turned out to be a crucial factor in the acquisition of tense and aspect morphology, past tense and perfective aspect being mainly used with telic verbs, imperfect with statives and activities. Some problems, however, were sorted out, which demanded a revision of the model. In particular, it was shown that durative verbs (activities) like studiare ‘to study’, giocare ‘to play’, and lavorare ‘to work’ are endowed with perfective marking to encode events that have come to an end, and are not found in the imperfect:

2. Detailed information on the corpus of learner Italian can be found in Andorno and Bernini (2003). The data discussed in this section belong to low-level proficiency uninstructed learners.

402

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

(6) Loro han studiato quello di commercio. ‘They have attended a commercial school (in China)’. (S 4, L1 Chinese) (Giacalone Ramat 1995) Further analyses on Italian learner languages (Giacalone Ramat 2003b) confirmed that durative predicates emerged with perfective marking, contrary to Andersen’s predictions, whereas stative predicates like be, have, and modals received an imperfect marking, somewhat later than perfective marking. What can be suggested is that the Aspect Hypothesis is too strong, although the use of verbal morphology is clearly influenced by lexical aspect (see the discussion in Bardovi-Harlig 2000). A later study on Italian data (Giacalone Ramat 2002) especially aimed at the comparison of the acquisition of passato prossimo and imperfect in two groups of learners in order to gain insights on the role of the source languages. The group of German learners used the passato prossimo with all classes of verbs, showing many cases of overextension of the passato prossimo in place of the imperfect, as in the following excerpt, where the learner uses the forms e` venuto ‘has come’ and ha chiesto ‘has asked’ to refer to habitual, imperfective situations: (7) ma non era possibile andare da sola in giro but not be-IMP possible go-INF alone around perþþ sempre qualcuno e` venuto because always someone come-PASS-PROSS.3SG e ha chiesto cosa fai oggi? and ask-PASS-PROSS.3SG what are you doing today? (AN, L1 German, 02) ‘When I was in Perugia it was not possible to walk around alone because somebody would always come and ask what are you doing today?’ The use of the imperfect proved to be more di‰cult for German learners, probably also because of the many uses this form has in Italian. In any case, results from this comparative study provided evidence in support of the claim that lexical aspect or actionality has an e¤ect in the development of acquisition, states and activities receiving imperfective aspect marking in more advanced learners. The English learners also showed problems with the imperfect and also with the progressive periphrasis, although they are familiar with progressive from their L1, due to the di¤erent con-

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

403

ditions of use in the two languages. Results from this study showed, on the one hand, how the notions of tense and aspect exhibit considerable crosslinguistic variation as far as codification strategies are concerned, and on the other hand, they suggested that the L1 influences in subtle ways the acquisition of tense/aspect distinctions in the target language. Transfer should anyway be conceived as a conceptual operation according to which learners may assume that the target languages have the same conceptual distinctions as their L1. Transfer is not a central issue for the Aspect Hypothesis, since it is assumed that it is in principle universal (see however Chapter 8). Results from L2 Italian confirm that the codification of tense and aspect – as was said before – is far from being uniform in languages, and thus learners have to undergo a reorganization of their L1 knowledge. Several explanations for the observed e¤ects of the Aspect Hypothesis have been put forth. A cognitive and semantic principle was proposed by Giacalone Ramat (1995) called the ‘‘principle of selective association’’, stating that features that are semantically congruent, such as telicity, perfectivity, and pastness, tend to be associated. Andersen (2002) suggested a ‘‘relevance principle’’ and a ‘‘congruence principle’’ to account for the a‰nity of certain morphological markers with particular lexical aspectual classes. These principles have in common the semantic cognitive dimension, and they are meant to guide the learner’s discovery of the form/ meaning relation encoded by the tense/aspect markers. A further relevant factor to account for the learner acquisition path is the prototype e¤ect. In this view, Shirai and Andersen (1995: 758) stated: ‘‘children acquire a linguistic category starting with the prototype of the category, and later expand its application to less prototypical cases’’. The same developmental path should hold true for L2 learners. The application of the notion of prototype to acquisition is, however, in need of qualification: if learners are able to infer a prototypical meaning for each inflection, where does this ability come from? Are prototypes in a learner’s mind as part of their cognitive equipment (licensing an innatist view of prototypes), or are they learned by children and adults from the available input, as functional theories of language acquisition would suggest (Giacalone Ramat 2009: 265)? Descriptions of how learners expand prototypes from their prototypical contexts to new ones were provided by Andersen and Shirai (1996) for the English progressive and by Giacalone Ramat (2009) for the present tense in Italian. According to Dahl (1985: 78), the prototype of perfective (which coincides with the prototype of past) associates telic predicates, perfective aspect, and past tense; and this association, as showed above, can

404

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

account for preferred choices in early learner data. However, the emergence of the perfective prototype in learner languages is usually blurred and delayed because first verbs, including both telic verbs and durative verbs, appear in a present-like form also when a clear past meaning would be expected: (8) Da Asmara primo io vado Keren novanta From Asmara first I go-PRES.1stSG Keren ninety duo kilometri. two kilometres ‘I went from Asmara to Keren; it makes ninety two kilometres’. (MK, L1 Tigrinya, telling how he reached Italy) (9) Interviewer: tu vivevi in campagna o in citta` in Cina? ‘Were you living in the country or in a city in China?’ Vivo in una grande citta` Shanghai. I-live-PRES-1SG in a big city Shanghai ‘I used to live in a big city, Shanghai’. (WE, L1 Chinese) At any rate, it can be safely stated that the acquisition and use of prototypical past for telic verbs requires a certain amount of time (which varies in individual learners), and that the spread of the past prototype to activities and states takes even more time. This opens up the possibility that prototypes are formed starting from the input, as suggested by Bertinetto and Noccetti (2006) for L1 Italian. Thus, temporal reference, aspect, and actionality appear to be initially underspecified in learner productions: learners struggle with the task of disentangling the various functions of verb inflections and of assembling the appropriate features. The role of the input available to learners accounts for the Distributional Bias Hypothesis proposed by Shirai and Andersen (1995) and Andersen (2002) as an alternative interpretation to the ‘‘cognitive predisposition’’ to recognize events with an endpoint. According to this principle, the distribution of tense/aspect markers with particular classes of verbs is already present in adult languages (or in native speakers for L2 learners), so that children and learners might simply imitate the input. This does not seem to be the case, however, because learners appear to gradually grasp the temporal aspectual and actional properties of the forms they hear in the input, and initially they do not acquire all meanings of verbal forms, but use them in a central or prototypical meaning.

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

405

Andersen’s assumption (2002: 81) is that learners are ‘‘cognitively predisposed to find real realized unitary bounded events encoded in language and thus recognize that meaning of the ‘past’ or ‘perfective’ form and not the broader ranges of meaning that the form has in adult native speaker use’’ (emphasis in original). This would imply that the Aspect Hypothesis takes for granted that learners know from scratch the actionality category, namely if a certain verb is categorized as an achievement or an activity. As shown in Section 1.3, empirical evidence from learners of Italian reveal a di¤erent picture: beginning learners, especially, seem to use actionally underspecified verbs. Following this idea, Giacalone Ramat and Rastelli (2008) proposed a revision of the Aspect Hypothesis, focusing in particular on the acquisition of actionality in early learner productions. In order to analyze in more detail the development of early interlanguage, a new research design was sketched. Whereas in previous research on L2 Italian spontaneous learners were recorded on the basis of personal narratives and film retelling in which no referent control was possible and no repeated task was carried out, new data were collected from instructed learners using more controlled tasks. The qualitative analyses deriving from this research design – described in the following section – were meant to suggest new ways for the study of tense, aspect, and actionality.

3. The study 3.1. Subjects, task, and the satisfaction of qualitative analysis criteria In this section, we apply the qualitative principles presented in Section 1.2 to learner Italian data in order to discuss how qualitative analyses contribute to a better understanding of the L2 acquisition process. In the current study, two di¤erent groups of Chinese beginner/low intermediate, tutored learners of Italian were asked to recount orally the drawings of Mayer’s (1969) Frog, where are you? (for further information on the study, see Biazzi and Matteini 2010). Group 1 was originally formed by 11 students. Six of them recounted the story twice (first time and 5 months later), whereas only 3 of them recounted the same story 3 times (first time and 5 and 11 months later). Group 2 was formed by 12 students, who recounted the story twice (first time and 1 month later). Table 1 summarizes the breakdown of subjects and hours of instruction for each session:

406

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

Table 1. Number of subjects and amount of class instructions (hours) throughout the re-telling sessions L1

1st session

2nd session þ1 month

2nd session þ5 months

3rd session þ11 months

Group 1

Chinese

11 (200)

–

6 (400)

3 (560)

Group 2

Chinese

12 (300)

12 (560)

–

–

(a) Requirement of referent-check and within-subject variability. Sentences were selected for analysis only when there was an element in the picture that clearly forced the choice towards one verb in the pair while excluding the other. When referring to that element, the native speaker’s choice is always mutually exclusive. For example, there is no doubt that a native speaker of Italian would say – looking at the boy from Mayer’s story – that he sta cercando ‘is searching’ his frog and that non l’ha ancora trovata ‘he has not found it yet’. Our longitudinal design should allow us to see how the same learner expresses that single element in the picture over time. Unfortunately, subjects in longitudinal analyses often drop out of the study, or they may happen to focalize on a di¤erent element in the same scene (e.g., not on the boy), and thus the number of subjects to be scrutinized decreases accordingly.3 (b) The requirement of comparing L1 and L2 against the choice of verb pairs. Firstly, verbs under scrutiny are the most frequently used by learners when recounting the frog story. This ensures that instances of the same verb are likely to be repeated over time, allowing researchers to observe changes. Secondly, as far as the target language is concerned (Italian), the traits that oppose the members of each pair are carefully checked. Guardare ‘to look’ and vedere ‘to see’ in Italian are two transitive verbs. There exist di¤erent semantic parameters according to which transitivity may vary (Lazard 2002; Hopper and Thompson 1980), for example, in the number of participants, in [edynamicity], [econtrol], and [eagentivity]. Guardare 3. This condition stresses again the di¤erences between quantitative and qualitative analyses already sketched in Section 1.2. In no way our subject can be considered as a sample of the population of L2 learners of Italian, and in no way will we generalize the outcome of our qualitative analysis. Rather, our aim is to move research away from anecdotal in order to narrow the range of hypotheses to the most reasonable ones and, finally, to prepare the field for always more interlanguage-aware quantitative generalizations.

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

407

and vedere di¤er in many respects, mainly for [eagentivity], secondly for the properties of the NP object that is being seen or looked at, and finally for their subcategorization frame. Generally speaking, vedere ‘to see’ is an event perception meaning something that appears in the visual spectrum, whereas guardare ‘to look’ is an agentive, controlled event of perception, as it is clearly demonstrated by the mutually exclusive compatibility of these two verbs with the adverbials di proposito ‘on purpose’ and per caso ‘by chance:’ (10) Ti ho guardato di proposito. ‘I looked at you on purpose’. (11) *Ti ho visto di proposito. ‘I saw you on purpose’. (12) *Ieri per caso ho guardato una rapina. ‘Yesterday by chance I looked at a robbery’. (13) Ieri per caso ho visto una rapina. ‘Yesterday by chance I saw a robbery’. The whole picture is much more complex though, because the [eagentivity] feature is not the only one to come into play. Agentivity may correlate with the semantic and grammatical characteristics of the direct object NP. For instance, the lack of duration of the event represented by the object lampo ‘lightning’ selects vedere and excludes guardare, but some objects that refer to durative events – like la partita in TV ‘TV match’ – allow both verbs, irrespectively of their [eagentive] features. Yet, the feature of specified quantity triggers the acceptability of lampi ‘lightning’ as the possible object of guardare (with an iterative reading): (14) Ho guardato i lampi. I looked at the lightening. (pl.) The phrasal context and the aspectual perspective on the event conveyed by the verb add some other restrictions too. When used with perfective tenses expressing the experiential past, vedere is largely preferred: (15) Hai mai visto una giornata cosı` bella? ‘Have you ever seen such a fine day?’ (16)

??Hai

mai guardato una giornata cosı` bella? ‘Have you ever looked at such a fine day?’

408

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

From a syntactic point of view, vedere – but not guardare – allows the complementizer che ‘that’ to fill the head position of a CP: (17) Ho visto che Maria e` arrivata. ‘I saw that Maria has arrived’. (18) *Ho guardato che Maria e` arrivata. *‘I looked that Maria has arrived’. Phasal pair verbs cercare ‘to search’ and trovare ‘to find’ are both transitive too. The former is an activity, atelic verb (as such, it is incompatible with in x-time expressions), whereas the latter is telic, even though it is fully compatible either with the progressive (19) or with for x-time expressions (20): (19) Sta trovando molte di‰colta`. ‘He/she is encountering-PROGR many di‰culties’. (20) Ho trovato tracce di animali per molti giorni. ‘I found animal footprints for many days’. When selecting actional and phasal pairs in learner data, not only the actional template of verbs, but also their relationship (and the nature) with direct object NPs is important. For example, a di¤erence when comparing an actional pair (such as guardare and vedere) to a phasal pair (such as cercare and trovare) is that only the latter allows all kinds of NP objects. In theory, anything that can be searched for can also be found, whereas this does not necessarily hold for actional pairs (something that can be looked at might not also be seen). In choosing verbs as candidates for qualitative analysis, it is important that the direct object NPs are neither over-preferred (collocated), nor outranked for one verb or another in the pair. In this way, external factors for verb selection are minimized. In the Frog story, the NP rana ‘frog’ is compatible as the NP object of either verb in the pair. As far as learners’ L1 is concerned, verbs that enter phasal pairs ‘to search’/‘to find’ and actional pairs ‘to look’/‘to see’ in Chinese share an identical morpheme but di¤er for the presence or absence of a resultative complement (Li and Thompson 1981). ‘To search’ corresponds to zha˘o, whereas ‘to find’ corresponds to zha˘oda`o, which is formed from zha˘o plus the resultative da`o (which literally means ‘to reach’, ‘to arrive’). The presence of da`o (resultative complement) conveys the meaning that the process of searching eventually turned into finding something. Similarly,

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

409

to look can be translated with ka`n, and ‘to see’ with ka`njia`n, where jia`n (which also means ‘to see’) resolves the (potentially) endless process into an achievement (the same resultative complement jia`n can also be used with other verbs of apperception such as we´n ‘to smell’ and tıng # ‘to listen to’). We wonder whether these L1 features are likely to be transferred to the target language and whether they can interfere with the lexical choice of either verb in the pairs. Three facts are relevant to us in the following cases: (a) in the learners’ L1 the verbs in each pair di¤er in their meaning; (b) the di¤erence concerns aspect; and (c) in Chinese, the di¤erence is not lexical, but rather it is overtly marked by a morpheme. The overall conclusion is that nothing, both in the L1 and in the L2, represents an obstacle or delaying factor for either verb in the pairs to be learned in the target language. (c) The requirement of scope-widening. If actional membership is assigned on the basis of lexical properties of the verb, then it is very hard to define it in a first language, let alone in a second language, where actional tests (for instance, those listed by van Valin 2005: 34–42) are of little or of no help (i.e., misleading). For instance, Giacalone and Rastelli (2008) provided examples of learner sentences where telic verbs are compatible with expression of duration (see Section 1.1). Actional categories are highly elusive and the judgement of a verb belonging to a class or another is far from being clear-cut – even for native speakers. As far as L1 Italian is concerned, the actional shift (or ‘‘actional hybridism’’ as it is called in Bertinetto 1986) seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Under the appropriate conditions, almost every Italian verb may be regarded as belonging to two, sometimes three and even four di¤erent actional classes. For instance, among 3,429 verbal tokens of 33 verb types extracted from the TreSSI corpus (a corpus of written modern Italian), the cases of unique actional assignment amount to about 20% (Lenci and Zarcone 2009). Our hypothesis is that learners may find it easier to express the actional content of verbs at a sentence level rather than lexically, and that the actional value of an L2 predicate seems to be a matter of compositional induction rather than lexical deduction. In other words, since we do not credit initial learners with the capacity to derive the actional content from the meaning of the verb, we find it more likely that they express the actional content of verbs by using everything at hand in the sentence (preposition, adverbs, adjuncts). Consequently, we took into account the whole sentence (i.e., not just the verb alone).

410

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

3.2. The data 3.2.1. Guardare ‘to look’ and vedere ‘to see’ In the description of one of the main scenes of the story (i.e., the boy and his dog hear a noise, look behind a hollow trunk lying in a pond, and finally see the frog together with its family), learner LUN uttered sentence (21) the first time he narrated the story, and sentences (22) and (23) after 5 and 11 months respectively when the story was narrated again. In the first narration (sentence 21), the sequence of events expressed by ‘looking’ and ‘seeing’ merge into a single underspecified guardare ‘to look’. In the second narrative, represented in sentence (22), the first element in the sequence is skipped, but the second element, vedere ‘to see’, is used in a target-like manner. Only in sentence (23) is guardare ‘to look’ used in a way that seems to depict the verb’s semantic [þagentive] and actional [þduration], [–telic] traits: (21) Guardano e` rana e il tua mamma e` insieme. ‘(They) look (and) it is the frog and your (its) Mom is together’. (22) (Ragazzo) ha visto rana con tua madre. ‘(The boy) has seen the frog with your (its) Mom’. (23) Guardato dietro albero ma e` molto felice perche´ lui trovato tuo animale prediletto. ‘Looked behind a tree but he is very happy because he found his favorite pet’. While searching for his frog, the boy asks many animals if they have seen it by chance. In sentences (24), (25), and (26), our interest focalizes on the passage between verb omission (24), guardare (25), and finally vedere (26): (24) Chiede la talpa lo so la mia amica rana? ‘He asks the mole: Do you know where my friend is?’ (25) Ragazzo chiede gufo ‘‘sei guardato la mia rana?’’ ‘The boy asks the owl: ‘‘Have you looked at my frog?’’’ (26) (Il ragazzo) chiede talpa: ‘‘hai visto mia animale?’’ ‘The boy asks the mole: ‘‘Have you seen my animal?’’’ The opposite process (from vedere to guardare) is what possibly drives informant SOF to end up merging the two predicates into a single lexical entry (28):

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

411

(27) Percio` il bambino e il cane vedere altri. ‘So the child and the dog see other (frogs)’. (28) Loro hanno guardato il ramo e loro guardato questa rana. ‘They have looked at the branch (trunk) and they have looked (seen) this frog’. SOF strains in a similar way the verb guardare over vedere: (29) Questo bambino e` guardato il ramo ma non guardato la rana. ‘This child looked at the branch-tree but did not look (see) at the frog’. Learners from Group 2 were not any di¤erent with regards to the unexpected, non target-like choices of verbs. For instance, two months after having oscillated between guardare and vedere, participant IVA eventually chose the latter: (30) Vada dietro un albero e vede e guarda due rane. ‘(He) goes behind a tree and (he) sees and looks at two frogs’. (31) Dietro l’albero lui e il cane hanno visto due rane. ‘Behind the tree he and his dog saw two frogs’. The opposite path seems to be the one followed by subject LUC when retelling the same event 2 months after the first narrative: (32) Loro guardano dietro albero e vedono la rana. ‘They look behind the tree and see the frog’. (33) Dietro l’albero loro hanno guardato e hanno guardato la rane. ‘Behind the tree they have looked at and they have looked at the frogs’. When retelling another scene (in which the boy and the dog see a swarm of bees), SOF – just 2 months after – substituted guardare with the targetlike vedere: (34) Il cane e` molto felice per guardare molto api. ‘The dog is very happy to see many bees’. (35) All’inizio loro hanno visto li api. ‘At the beginning they saw bees’. When LIL recounted the scene in which the boy sees that the bowl in which the frog was kept is empty, he first used the target-like vedere, but 2 months after, he seemed to backslide to the non target-like guardare:

412

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

(36) Al mattino Luigi non vede la rana nella botilia. ‘In the morning Luigi [a fantasy name] does not see the frog in the bottle’. (37) La mattina di domani il ragazzo con il cane guardano la rana non c’e`. ‘The morning after the boy and the dog look (that) the frog there is no more’. To sum up, when looking at these utterances, one is driven to think that these learners miss the actional distinction between guardare and vedere and that their preference for either verb does not seem to follow a clear developmental path. 3.2.2. Cercare ‘to search’ and trovare ‘to find’ Cercare and trovare occur more frequently than guardare and vedere because this is exactly what the Frog story is all about: a frog that is lost, looked for and eventually found in a pond with its family of frogs. In our data, almost every learner in every group exchanges, overstrains, or totally blurs the di¤erences between these two verbs on many occasions, and inconsistently, in the same paragraph or even in the same clause. For instance, in all three occasions in which (in a time span of almost a year) LUN recounted the scene in which the boy searches for his frog everywhere in his bedroom, she exclusively used the verb trovare ‘to find’: (38) Trova scarpe letto molto posta ma non trova la rana. ‘She finds (searches in) the shoes the bed many places but he does not find the frog’. (39) Ragazzo con il tuo cane trovare tutto la camera ma non ha trovato. ‘The boy with the dog find (search in) everything in the room but he has not found’. (40) Enrico trovato la stivale, bicchiere tutte le camera, ma non c’e` piu`. ‘Enrico found (searched in) the boot, the glass, everything in the room, but there is no more’. The same scene was recounted exactly in the same way (after 5 months from the first time) by ORL: (41) Poi il bambino trova la rana nella scarpa. ‘Then the boy finds (searches) the frog in the shoe’. (42) Poi il bambino trovare sotto la letto e nella scarpa. ‘Then the child finds (searches) under the bed and in the shoe’.

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

413

There are cases in which the target-like form is only apparently acquired over time. JAC used trovare, but 5 months later, after a brief wavering, he eventually seemed to know which verb to choose in the pair: (43) Loro usciano da casa [. . .] per trovare il rana. ‘They exit the house to find (search for) the frog’. (44) Il bambino con il suo amico escono a casa per trova per cerca- per cercare la rana. ‘The boy and his dog exit the house to search for the frog’. This distinction was only apparently attained, because a few seconds later JAC – while describing the search – seemed to lapse and says: (45) Il bambino trova il rana sul albero. ‘The child finds (searches) the frog on the tree’. Inconsistency of choices was frequent within and across subjects. LUI lapsed from cercare to trovare when referring to the boy searching for the frog in his boot while his dog searches inside a glass bowl: (46) Poi lui cerca i scherpi e il cane cerca il bicchiere. ‘Then he searches (in his) shoes and the dog searches (in the) glass’. (47) Il bambino cerca il suo calve [. . .] il cane trova nella botttiglia. The boy searches (in his) ?shoes [. . .] the dog finds (searches in) the bottle’. As in the case of guardare and vedere, these sentences show that our learners not only blur the distinction between cercare ‘to look for’ and trovare ‘to find’, but the examples also reveal that the speakers’ choices are inconsistent over the whole time span of recordings.

4. Discussion Three facts emerged from the qualitative analysis of our data. First, some frequent and basic verbs (as Viberg 2002 calls them) are used instead of other actionally di¤erent verbs. As far as the verbs under scrutiny are concerned, the verbs guardare ‘to look’ and vedere ‘to see’ – despite being actionally di¤erent – are exchanged very often by learners. A further finding is that learners’ lexical choices seem to be unpredictable, in that they do not seem to follow a consistent developmental path (e.g., from atelic to telic). Second, verbs that enter phasal pairs are often used indi¤erently

414

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

and inconsistently over time. In our data, trovare ‘to find’ and cercare ‘to look for’ are exchanged over the whole time-span of recordings. As in the case of basic verbs, the random choice of either verb does not seem to reduce over time. Third, frequency in the input and strength/exclusiveness of prototypical associations do not ensure that learners automatically know the properties of actionality, as the case of MK’s uses of the very frequent verbs imparare ‘to learn’ and studiare ‘to study’ has possibly shown. Our working hypotheses are that facts (1) and (2) reviewed above may entail that actionality and general meaning of L2 verbs can dissociate and be acquired at di¤erent times, and that fact (3) may entail that something more than statistical learning (rather, a qualitative change in a learner’s grammar) is expected to take place in a learner’s actional competence. In Section 4.1 we ask ourselves whether the phenomenon of actional underspecification of L2 verbs is observable also in non-Chinese learners of Italian, whereas in Section 4.2 we discuss why actional tests fail to shed light on learners’ semantic representation based on the idea tha L2 actional competence is defective. 4.1. Cross-linguistic evidence of actional underspecification In Section 3.1, it was questioned whether the learners’ L1 (Chinese) may be the reason for the exchange in actional pair of the basic verbs guardare/ vedere and in the phasal pair cercare/trovare. Actually, the same phenomena are common to learners with di¤erent L1s, as reported in other surveys of Italian learner corpora (see Giacalone and Rastelli 2008; Rastelli 2008, 2009). To give some examples, in sentence (48), the beginning learner MK (see Section 1.3) is talking about a friend who moved from Italy to England. MK thinks that he will regret this now that he can see how life is over there: (48) Adesso lui guarda come e` la vita di Inghilterra. ‘Now he looks (sees) how is life in England’. Another Tigrinya learner, AB, uses vedere ‘to see’ instead of guardare ‘to look up’ a dictionary: (49) Vedo dizionario. ‘(I) see (look up at) (the) dictionary’. In a survey of written retellings of American undergraduate students of Italian, Rastelli (2006) found many instances of overextension of trovare. In sentence (50), the English-speaking learner NIK is recounting a film scene where a woman was left alone in an auto grill (restaurant) by her trip companions, and the coach did not go back to pick her up:

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

415

(50) L’autobus non puo` ritornare a trovarla in quel momento. ‘The coach cannot go back to find (search for) her in that momento’. MK uses trovare instead of cercare also in periphrases such as cercare di ‘try to’. (51) Trovero` per continuare la scuola. ‘(I) will find (try) to continue school’. Similar phenomena are found in L2 Italian independently from the learners’ L1. Whether and to what extent these phenomena correlate with learners’ proficiency is outside the scope of the present study. 4.2. Actional tests and the L2 defective actional competence In Section 1.1, we reported recent studies that stressed the need for tapping more directly into the actional competence in the interlanguage. In light of our findings, we claim that – unlike Shirai (Chapter 8) – actional tests designed for L1s do not represent a reliable procedure to achieve the goal of coding aspectual representations. In fact, these actional tests are at risk of committing the comparative fallacy in that they do not take into account the fact that the actional competence of L2 learners is defective in at least three ways: (1) The temporal frame is uncertain. Time expressions (adverbials such as quando ‘when’ or in/per un’ora ‘in/for one hour’) are often used by learners in an underspecified way, so that the relationship between actional membership and the outcome of actional tests is established on slippery grounds. For instance, sentence (52) was uttered by Chinese learner GIO and refers to the scene when, after waking up, the boy realizes the frog is gone from the glass jar where it was kept by the boy (who has been given the name of Mario): (52) Quando Mario ha dormito questa rana ha corso. ‘When Mario has slept this frog has run’. Literal interpretation of (52) is not allowed in native Italian when describing that scene, because quando ‘when’ in this sentence is punctual, and, as such, it indicates the point in time when the process of sleeping is over and not the time-span of sleeping during which the frog escaped. In sentence (53), the Chinese learner MIN utters a sentence where the opposite phenomenon seems to occur:

416

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

(53) Un giorno mentre si sono addormentati la la rana e` saltata fuori dalla bottiglia. ‘One day, while they were falling asleep, the frog jumped out of the bottle’. In (53) the [þtelic] and punctual character of the achievement verb addormentarsi ‘to fall asleep’ conflicts with the conjunction mentre ‘while’, unless we admit that one of the two (or both) is underspecified in a learner’s interlanguage. (2) Learners may blur the terminative-bounded opposition and use grammatical encoding to express telicity structurally (Rastelli 2008, in press). Bertinetto and Delfitto (2000: 191), comparing di¤erent mature languages, proposed to use the pair ‘‘terminative-non terminative’’ to refer to the aspectual domain and the pair ‘‘bounded-non bounded’’ to refer to the actional domain. They stressed that the presence of an endpoint (or its atelicity, duration, etc.) in a mental representation of that predicate survives the fact that the speakers may present the event as concluded or in course. This distinction is meant to set up a basis for interlinguistic comparisons among languages that overtly mark verb actionality and aspect versus languages that do not. Italian overtly codes the terminativenon-terminative distinction in the past, but it does not code overtly the bounded-unbounded distinction in predicates (actionality is a matter of lexical distinction). We think that learners should not be credited with native representational awareness about a distinction between aspect and actionality, and that the separation between aspect and actionality is a rather weak descriptive tool. Rastelli (2008, in press) advances the idea that learners might use the temporal/aspectual [þPerfective] morpheme to add telicity to atelic verbs (thus blurring the distinction between actionality and aspect) and that they upgrade adjuncts (typically, AdvP and PP) to the rank of arguments to gear the actionality of underspecified verbs to a telic interpretation. This happens as long as L2 Italian learners do not check [ePerfective] features in the functional head T(ense) rather than in Asp (which is either their L1’s or default parameter value). (3) Learners may not be aware of the interactions between lexical and grammatical aspect. Learners should not be credited to know from scratch in which circumstances and for which verbs the perfective-imperfective alternations alone may cause the actional content of the same verb to

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

417

shift.4 If researchers take for granted that L2 learners are aware of this shift, this would be enough to make some actionality tests fail and, thus mislead researchers. For instance, in sentence (54), despite the use of the perfective passato prossimo, the referent-check on the film scene convinces us that the English-speaking student wants to say that the woman ‘was wearing green sunglasses’ (stative) and not that ‘she wore sunglasses’ (achievement). (54) Ha indossato occhi di sole verdi. ‘She wore (was wearing) green sunglasses’. In native Italian, the verb indossare ‘to wear’ can be telic or atelic depending on the aspectual morphemes (perfective or imperfective). In sentence (54), the specific use of the verb indossare is telic if we consider its (perfective) form, but it is atelic if we consider the supposed meaning (what the learner probably meant when trying to describe the film scene). This form-meaning mismatching leads us to believe that another piece of actional competence is likely to be missing in a learner’s interlanguage.

5. Conclusion At the beginning of this section we expressed the idea that actionality too is learned. Now, we can define this idea more precisely. There are converging cues that there could exist a developmental stage in which learners’ actional competence is in re-construction alongside with the whole tense and aspect system. At this stage, basic verbs (similar in meaning) are easily exchanged, phasal verbs are easily exchanged, actional distinctions are blurred, and finally the interactions between lexical and grammatical aspects are largely ignored. Actionality is learned, as long as the actional properties are acquired gradually by learners. Qualitative analysis should warn researchers against carelessly labeling telic or atelic (durative or nondurative) all verbs in the interlanguage based on accuracy percentages in mandatory contexts. The procedure of counting up target-like and non target-like occurrences (in mandatory contexts) of prospective telic and atelic verbs should not be used as evidence of developmental primacy of prototypical associations. In fact, as long as we do not know whether a 4. Bertinetto (1986: 109) quotes an example where an aspectual shift between perfective and the imperfective alone causes the actional shift: Luca mi volto` le spalle ‘Lucca turned his back on me’ (achievement) Luca mi voltava le spalle ‘Lucca turned/was turning his back to me’ (stative).

418

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

certain verb is telic or atelic in a learner’s mental representation, we cannot conclude that a prospective (what appears to be) telic verb is more likely to attract prospective perfective morphemes. In this respect, we do not believe that a careful definition of the procedures used in actional tests (Chapter 8) is enough to prevent us from committing the comparative fallacy. In fact, these procedures are based on how we expect that things should work in the interlanguage, assuming that temporal frames (adverbs, prepositions, and adjuncts) and verb morphemes are in place and do their part of the job exactly the way we expect them to do, which is not always the case. Qualitative research stresses the need to find alternative research methods that can tap more directly onto the learners’ semantic representations. The necessity of investigating the developing semantic competence in a second language is addressed for instance in Slabakova (2006). Qualitative analysis of elicited narrative and naturalistic data alone are inconclusive with respect to discovering the nature of learners’ representations. Nevertheless, a qualitative analysis can identify some possible indicators of the development of a learner’s actional competence, which can be tested further with experimental methods. These methods could include psycholinguistic and neuroimaging studies, alongside with behavioral data. Adapting the fruitful idea of mixed methods research suggested by Do¨rnyei (2007), we suggest that a qualitative analysis could provide a preliminary step for experimental studies (see also Chapter 12). For instance, once basic verbs and phasal pairs are identified in a learner’s interlanguage by means of qualitative longitudinal analysis, they could be used to test whether and when learners develop intuitions for actional distinctions going beyond the general meaning of verbs. Phasal and actional pairs could be used as stimuli in MRI, PET, ERP and eye-tracking studies in order to be manipulated for the [etelic] or [edurative] conditions. In conclusion, we suggest that future research on L2 actionality will benefit from these methods more than from quantitative studies in which an impressive number of verb occurrences are labeled for actional membership not according to learners’ representations, but perhaps to researchers’ – L1 biased – intuitions.

Acknowledgments This work is the result of a continuous exchange of ideas between the two authors. However, Stefano Rastelli is responsible for Sections 1, 3, and 4, and Anna Giacalone Ramat is responsible for Sections 2 and 5.

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

419

References Andersen, Roger 2002 The dimension of Pastness. In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai, (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology, 79–105. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Andersen, Roger & Yasuhiro Shirai 1994 The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. J. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 527–570. San Diego: Academic Press. Andersen, Roger & Yasuhiro Shirai 1996 The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The pidgin/creole connection. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 527–570. New York: Academic Press. Andorno, Cecilia & Giuliano Bernini 2003 Premesse teoriche e metodologiche. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Verso l’italiano, 27–36. Rome: Carocci. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 2000 Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell. Bertinetto, Pier Marco 1986 Tempo, aspetto e azione nel verbo italiano: Il sistema dell’indicativo. Florence: Accademia della Crusca. Biazzi, Michela & Isabella Matteini 2010 Referential and topic movement in Chinese learners of Italian: A longitudinal account. In M. Chini (Ed.), Topic, struttura dell’informazione e acquisizione linguistica, 137–157. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Bley-Vroman, Robert 1983 The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning 33. 1–17. Cruse, Alan 1997 Lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ¨ sten Dahl, O 1985 Tense and aspect systems. Oxford, Blackwell. Do¨rnyei, Zoltan 2007 Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod & Gary Barkhuizen 2005 Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fellbaum, Christiane 1998 Wordnet: An electronic database. Boston: The MIT Press. Gass, Susan & Larry Selinker 2008 Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Erlbaum.

420

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

Giacalone Ramat, Anna 1990 Presentazione del progetto di Pavia sull’acquisizione di lingue seconde. Lo sviluppo di strutture temporali. In G. Bernini & A. Giacalone Ramat (Eds.), La temporalita` nell’acquisizione di lingue seconde, 13–38. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Giacalone Ramat, Anna 1992 Grammaticalization processes in the area of temporal and modal relations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition (11)5. 297– 322. Giacalone Ramat, Anna 1995 Tense and aspect in learner Italian. In P. M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, ¨ . Dahl & Squartini (Eds.), Temporal reference, aspect and actionO ality, vol. II, Typological perspectives, 289–307. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier. Giacalone Ramat, Anna 2002 How do learners acquire the classical three categories of temporality? In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Tense-aspect morphology in L2 acquisition, 221–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Giacalone Ramat, Anna 2003a Typology and second language acquisition. New York/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Giacalone Ramat, Anna 2003b Verso l’italiano. Percorsi e strategie di acquisizione. Rome: Carocci. Giacalone Ramat, Anna 2009 Typological Universals and Second language Acquisition. In S. Scalise, E. Magni & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of language today, 253–272. Rotterdam: Springer. Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Stefano Rastelli 2008 Learning actionality: An investigation on data of L2 Italian. In B. Ahrenholz, M. Rost-Roth & R. Skiba (Eds.), Empirische Forschung und Theoriebildung. Beitra¨ge aus der Soziolinguistik, Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung und Zweitspracherwerbsforschung. Eine Festschrift fu¨r Norbert Dittmar zum 65. Geburtstag, 239–250. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson 1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. Klein, Wolfgang 1986 Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Klein, Wolfgang & Clive Perdue 1992a Utterance structure. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: cross-linguistic perspectives. Vol. 2: The results, 3–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Data analysis: The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language

421

Klein, Wolfgang & Clive Perdue 1992b Utterance structure. Developing grammars again. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lardiere, Donna 1998 Case and Tense in the ‘Fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research 10. 25–48. Lardiere, Donna 2003 The comparative fallacy revisited: A reply to Lakshmanan and Selinker (2001). Second Language Research 19. 129–143. Lakshmanan Usha & Larry Selinker 2001 Analysing interlanguage: How do we know what learners know? Second Language Research 17. 393–420. Lazard, Gilbert 2002 Transitivity Revised as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica XXXVI/3–4. 141–190. Lenci, Alessandro & Alessandra Zarcone 2009 Un modello stocastico della classificazione azionale. In Giacomo Ferrari, Ruben Benatti & Monica Mosca (Eds.) Linguistica e modelli tecnologici di ricerca. Proceedings of the XL international congress of the Societa` di Linguistica Italiana, 125–148. Rome: Bulzoni. Li, Charles & Sandra A. Thompson 1981 Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. San Diego: University of California Press. Moens, Marc 1987 Tense, aspect and temporal reference. Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh, Ph.D. dissertation. Rastelli, Stefano 2006 ISA 0.9 – Written Italian of Americans: Syntactic and semantic tagging of verbs in a learner corpus, Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata (SILTA). 73–100. Rastelli, Stefano 2008 A compositional account of L2 verb Actionality and the Aspect Hypothesis. Lingue e Linguaggio 7. 261–289. Rastelli, Stefano 2009 Lexical Aspect too is learned: Data from Italian learner corpora. In A. Saxena & A. Viberg (Eds.), Multilingualism, Serie Linguistica Upsaliensia 8, 272–281. Uppsala. Rastelli, Stefano & Mirta Vernice In press The building blocks of telicity in L2 Italian. International Review of Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching. Salaberry, M. Rafael & Yasuhiro Shirai 2002 Tense-aspect morphology in L2 acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

422

Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Stefano Rastelli

Shirai, Yasuhiro 2007 The aspect hypothesis, the comparative fallacy, and the validity of obligatory context analysis: A reply to Lardiere (2003). Second Language Research 23. 51–64. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Roger Andersen 1995 The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account, Language 71. 743–762. Slabakova, Roumyana 2006 Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research 22. 302–338. Starren, Marianne 2001 The second time: The acquisition of temporality in Dutch and French as a second language. Utrecht: LOT. van Valin, Robert 2005 Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verkuyl, Hans 2005 Aspectual composition: surveying the ingredients. In H. Verkuyl, H. De Swart & A. van Hout (Eds.), Perspectives on Aspect, 19– 39. Dordrecht: Springer. ˚ ke Viberg, A 2002 Basic verbs in lexical progression and regression. In P. Burmeister, T. Piske & A. Rohde (Eds.), An integrated view of language development, papers in honor of Henning Wode, 109–134. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Wul¤, Stefanie, Nick Ellis, Ute Ro¨mer, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig & Chelsea LeBlanc 2009 The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora, cognition, and learner constructions. Modern Language Journal 93. 354–369.

Chapter 12 Integrating the analyses of tense and aspect across research and methodological frameworks M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez 1. Introduction In the last decade, the study of the acquisition of tense and aspect among second language (L2) learners has become a significant area of research (e.g., Ayoun and Salaberry 2005; Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Rocca 2007; Salaberry 2008; Salaberry and Shirai 2002; Slabakova 2001). Some researchers have gone as far as arguing that there are too many studies on the topic: ‘‘an embarrassment of riches’’ as proposed by Slabakova (2002: 186). Despite the abundance of studies on tense-aspect, there are two recurrent problems in the current literature: (a) the lack of an open dialogue across theoretical frameworks (cf., Shirai 2007: 61), and (b) the lack of consistent methodological procedures (even when acknowledging disparate theoretical perspectives). That is, there has not been a systematic integration of findings across theoretical frameworks and methodological procedures. Overall, such lack of integration leads researchers to base their analyses on only a limited number of studies, among the many that are available for scrutiny. Consequently, even if there is an abundant literature on the topic of tense and aspect, we may not be using all relevant information to gather our conclusions, thus leading to an ine‰cient analysis or, even worse, an incomplete one. For instance, while some theoretical positions consider the role of adjuncts (in particular, adverbials) as part of a definition of grammatical aspect (e.g., Salaberry 2008), others regard the role of adjuncts to be outside of the scope of grammatical knowledge and, more properly, to be part of world knowledge (e.g., Slabakova and Montrul 2007). Whereas, in principle, both definitions of the given theoretical construct are valid, the analysis of findings from both perspectives can be profitably reconciled at a supra-level in order to obtain an overall interpretation of tense-aspect phenomena across a wide range of theoretical descriptions. At a minimum,

424

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

researchers will be led to reconcile the findings from studies carried out within distinct theoretical paradigms (see Chapters 5 and 6). A similar situation arises with the analysis of research methodologies. For instance, starting with the first studies that investigated the acquisition of tenseaspect, there have been discrepancies about the best procedure to code the data (e.g., coding for lexical aspect, discourse grounding, etc.) and, more importantly, how to interpret the findings produced by such diverse types of coding criteria (see Chapters 8 and 9). Along the same lines, some data collection procedures are based on grammaticality judgments, whereas other studies are based on the analysis of data obtained from open-ended narrative tasks (see Chapters 7, 10, and 11). Whereas some studies have already provided an integrative view of the state of the art theoretical approaches to the study of the L2 acquisition of tense and aspect phenomena (e.g., Ayoun and Salaberry 2005; BardoviHarlig, 2000; Montrul and Salaberry 2003), such proposals have been limited in scope, mostly restricted to summaries of studies. On the other hand, to the best of our knowledge, the issue of research methodologies applied to the analysis of the acquisition of tense-aspect has been restricted to brief analyses presented as part of the background to specific studies. The integration of findings across studies is potentially important for the overall objective of drafting a comprehensive picture of the acquisition of tense-aspect phenomena. Furthermore, the integration of analyses carried out across methodological paradigms may lead to a more e‰cient process of theorization. Given the previous analysis, the present volume has addressed the following questions: (a) What are the most relevant theoretical constructs (e.g., iterativity versus habituality in Slabakova and Montrul 2007; cognitive grammar in Pu¨tz, Niemeier, and Dirven 2001) that can be integrated into a pantheoretical perspective that would make research on tense-aspect more e‰cient and, more importantly, advance our theoretical understanding? (b) What are the various research methodologies (e.g., production versus comprehension tests, quantitative versus qualitative approaches) that could be used the purpose of integrating the various findings into a single coherent whole? (c) What are the results from di¤erent theoretical frameworks and methodologies that could provide evidence for one or many theories of the acquisition of L2 tense and aspect?

Integrating

425

In this final integrative chapter, we will address the previous questions in the context of the arguments presented in this volume in an e¤ort to (a) provide a comprehensive and up-to-date review of the possible answers to the questions above, and (b) expand those analyses and consider the perspective of mixed methods (Tashakkori and Charles 2003) and language teaching. 2. Theoretical frameworks on L2 tense-aspect research In general, theoretical frameworks are broadly di¤erentiated among each other depending on the way that both dependent and independent variables are defined. First, not surprisingly, the way that the object of study (i.e., aspect as a theoretical construct) is defined has a clear e¤ect on how we frame the questions that can be asked about the acquisition of tense-aspect concepts. In this respect, specific linguistic theories (e.g., functional or formalist theories) provide a broad theoretical perspective that guides the characterization of the object to be studied (e.g., the inclusion of adjuncts as part of the main definition of aspectual constructs, the interactional contexts of use of the target item). Second, the selection and definition of independent variables that can account for the acquisition of tense-aspect (e.g., the e¤ect of the L1, the type of data collection procedure) provides an additional layer of information that has a significant influence on how we frame the questions and analysis of the dependent variable. 2.1 Theoretical framing of the dependent variable The most basic way to frame the analysis of the acquisition of tense-aspect is to examine how di¤erent approaches view the object to be learned per se (i.e., the theoretical construct). In practice, the focus is on defining the ‘‘boundaries’’ between lexical, grammatical, discursive, and pragmaticcontextual representations of aspectual knowledge. For instance, syntactic approaches mostly draw the boundary at internal and external arguments, whereas other approaches move the definitional boundary beyond internal and external arguments up to the level of adjuncts and context. These distinctions are not trivial, and one possible consequence is that the analyses of aspect within a narrow specification of the construct leaves out of the realm of investigation the e¤ects of discursive and pragmatic context (whether the latter are necessary or not is part of the theoretical debate). The importance of the topic of circumscribing the definition of aspectual

426

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

meanings is highlighted by the fact that a common thread in the chapters in this volume has been their emphasis on establishing the boundaries across levels of aspectual meanings (see Chapters 5 and 6). The classical division of lexical aspect versus grammatical aspect (cf. Andersen 1986), or situation aspect versus viewpoint aspect (cf. Smith 1991/1997) highlights the fact that the definition of aspect can have more than one single interpretation depending on how much contextual information we bring to bear on this definition. The above-mentioned contrasts (e.g., lexical and grammatical aspect) are clearly represented in the various definitions of aspect. As one example, let us review two well-known distinct definitions provided by Comrie (1976) and Klein (1994) respectively (added emphasis):1 Aspect represents ‘a way of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation’ (Comrie 1976: 3) Aspect ‘concerns the di¤erent perspectives which a speaker can take and express with regard to the temporal course of some event, action, process, etc’. (Klein 1994: 16)

That is, whereas Comrie’s definition focuses our attention on the linguistic characterization of the features of the situation in reality, Klein focuses our attention on the speaker’s perspective – as opposed to the situation in reality or the linguistic characterization of such reality. It is obvious that Klein’s definition is the one that introduces a complex interpretation of the meaning of aspect given its emphasis on the subjective interpretation of situations by speakers and hearers. Such contrast in meanings has been discussed in great detail by Smith (1991/1997) and reminds us that aspect is a complex topic given by the various layers of interpretation possible. Despite the apparent subjectivity of how we use aspectual markers to highlight specific ‘‘construals’’ of situations in reality (i.e., Klein’s definition above), there are, however, conventions of use (cf. Smith 1991/1997) of grammatical aspect that provide limits to the arbitrariness of the sub-

1. Granted, both Comrie and Klein o¤er a more extensive (and nuanced) definition of aspect. However, we believe that the basic gist of their definitions is adequately represented in the quotes presented above.

Integrating

427

jective selections. For instance, Smith (1997: 7) points out that ‘‘[s]tandard choices focus on aspectual properties that are salient at the basic level; non-standard choices focus on other properties’’. Accordingly, Smith contends that sentences (5) and (6) are two possible linguistic descriptions of the same event (both examples from Smith). (1) The ship moved. (2) The ship was in motion. According to Smith, sentence (1) conveys the conventional interpretation of the event ‘‘according to the properties that are salient perceptually and functionally’’. In contrast, sentence (2) is representative of the less conventional description of the same eventuality, because it depicts the event as a state. Either representation has obvious consequences that speakers may or may not choose to highlight (e.g., option (2) ‘‘freezes’’ the motion of the ship). And even if speakers select the unconventional depiction, Smith notes that ‘‘receivers will not be misled by unconventional choice. Knowing a language includes the standard, basic associations of verb constellation with verb type’’. Moreover, there are cases in which speakers are even more constrained by the choices, as in the following examples from Salaberry (2008) (adapted from Langacker’s (1982) examples in English) and Doiz-Bienzobas (1995): (3) a. b. (4) a. b.

Sally fue (PRET) de Phoenix a Tucson. ‘Sally went from Phoenix to Houston’. *Esta ruta fue (PRET) de Phoenix a Tucson. ‘That route went from Phoenix to Houston’. La carta decı´a (IMP) hola. ‘The letter said hello’. *La carta dijo (PRET) hola. ‘The letter said hello’.

As can be seen in both sets of examples, the perfective form is ungrammatical, thus showing very concrete limits to the range of subjectivity to be exercised by speakers. Even though previous classifications of theoretical perspectives on the acquisition of tense-aspect are not necessarily restricted to the identification of the object of study, there is a clear correlation of theoretical perspective and the object of study (i.e., the dependent variable). Thus, Montrul and Salaberry (2003) listed five theoretical characterizations of the development of tense and aspect morphology in Spanish broadly defined according to

428

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

the description of the dependent variable as follows: (a) lexical semantics, (b) generative, (c) context-based, (d) communicative, and (e) cognitiveperceptual. For instance, the first perspective, lexical semantics, has become associated with the Lexical Aspect Hypothesis (LAH).2 This hypothesis is based on the concept that the lexico-semantic characteristics of verbal predicates (i.e., lexical aspectual classes such as states, activities, and telic events) are a major contributor to the emergence of tense-aspect morphology. More precisely, the LAH, in its original formulation, advanced the notion that in the early stages of acquisition, verbal morphology used by L2 learners marks inherent aspectual distinctions instead of tense or grammatical aspect. Although the LAH is primarily focused on the beginning stages of acquisition of grammatical aspect, it does restrict its analysis to the lexical nature of aspectual marking (see Chapter 8). Similarly, the generative perspective is based on the minimalist theory of language, and thus it is focused primarily on the syntactic frame of reference to aspectual contrasts, or at most the syntax-semantics interface. More precisely, it focuses on how the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology correlates with the acquisition of syntactic features: Giorgi and Pianesi 1997 was the principal theoretical reference used by the earliest studies on the acquisition of aspect from the minimalist point of view (e.g., Slabakova and Montrul 2002: 122). From such perspective, grammatical aspect is a functional category that is located in a di¤erent position than lexical aspect in the clause structure (syntactic trees). Cross-linguistic variation occurs when, for instance, the Spanish e perfective features are checked overtly through inflectional morphology, whereas in English only the þ perfective feature is checked with Simple Past (verbs in English are þ perfective). More importantly, generative perspectives typically restrict the definition of aspect to the combined meanings of main predicate and its arguments (see Chapter 4). The third perspective does not focus on semantics or syntax as the two previous ones, but rather it gives prominence to contextual factors such as type of discourse and text. This viewpoint is closely associated with the Discourse Hypothesis and the Distributional Bias Hypothesis. The discourse hypothesis (Bardovi-Harlig 1998) proposes that learners will put to use their developing morphology to mark specific types of information in specific texts, namely foreground in narratives (see Chapters 7 and 9). On the other hand, the Distributional Bias Hypothesis (Andersen 1994; Andersen and Shirai 1994) states that the distribution of verbal morphology 2. The terms Lexical Aspect Hypothesis (LAH) and Aspect Hypothesis (AH) are used indistinctively by di¤erent authors in the chapters of the volume.

Integrating

429

in di¤erent types of verbal predicates (cf. the Lexical Aspect Hypothesis) mimics the distribution found in the linguistic input received by L2 learners. The fourth perspective is cognitive-perceptual and focuses on the role of perceptual saliency and frequency of verbal endings (e.g., regular versus irregular) to account for the acquisition of L2 tense-aspect. Emergent verbal endings will be those that are more frequent and irregular (see Chapter 3). The final theoretical perspective is labeled communicative because it makes a distinction between semantic meaning and pragmatic implicature for the acquisition of tense-aspect in the sense that the way a speaker construes a situation (and uses verbal morphology accordingly) depends on how the speaker views the situation from a communicative-pragmatic point of view. As already pointed out by Montrul and Salaberry, some of these proposals have received more attention than others, at least in terms of the number of empirical studies carried out within any given perspective. More specifically, the largest proportion of the empirical studies has been dedicated to the analysis of data that can help us reject the hypotheses provided by the lexical semantics, generative, and contextual approaches. It appears that this trend continues to be the case as the di¤erent chapters in the current volume attest. In addition, even within one theoretical approach, there has been some further elaboration of the original theoretical claims. This is clearly the case of the generative approach (the di¤erences in theories in Chapter 4) and the cognitive approach (see Chapters 1 and 3). 2.2. Theoretical framing of the independent variables Another way to examine the di¤erent theories of the L2 acquisition of tense and aspect is to focus on the factors that act as independent variables to account for such acquisition. Salaberry (2008) listed five variables: (a) lexical aspect, (b) discourse structure, (c) syntactic structure, (d) L1 transfer, and (e) perceptual saliency. Each one of these variables is closely related to the theoretical perspectives proposed in Montrul and Salaberry (2003), although the latter classification gives less prominence to the potential explanatory variables that account for the acquisition process, while focusing more on the theoretical description of the actual object of study (i.e., aspect). In particular, the classification scheme provided by Montrul and Salaberry (2003) largely embeds the e¤ect of independent variables, such as L1 or cognitive factors, within the macro level of theoretical approaches to the acquisition and development of knowledge about aspectual concepts

430

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

in the L2. In contrast, Salaberry (2008) describes the explanatory power of the above-mentioned five independent variables, given that these variables are the ones that have been the most prevalent in the research design of previous studies on the L2 development of tense-aspect. The analysis of the e¤ects of both lexical aspect and discourse grounding has been central to the analysis of the acquisition and development of tense-aspect construals since the 1980s, when Andersen and BardoviHarlig published their first studies on the e¤ect of both inherent lexical aspect and grounding. There are several studies that trace the history of the studies that used these two independent variables (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Labeau 2005; Salaberry 2000). More recently, syntactic structure has become a prominent factor on the analysis of tense-aspect acquisition (see Chapter 4). Interestingly, whereas all of these variables (lexical, discourse, syntax) have been associated with di¤erent types of universal predispositions, the role that the native language of the learners may play as an independent variable has remained relatively less studied (albeit indirectly considered by the majority of studies). Similarly, general cognitive predispositions have also been indirectly assessed in previous studies (e.g., the role of saliency of morphological markers e¤ected through frequency e¤ects). The role of the learners’ L1 is especially important for the notion of a possible general marker of tense that overrides any marker of aspect. For instance, in the case of L1 English speakers learning L2 Spanish, the simple past in English marks only tense, but not aspect (cf. Giorgi and Pianesi 1997). Thus, Salaberry (1999, 2000) and Wiberg (1996) predicted that during the first stages of L2 development, learners will mark tense rather than aspectual distinctions. This proposed tense-aspect dissociation brought about by cross-linguistic e¤ects can be substantiated along complementary lines of theoretical analysis, including the e¤ect of linguistic factors (e.g., lexical aspect, grounding), and cognitive factors (e.g., perceptual saliency through instruction or prototypicality of past tense marking). For example, Salaberry (2011) analyzed data that seem to show that the e¤ects of lexical aspect and discourse grounding can be integrated into one single developmental process that is inherently tied to the prevalent marking of tense through the e¤ect of the L1. Similarly, McManus (2011: 206) analyzed the e¤ect of form-meaning pairs from L1 German and L1 English on the acquisition of L2 French among university students. In his analysis, McManus concluded the following:

Integrating

431

English low group learners show stability in using the IMP to mark progressivity but not habituality. This is arguably because habituality needs mapping but progressivity does not. German low group learners indicate di‰culty in marking habituality and progressivity with the IMP because both meanings require remapping. Therefore, it is claimed that when di¤erences exist in how the L1 and the L2 express meaning, it is these L1-L2 di¤erences that constitute di‰culties in L2 development.

Thus, the L1-L2 mapping can be considered an important variable that deserves further study (cf. Carroll and von Stutterheim, 2003; von Stutterheim, Carroll, and Klein, 2009 for the importance of the role of L1-L2 mapping and how di¤erent types of discourse are organized in interlanguage). Cross-linguistic influences are also important to weigh the relevance of some of the proposed independent variables. For instance, Giacalone Ramat and Rastelli (Chapter 11) summarize several findings from their studies on the acquisition of perfective and imperfective past tense forms in L2 Italian (i.e., Passato Prossimo and Imperfect) that point in the direction of strong L1-specific e¤ects that override other factors such as lexical aspect. For instance, L1 German learners ‘‘used the passato prossimo with all classes of verbs, showing many cases of overextension of the passato prossimo in place of the imperfect’’ (402). Similarly, ‘‘durative predicates emerge with perfective marking, contrary to Andersen’s predictions, while stative predicates like ‘‘be’’, ‘‘have’’, and modals receive an imperfect marking, somewhat later than perfective marking’’. In their analysis, Giacalone Ramat and Rastelli conclude that ‘‘[w]hat can be suggested is that the Aspect Hypothesis is too strong, although the use of verbal morphology is clearly influenced by lexical aspect’’. Similarly, in his analysis of German-speaking and English-speaking students learning L2 French, McManus (2011) concluded that the e¤ects of lexical aspect increase in association with increasing proficiency, also providing evidence against the strict interpretation of the Lexical Aspect Hypothesis. Findings and claims such as the ones summarized above have prompted a healthy debate on the relevance of old and new theoretical proposals. Shirai (2004), for instance, argued that the various results discussed above (inter alia) are debatable, given the possible e¤ect of methodological factors. Thus, Shirai (2004: 91) claimed that the findings that support or reject the main tenet of the AH are confounded by the research methodology used in various studies. Arguably, on the one hand production data produce results ‘‘that often go against the AH’’, and, on the other hand, ‘‘paper-and-pencil tests often show patterns consistent with the hypothesis’’.

432

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

McManus (2011: 214), however, points out that ‘‘if the AH’s predictions are not empirically supported (i.e., not reflected in spontaneous production), then its claim for universality rings hollow. How can the AH be a valid theory of L2 development if it fails to convincingly predict actual patterns of L2 development?’’ As we can see, it is di‰cult to disentangle the e¤ects of theoretical factors from methodological ones. Indeed, there are enough methodological di¤erences in the various studies carried out to test the e¤ect of the various proposed independent hypotheses that it is worth considering the relevance of methodological factors.

3. Trends in methodology to study L2 tense-aspect The field of SLA has developed in such a way in the last 20 years that methodologies are not only di¤erent in the various theoretical frameworks (e.g., UG versus LAH), but also within the frameworks. For instance, Chapters 7, 9, and 11 in this volume provide a review of methodologies that could be considered within one framework (functional-discourse). Nonetheless, these chapters also provide evidence that within each framework one can choose from plenty of elicitation tasks and methods. For instance, Comajoan’s review of 19 studies (Chapter 9) that have used the foreground-background distinction in L2 studies shows that their definitions vary considerably, and consequently their way of analyzing the data varies as well. Along the same lines, Bardovi-Harlig (Chapter 7) mentions three major types of open-ended tasks for tense and aspect L2 research: narratives, description, and conversation, and within narratives, she studies conversational and elicited narratives and within the latter she discusses personal, impersonal, and personalized narratives. In designing a method to investigate the acquisition of L2 tense and aspect, at least the following seven factors need to be taken into account (Montrul and Salaberry 2003; Salaberry and Ayoun 2005; Salaberry 2008): 1. Type of data and data collection procedures 2. Selection and use of operational tests to determine categories (e.g., lexical aspectual; discourse, etc.) 3. Language-specific characteristics of tense-aspectual contrasts 4. The e¤ect of learning environment 5. Types of input 6. Subject-related factors (age, level of proficiency of L2, motivation) 7. Definition of ultimate attainment in L2 tense-aspect acquisition

Integrating

433

The number of factors listed above attests to the complexity of studying L2 tense-aspect and the diversification of theories. However, some of the most pressing issues regarding methodology in L2 tense-aspect, which are often cited in the current volume and elsewhere, concern primarily factors 1 and 2 above. These factors are especially important given that researchers have direct control over them as part of research design.3 While in principle it is possible for researchers to make methodological decisions about factors 3–6, their e¤ects are primarily beyond the control of research design once some basic decisions have been made (i.e., source and target language, subjects’ background). With regards to the more fine-grained decisions associated with factors 1 and 2 above, there are some specific methodological concerns that deserve special attention, and as such are often mentioned in the chapters in the current volume: (a) the use of multivariate approaches to study how di¤erent variables interact, and (b) the selection of types of data analyses. 3.1. Multivariate analyses The complexity of most tense-aspect systems in language and its interaction with other variables, as explained earlier, warrants the need to analyze the L2 acquisition of tense-aspect from a multivariate perspective. Even though it is expected that in an early period of study and development of research within the discipline of SLA single variables will be studied, after two decades of research in the L2 acquisition of tense-aspect and the recurrent finding that di¤erent linguistic levels (e.g., phonology, morphology, syntax, and discourse) interact in the acquisition of tense-aspect, further research projects that integrate the interaction of two or more variables need to be developed. In line with this argument, Bayley (Chapter 10) reminds us of Young and Bayley’s (1996: 253) principle of multiple causes: ‘‘it is unlikely that any single contextual factor can explain the variability in the [interlanguage] data’’. Indeed, in Chapter 10, Bayley summarizes a list of factors that a¤ect the use of tense-aspect markers such as: perceptual saliency (e.g., position of the aspect marker), contrastive morphological saliency of present-past forms, L1 prosodic transfer, frequency and prototypicality, social factors, learner characteristics (L1, other languages, L2 proficiency,

3. Factor 7 would also fall within research design, but it has already been analyzed in the previous section.

434

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

type of learning environment, etc.), discourse context, and task type. The factors discussed by Bayley can be divided into two main groups, those that are related to theoretical constructs of the tempo-aspectual system of languages and those that are related to tasks to elicit data. For this reason, the adoption of a multivariate analysis perspective can be considered an issue that is both related to the theoretical framework and to the specific methodology. The most common multivariate analyses in L2 tense-aspect have been related to the study of the LAH and the DH (see summaries of previous studies in Bardovi-Harlig 2000 and Salaberry 2008). However, in the analyses of the ‘‘conspiring’’ factors from the two hypotheses, results tend to be discussed as if there were two competing forces and one had to play a more important role than the other, when it is very likely that one may subsume the other, that both simply interact and are in constant interaction, or that at di¤erent periods of acquisition one is more important than the other (see Salaberry 2011 for empirical data that support the latter argument). In addition, the studies that have examined the interaction of the two hypotheses have not adopted a multivariate statistical analysis (like the one argued by Bayley in Chapter 10), but rather statistical techniques that may be more appropriate for quantitative univariate analyses. Current research is also investigating how di¤erent variables interact in the L2 acquisition of tense-aspect from perspectives that go beyond the LAH and the DH. For instance, Ellis (Chapter 3) investigates how frequency (and its many implications) and salience play a decisive role in the acquisition of L2 tense-aspect and argues for multivariate analyses not just from a linguistic perspective (e.g., how are di¤erent verb forms marked), but rather from a cognitive perspective that studies how human beings learn in general and how they learn an L2 specifically: ‘‘we need models of learning, language, meaning, usage, interaction, development, and emergence that take all these factors into account dynamically’’. 3.2. Data analysis There are two main factors related to data analysis that are amenable to a great deal of control on the part of researchers: the coding of data and the use of interpretation- or production-based data.The first factor relates to a clear definition and use of operational tests to code and analyze data, as argued in several chapters of the current volume (e.g., Chapter 6, 8, and 9). Providing the specific tests and stating how data were coded will allow

Integrating

435

researchers to consider how confirming or conflicting results relate to the methodology used in a study. In this view, the guidelines in the chapters by Shirai and Comajoan regarding the coding of lexical aspect and discourse grounding, respectively, may prove useful for designing new studies. The second issue that any study that deems itself to be rigorous needs to include is a discussion of task selection and how it relates to the acquisition of L2 tense-aspect features. As clearly shown, for instance, in the chapters by Bardovi-Harlig and Giacalone Ramat and Rastelli, di¤erences in task design may have an important e¤ect in the elicitation and production of learners’ interlanguage. Consequently, studies need to be clear on their motivations for selecting the type of task in one study as opposed to other tasks used in similar studies, and assess how such methodological decision may a¤ect the results obtained. The second factor associated with data analysis that deserves special attention for its implications in building a theory of L2 acquisition of tense-aspect is the use of interpretation versus production tasks. Productionbased studies tend to focus on the building of a large enough database that can provide researchers with information about the development of tenseaspectual concepts as speakers interact in real world use. The specific focus on development in particular is consistent with the underlying assumption that learners are guided by a general problem-solving, cognitive-based L2 system when they put to use their knowledge of the theoretical construct. The best examples of this kind of study are the studies carried out by the European Science Foundation in the early 1990s (e.g., Dietrich, Klein and Noyau 1993). In contrast, interpretation-based studies tend to focus on the identification of target-like selections of grammatical choices, irrespective of the general cognitive constraints that may a¤ect such target-like interpretation. The arguments about interpretation- and production-based procedures tend to make associations between the above-mentioned research procedures and specific theoretical approaches. Thus, some researchers have dismissed the contributions of functionalist-based approaches due to their reliance (or over-reliance) on interactional language use. Rothman and Iverson (2008: 308), for instance, claim that ‘‘Insofar as it is justified to assume that target-like interpretation provides better evidence for assessing underlying competence than looking at morphological production alone . . . it is fair to claim that generative approaches are better equipped to diminish the inherent opaqueness of determining linguistic competence’’ (emphasis added). Notwithstanding the advantages of interpretation-based

436

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

protocols of data collection, the procedures based on the analyses of data production are no less important in their own right. That is, meaningoriented production tasks have some inherent advantages over interpretation tasks. Most importantly, (a) they increase processing demands, thus making it less likely that learners can e‰ciently access conscious application of monitored rules, and (b) they increase the likelihood that contextual factors that shape decisions about tense-aspect marking will not be left out of consideration. By their very nature, interpretation tasks require that researchers create and delimit the context that will help determine the judgments of acceptability of the various morphosyntactic choices selected for analysis. That is, the fact that research design circumscribes the problem space increases the chances that empirical results may be an artifact of the research procedure (see Chapter 6). Apart from the specific features of each procedure of data collection, there are also discrepancies related to the analysis of data (however it was obtained). More specifically, the assessment of the research value of interpretation- and production-based procedures is sometimes obfuscated by the confusion between data and data analysis. For example, Rothman and Iverson (2008: 309) claim that usage/experience based approaches that ‘‘employ a functionalist view of morpho-phonological use . . . face an explanation problem since, in line with others, our data showed robust semantic properties of target competence in this L2 domain’’. The fallacy of the previous argument, however, is that we confuse data with data analysis. The fact that some data may be indicative of a certain outcome does not necessarily invalidate alternative explanations given that there is no independent criterion that adjudicates the outcome (it is theoretically-biased given that there is more than one theoretical option).

4. Towards a mixed methods methodology? The development of SLA research has not been an exception to the chasm in theories and methodologies that has taken place in other academic disciplines. For instance, the early debate about the proliferation of theories in SLA seen as beneficial or not to theory construction and development of the field (see a summary in Jordan 2004) and the recent one about social versus mentalistic perspectives of SLA (see a summary in La¤ord 2007) are proof of the diversity of voices and opinions in SLA and to an extent to a chasm that has not been solved yet. The divergence of voices is

Integrating

437

also evident in the study of L2 tense-aspect, as witnessed in the di¤erent theoretical frameworks and methodologies described in the current volume. As mentioned earlier, di¤erences in how studies are designed (operational tests, task design, and so on) do arise and discussions related to how the subdiscipline of L2 tense-aspect acquisition develops are present as well (e.g., Lardiere 2003; Shirai 2007; Slabakova 2002). In this respect, we would like to suggest a way out of some of the discussions regarding methodology by advocating for a methodology that in other academic disciplines has proven fruitful, namely mixed methods (Denzin 2010; see a review in Tashakkori and Teddlie 2006). Do¨rnyei (2007) provided an introduction to mixed methods in applied linguistics and we use his discussion as a point of departure. Do¨rnyei defined mixed methods following the foundational work of Strauss and Corbin (1998): Qualitative and quantitative forms of research both have roles to play in theorizing. The issue is not whether to use one form or another, but rather how these might work together to foster the development of theory. Although most researchers tend to use qualitative and quantitative methods in supplementary or complementary forms, what we are advocating is a true interplay between the two. The qualitative should direct the quantitative and the quantitative feedback into the qualitative in a circular, but at the same time evolving, process with each method contributing to the theory in ways that only each can (43).

For the purpose of our discussion, we highlight three fundamental questions that Do¨rnyei posed to L2 researchers who want to adopt a mixed method methodology: (a) Why do we want to mix methods?, (b) Can di¤erent methods be really integrated?, and (c) What is the best way of mixing methods?, In the following section, we analyze in further detail each question and answer provided by Do¨rnyei, in order to provide more detail on the potential benefits of such an approach for the analysis of research in tense and aspect. The first question is: Why do we want to mix methods? Do¨rnyei’s answer to this question is that mixed methods are useful to (a) expand our understanding of a complex issue, (b) corroborate findings through triangulation, and (c) reach multiple audiences. Indeed, reviews of research have often mentioned that tense-aspect represents a complex topic, both from the perspective of the learner as well as the researcher or the language instructor (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Salaberry 2008, inter alia).

438

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

Thus, the goal of expanding the understanding of a complex issue seems an appropriate one. Such an expansion of our understanding can fulfill four di¤erent functions (complementary, development, initiation, and expansion) (Do¨rnyei 2007). First, quantitative and qualitative studies can be complimentary in the traditional sense that they assist each other to study di¤erent aspects of one phenomenon (often, this is done carrying out qualitative research to explore a topic, and then, after a hypothesis is posited, to test it in a quantitative perspective). Second, qualitative and quantitative methods can be used sequentially in a way that the findings of the first method are used to develop the second method. Giacalone Ramat and Rastelli (Chapter 11) advocate for this type of methodology when they suggest that a qualitative method (verb pairs) be used to generate hypotheses that will inform the development of further quantitative studies. Third, sometimes it may be useful to use di¤erent methods to elicit di¤erent results purposefully and thus be able to study the e¤ect of methods themselves and posit new hypotheses. Finally, the two types of methods may be used to expand the topic or field of study. The combination of qualitative methodologies to investigate the learning of tense and aspect in the classroom with quantitative studies such as those mentioned in the article by Niemeier (Chapter 1) could be considered an example of this function. The second question refers to the integration of methods: Can di¤erent methods be really integrated? More precisely, is there a danger that the paradigmatic collision of methods may cancel out any potential benefits? Do¨rnyei’s answer to this question is that mixed methods is not an ‘‘anything goes’’ approach. One can use multiple methods as long as one is consistent with the methodology. Do¨rnyei, for instance, points out that ‘‘the key process is ‘principled mixing’’’: Collect data so that ‘‘the resulting mixture or combination is likely to result in complementary strengths and non-overlapping weaknesses’’ (167). Another manner to examine the integration of methods and its advantages is to relate it to the integration of analyses at the micro- and macro-levels. There is no solid tradition of integrating methods in research in tense and aspect. However, there have been constant calls for an integration of di¤erent hypotheses (the Aspect and Discourse Hypotheses mainly) – with their corresponding methods – and lately of research paradigms (Salaberry 2008). For instance, as mentioned earlier, Giacalone Ramat and Rastelli (Chapter 11) advocate for mixing methods even though they do not focus on how they can be integrated. Similarly, even though Bardovi-Harlig (Chapter 7) does not refer to mixed methods explicitly, she also argues for the use of di¤erent

Integrating

439

types of tasks that can provide complementary results to the study of tense and aspect. Finally, Comajoan (Chapter 9) reviews di¤erent approaches to the study of narrative discourse grounding while highlighting current studies in which di¤erent methodologies are integrated (e.g., Rosi 2009). In his third question, Do¨rnyei asked, What is the best way of mixing methods? There are multiple combinations depending on two typological principles: sequence (what methodology is first? quantitative or qualitative?) and dominance (which dominates?). Do¨rnyei provided a variety of examples that combine mostly questionnaires (quantitative) and interviews (qualitative) (also self-reports, observation, and experiments). Research in tense and aspect has used both qualitative and quantitative methods, but very few researchers have combined them. For instance, Liskin Gasparro (1996) used retrospective interviews to study how advanced learners of Spanish argued for the use of preterite and imperfect forms. Other studies examined the same object but using di¤erent data collection tasks (e.g., video retellings, story book retellings, and conversations in Comajoan 2001), but there have been few studies that make an e¤ort to combine methodologies and tasks (an exception is Rosi 2009, who provided quantitative and qualitative analyses). Do¨rney wondered why researchers do not mix methods more, and pondered about three possible main reasons. First, researchers in some fields do not have enough knowledge and training about method mixing. Second, researchers do not have enough expertise to put into practice research designs based on mixed methods. And third, publication pressure may encourage researchers to publish di¤erent studies with di¤erent methodologies separately instead of using one single study that combines both types of method. Those disciplines that have adopted a mixed method perspective have soon discovered that such an approach is not the solution to all problems (see a review in Hesse-Biber 2010; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2006). A major concern has been how to avoid placing one (commonly, quantitative) first and relegate the other (often, qualitative) to a subsidiary position (what Howe 2004 calls mixed-methods experimentalism). As discussed above, the combinations of methodologies are multiple, and depending on the goals of the study one can be more appropriate than the other. For instance, Giacalone Ramat and Rastelli (Chapter 11) explicitly refer to the relationship between the two types of methodologies and argue for carrying out qualitative studies first that would inform later quantitative studies later (see Howe 2004 for a detailed discussion of positioning qualitative studies first in the field of educational studies).

440

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

In sum, mixed methods are not the solution to all the theoretical and methodological concerns raised in the volume, but incorporating such a new perspective, which has been adopted in other disciplines and proven productive, may contribute to the development of research in L2 tenseaspect. Ultimately, in regard to theory and methodology, we agree with a number of Jordan’s (2004: 115–116) guidelines for the construction of a rational theory of SLA, which can adequately be applied to research in L2 tense-aspect: (a) ‘‘research is inseparable from theory’’ as has been clearly demonstrated in the chapters in the volume and in the current chapter, (b) ‘‘we cannot formalize ‘the scientific method’’’, that is, there is no one method to carry out research in L2 tense-aspect and, as argued by Jordan, there is no clear mark between ‘‘science’’ and ‘‘non-science’’, but rather multiple methods whose combinations will contribute to the development of theory and methodology, and (c) ‘‘there is no need for paradigmatic theories’’, in the sense that there should be no concern for the proliferation of theories that may contribute to the development of the field as long as theories are well constructed. In line with the claims advanced by Jordan (2004), the analysis of the compatibility of the di¤erent theoretical perspectives can be framed by a number of broad discussions (which are not necessarily di¤erent from previous general discussions in SLA). In the end, it is clear that a multiple methods approach is best. Zyzik and Gass (2008: 385), for instance, argue that ‘‘. . . multiple methods of data collection . . . enrich our understanding of a variety of linguistic structures’’. In particular, Zyzik and Gass highlight the fact that recent studies conducted within generative approaches have started to include more contextualized procedures to gather evidence to test proposed hypotheses (e.g., sentence-selection tasks as in Bruhn de Garavito and Valenzuela 2008 or paragraph interpretation as in Rothman and Iverson 2008). In light of this new trend in tense-aspect studies, our proposal is to encourage the use of mixed method methodology in tense and aspect research.

5. The e¤ect of explicit instruction on the acquisition of tense and aspect As it is well known by any researcher who is also a second language teacher or learner, the explicit instruction of tense and aspect marking is central to most second language courses, and as such they clearly play an important role in grammatically focused pedagogical materials. Both Niemeier (Chapter 1) and Doiz (Chapter 2) make reference to several

Integrating

441

instructional e¤ects, both potential and actual, that can have an e¤ect on the acquisition of tense-aspect contrasts. In this section, we discuss three main principles to implement a way of teaching informed by current research and methodology in the acquisition of L2 tense and aspect. Before embarking upon the discussion of the principles, we tackle the issue regarding the e¤ect of instruction on the acquisition of second languages. Ellis (1997) addressed a number of problems in the teaching and learning of grammatical items in a second language, and he argued for the Weak Interface Hypothesis: the kind of explicit knowledge which results from formal grammar instruction can become, through practice, the kind of implicit knowledge that is required for use in communication. To be able to prove whether explicit knowledge can be converted into implicit knowledge, one has to prove that the learner’s awareness and use of the particular grammatical structure improves after instruction. There have been a number of empirical studies that have demonstrated that learners who receive instruction outperform those who do not, both with respect to the rate of acquisition and ultimate level of achievement (Long 1983, 1988; Ellis 1985, 1990, among others). Thus, on the basis of the research on the e¤ects of form-focused instruction on accuracy, there is enough evidence to show that form-focused instruction can result in definite gains in accuracy (Ellis 2002). For instance, the European Science Foundation carried out a number of studies on L2 teaching including target languages such as English, Dutch, French, German, and Swedish. Dietrich et al. (1995) conducted di¤erent studies with learners of each of the five target languages. Some of the learners received instruction, whereas some did not, which allowed for a comparison between instructed and uninstructed learners. One of the key findings was that instruction on its own was not responsible for success, but rather it was a tool to accessing and grasping the target grammatical phenomenon; and, as such, it had a positive e¤ect on its acquisition. In sum, e¤ective instruction may have an impact on the acquisition of L2 tense and aspect. What we define as e¤ective instruction has to do with the three principles discussed next. The first principle has to do with understanding the complexity of the instruction and learning of L2 tempo-aspectual systems. Blyth (2005), using the criteria for determining the di‰culty of grammatical structures adapted from Ellis (1997, 2002) showed that Romance aspect is particularly di‰cult for English-speaking students because all eight criteria (formal complexity of the system, functional complexity of the system, reliability of rules, metalanguage of rules, L1-L2 contrasts, frequency of forms

442

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

in the input, redundancy in the relationship between form and meaning, and saliency in the input) contribute to making L2 tense-aspect highly complex and di‰cult to learn. Thus, it is important that both L2 teachers and learners are made aware that teaching and learning a new tempoaspectual system takes time and often requires adopting a new perspective on how time is encoded and viewed in di¤erent languages. A possible new way to raise such awareness may be done adopting cognitive grammar as a method of describing the grammar and designing new teaching materials. The second principle focuses on the teaching and learning of appropriate form-meaning relationships. Learning a language means both learning new forms and new meanings. In fact, the learning challenge is even more di‰cult because learners also need to reorganize or reconceptualize already known notions. Thus, one of the tasks of the L2 instructor is to help learners become aware of the broad range of form/meaning aspectual associations of the target language (Blyth 1997). Since classroom learners seem to be better at learning verbal forms than verbal use or meaning (BardoviHarlig 1995), it is necessary to focus on verbal meaning and use when teaching new forms (Larsen-Freeman 1990). Thus, e¤ective instruction should avoid the still common practice of teaching aspectual contrasts (e.g., between perfective and imperfective forms in Romance or Slavic languages) with isolated sentences that do not include enough contextual information to make a decision on what form to use. It is debatable, however, whether such broad contextualization should occur from the beginning stages of instruction, or whether learners need to go through an initial developmental stage in which frequency and salience determine that learners rely on prototypical choices. That is, although the available empirical data do show that learners follow a prototypical to nonprototypical sequence of acquisition (e.g., Salaberry 2011 for a wide range of data supporting this claim), it is not clear whether this e¤ect is created by current pedagogical practices (e.g., preterite is typically presented before the imperfect), or whether learners can handle a more complex representation of aspect as soon as they start marking aspectual contrasts. The issue of providing appropriate form-meaning relationships to language learners has to do with their access to linguistic input in the L2. Classroom L2 acquisition is di¤erent from naturalistic language learning, mainly because classroom learners do not receive random or spontaneous language, with an abundance of pragmatic and contextual clues, but a language that is manipulated (mostly through simplifications and reductions

Integrating

443

of context) in order to facilitate the learning of the particular phenomenon. However, even if classroom interaction incorporates more free conversational tasks, it is doubtful that the functional needs of true communicative interaction can be successfully recreated. The type of input that learners are exposed to is also of interest because previous studies have shown, for instance, that untutored learners mark perfective and imperfective meanings with pragmatic means, whereas classroom learners mark them with morphosyntactic means (see review of studies in Salaberry 2000). Therefore, if classroom learners are to develop an appropriate representation of grammatical aspect and understand the di¤erence between several aspectual forms, then other strategies on top of the contextual ones must be presented. For instance, it may prove fruitful to train learners to discover how grammatical aspect interacts with predicational aspect (Gonza´lez 2003) and to raise their awareness that form-meaning associations are complex and not just a matter of learning isolated forms (see a review of other techniques in Blyth 2005). Finally, the third principle focuses on the evaluation of the background knowledge (both general and tempo-aspectual) that learners bring to the learning task. Thus, when learning new form-meaning aspectual associations we have to keep in mind that learners do not start from scratch, but rather they already possess knowledge about temporality and how to mark it in their L1. In order to link what they are learning with what they already know (Ausubel 1968; Slagter 2000), learners need to be made aware of both their L1 and L2 tempo-aspectual systems. This is no easy task as the level of awareness that learners have may vary and the metalanguage to describe the systems may be highly complex to the extent that both learners and teachers are not prepared for accurate descriptions of the tempo-aspectual system. A possible way to make learners aware of the systems is to resort to a new way of describing grammatical relationships through cognitive grammar, such as the descriptions by Niemeier (Chapter 1) and Doiz (Chapter 2) for English and Spanish, respectively. As argued by Niemeier, ‘‘due to its usage-based nature and its focus on (conceptual) meaning, cognitive grammar may o¤er foreign language learners a descriptively adequate and intuitively comprehensible account of grammar’’ (11). Precisely, as mentioned in the previous principle, tense and aspect are so closely related to language use that only a description (or theory) of grammar that gives use such a prominent role may prove adequate for language learners. Furthermore, cognitive grammar makes an e¤ort at providing intuitive explanations that capture the generalities of grammar rules rather than the idiosyncratic exceptions to the rules (often in the

444

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

form of lists). As mentioned by Niemeier and Doiz, there is to date little research that has fully applied cognitive grammar to classroom instruction, but new teacher training materials and grammar manuals (e.g., Alonso et al. 2011 and Lo´pez 2005 for L2 Spanish) are a welcome addition to the development of studies in cognitive grammar in SLA. However, it must be acknowledged that cognitive grammar will not be the solution to all the di‰culties in describing grammar in the L2 classroom, as teachers may not have the appropriate background to cope with the conceptual turn required for the adoption of a cognitive approach to grammar teaching or the terminological complexity of some cognitive accounts. For this reason, further research needs to investigate how foundational texts on cognitive grammar and current studies within the cognitive approach can be introduced in the classroom and be made accessible to language teachers who are not necessarily experts in SLA (for the relationship between research and practice, see Ellis 1997; Kumaradivelu 2006).

6. Conclusion This chapter opened with three main questions that the current volume has attempted to answer: identifying the most relevant theoretical constructs that can contribute to a pan-theoretical perspective, integrating research methodologies, and, finally, analyzing the results derived from the theories and methodologies. The answers provided in the current chapter are not conclusive, although they arguably contribute to a better understanding of the analysis of the acquisition of temporality in the L2 by way of a comprehensive investigation of the path that research in tense and aspect has followed, the obstacles we have found on the road, and the hurdles we may still find in the future. As can be gathered from this chapter and the ones in the volume, research in L2 tense and aspect has developed both in the number of theories and methodologies, a fact that can be considered a strength or a weakness. On the one hand, it is positive to have a pluralistic perspective of viewpoints on how tense and aspect are learned in a second language because it contributes to the development of the SLA discipline in general. On the other hand, the proliferation of theories and methodologies can be considered problematic when theories and methodologies become incommensurable among themselves and results can only be understood as a sort of consequence of having ‘‘faith’’ in such and such theory or method. We have suggested that a middle of

Integrating

445

the road approach, which circumvents the problematic aspects of such a proliferation of theories and methods, is possible if researchers adopt rigorous methodologies (which include the provision of explicit theoretical assumptions, the specification of coding criteria, and the critical analysis of findings within a broad perspective) that may combine quantitative and qualitative methodologies and foster dialogue among researchers involved in the many faces of the study of tense and aspect.

References Alonso, Rosario, Alejandro Castan˜eda, Pablo Martı´nez, Lourdes Miquel, Jenaro Ortega & Jose´ Pla´cido 2011 Grama´tica ba´sica del estudiante de espan˜ol. Edicio´n revisada y ampliada. Barcelona: Difusio´n. Andersen, Roger 1986 The need for native language comparison data in interpreting second language data. Unpublished manuscript. Forum lecture 1986 TESOL Summer Institute, University of Hawaii. Andersen, Roger 1994 The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition. In William Ritchie & Tej J. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 527–570. San Diego: Academic. Andersen, Roger & Yasuhiro Shirai 1994 Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16. 133–156. Ayoun, Dalila & M. Rafael Salaberry 2005 Tense and aspect in Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ausubel, David 1968 Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1994 Reverse-order reports and the acquisition of tense: Beyond the Principle of Chronological Order. Language Learning 44. 243– 282. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1995 The interaction of pedagogy and natural sequences in the acquisition of tense and aspect. In Fred Eckman et al. (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 1998 Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 471–508.

446

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

Bayley, Robert 1996

Blyth, Carl 1997 Blyth, Carl 2005

Competing constraints on variation in the speech of adult Chinese learners of English. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, 97– 120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. A Constructivist approach to grammar: Teaching teachers to teach aspect. The Modern Language Journal 81. 50–66.

From empirical findings to the teaching of aspectual disctinctions. In D. Ayoun & M. R. Salaberry (Ed.), Tense and aspect in Romance languages, 211–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bruhn de Garavito & Elena Valenzuela 2008 Eventive and stative passives in Spanish L2 acquisition: A matter of aspect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11. 323–336. Carroll, Mary & Christiane von Stutterheim 2003 Typology and information organisation: perspective taking and language-specific e¤ects in the construal of events. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 365– 402. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comajoan, Llorenc¸ 2001 The acquisition of Catalan L2 past morphology: Evidence for the aspect and discourse hypotheses. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation. Denzin, Norman 2010 Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry 16. 419–427. Dietricht, Rainer, Wolfgang Klein & Colette Noyau 1995 The acquisition of temporality in a second language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Doiz-Bienzobas, Aintzane 1995 The preterite and the imperfect in Spanish: Past situation versus past viewpoint. San Diego, CA: University of California-San Diego, Ph.D. dissertation. Do¨rnyei, Zolta´n 2007 Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod 1985 Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod 1990 Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Integrating Ellis, Rod 1997 Ellis, Rod 2002

447

Second language acquisition research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Does form-focused instruction a¤ect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24. 223–236. Giorgi, Alessandra & Fabio Pianesi 1997 Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gonza´lez, Paz 2003 Aspects on aspect: Theory and applications of grammatical aspect in Spanish. Utrecht, The Netherlands: University of Utrecht, Ph.D. dissertation. Hesse-Biber, Sharlene 2010 Emerging methodologies and methods practices in the field of mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry 16. 415–418. Howe, Kenneth 2004 A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry 10. 42–61. Jordan, Geo¤ 2004 Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Klein, Wolfgang 1994 Time in language. London: Routledge. Kumaravadivelu, Bala 2006 Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Labeau, Emmanuelle 2005 Beyond the aspect hypothesis: Tense-aspect development in advanced L2 French. Bern: Peter Lang. La¤ord, Barbara 2007 Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firth & Wagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal 91. 735–756. Langacker, Ronald 1982 Remarks on English aspect. In P. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-aspect: Between syntax and pragmatics, 265–304. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lardiere, Donna 2003 The comparative fallacy revisited: A reply to Lakshmanan and Selinker (2001). Second Language Research 19. 129–143. Larsen-Freeman, Diane 1990 On the need for a theory of language teaching. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1990, 261–270. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

448

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

Liskin Gasparro, Judith 1996 Narrative strategies: A case study of developing storytelling skills by a learner of Spanish. Modern Language Journal 80. 271–286. Long, Michael 1983 Does second language instruction make a di¤erence? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly 17. 359–382. Long, Michael 1988 Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives, 115–141. New York: Newbury House. ´ ngel Lo´pez, A 2005 Grama´tica cognitiva para profesores de espan˜ol L2. Madrid: Arco Libros. McManus, Kevin 2011 The Development of aspect in a second language. Newcastle, England: Newcastle University, Ph.D. dissertation. Montrul, Silvina & Rafael Salaberry 2003 The development of Spanish past tense morphology: Developing a research agenda. In B. La¤ord & M. R. Salaberry (Eds), Studies in Spanish second language acquisition: State of the science, 47–73. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Montrul, Silvina & Roumyana Slabakova 2002 The L2 acquisition of morphosyntactic and semantic properties of the aspectual tenses preterite and imperfect. In A. T. Pe´rezLeroux & J. Mun˜oz Liceras (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax, 115–151. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers. Pu¨tz, Martin, Susanne Niemeier & Rene´ Dirven (Eds.) 2001 Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rocca, Sonia 2007 Child second language acquisition: A bi-directional study of English and Italian tense-aspect morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rothman, Jason & Michael Iverson 2008 Beyond morphological use: What semantic knowledge tells us about aspect in L2 Portuguese. Language Acquisition 15(4). 270–314. Rosi, Fabiana 2009 Learning aspect in Italian L2. Corpus annotation, acquisitional patterns, and connectionist modeling. Milan: FrancoAngeli. Salaberry, M. Rafael 1999 The development of past tense verbal morphology in classroom L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics 20(2). 151–178.

Integrating

449

Salaberry, M. Rafael 2000 The development of past tense morphology in L2 Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2008 Marking past tense in second language acquisition: A theoretical model. London: Continuum Press. Salaberry, M. Rafael 2011 Assessing the e¤ect of lexical aspect and grounding on the acquisition of L2 Spanish Preterite and Imperfect among L1 English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14. 184–202. Salaberry, Rafael & Yasuhiro Shirai 2002 Tense-aspect morphology in L2 acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Shirai, Yasuhiro 2004 A multiple-factor account for the form-meaning connections in the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. In J. Williams, B. VanPatten, S. Rott & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition, 91–112. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Shirai, Yasuhiro 2007 The aspect hypothesis, the comparative fallacy, and the validity of obligatory context analysis: A reply to Lardiere (2003). Second Language Research 23. 51–64. Slabakova, Roumyana 2001 Telicity in the second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Slabakova, Roumyana 2002 Recent research on the acquisition of aspect: An embarrassment of riches? Second Language Research 18(2). 172–188. Slabakova, Roumyana & Silvina Montrul 2007 L2 acquisition at the grammar-discourse interface: Aspectual shifts in L2 Spanish. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), Formal features in second language acquisition, 452–483. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Slagter, Peter Jan 2000 Learning by instructing. Utrecht, The Netherlands: University of Utrecht, Ph.D. dissertation. Smith, Carlota 1991 The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Smith, Carlota 1997 The parameter of aspect, 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Strauss, Anselm & Juliel Corbin 1998 Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

450

M. Rafael Salaberry, Llorenc¸ Comajoan, and Paz Gonza´lez

Tashakkori, Abbas & Charles Teddie 2003 Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. von Stutterheim, Carol, Mary Carroll & Wolfgang Klein 2009 New perspectives in analyzing aspectual distinctions across languages. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time, 195–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wiberg, Eva 1996 Reference to past events in bilingual Italian-Swedish children of school age. Linguistics 34. 1087–1114. Zyzyk, Eve & Susan Gass 2008 Epilogue: A tale of two copulas. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11. 383–385.

Author biographies Dalila Ayoun (Ph.D., University of Florida) is Professor of French Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition and Teaching at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Her research focuses on the second language acquisition of morphosyntax by adult learners. Her most recent publications include two edited volumes on French applied linguistics: Studies in French applied linguistics and French applied linguistics. She is also a coeditor for the Studies in Bilingualism book series (John Benjamins). Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig (Ph.D., University of Chicago) is Professor and Chair of Second Language Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington. Her research investigates second language acquisition of tense-aspect and temporal expression through a variety of research frameworks that link form and meaning, interlanguage pragmatics, and the interface of grammar and pragmatics, including most recently the role of conventional expressions. Her work on tense and aspect includes Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use and has appeared in Language Learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Modern Language Journal, The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, and many edited volumes. She is a former editor of Language Learning and a former president of AAAL. Robert Bayley (Ph.D., Stanford University) is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Davis. He has conducted research on variation in English, Spanish, American Sign Language, and Italian Sign Language and ethnographic studies on language use in U.S. Latino communities. His publications include Language as cultural practice: Mexicanos en el norte (with S. R. Schecter), Sociolinguistic variation: Theories, methods, and applications (with C. Lucas), and the Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics (with R. Cameron and C. Lucas). Llorenc¸ Comajoan (Ph.D. Indiana University, Bloomington) is Associate Professor at the University of Vic (Spain), where he teaches at the Department of Philology and Language and Literature Teaching, and he is a member of the University Centre for Sociolinguistics and Communication at the University of Barcelona. He has conducted research in second language acquisition (tense and aspect), educational sociolinguistics (longitudinal studies on the learning of Spanish and Catalan), and language teaching (grammar teaching and the role of motivation). He has published his research in Language Learning, Hispania, Catalan Review, Caplletra, and

452

Author biographies

Articles de Dida`ctica de la Llengua i la Literatura. He directs the Education, Language, and Literature research group at the University of Vic. Aintzane Doiz (Ph.D., University of California, San Diego) is Associate Professor at the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU (Spain), where she teaches English language and applied semantics in the Department of English and German studies, Translation and Interpretation. Her research interests are cognitive semantics, contrastive linguistics, and applied linguistics. Her latest research focuses on multilingualism in higher education and the acquisition of an L3 in CLIL. She is a member of the Language and Speech research group at the University of the Basque Country. Nick Ellis (Ph.D., University of Wales) is Professor of Psychology, Professor of Linguistics, Research Scientist in the English Language Institute, and Associated Faculty at the Centre for the Study of Complex Systems at the University of Michigan. Before his research appointment to the University of Michigan in 2004, he was Professor of Psychology at the University of Wales, Bangor. His research interests include language acquisition, cognition, emergentism, corpus linguistics, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, and applied linguistics. Two recent books on these themes are: Language as a complex adaptive system (with Diane Larsen-Freeman), and Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (with Peter Robinson). He is an adviser to the Oxford University Press Applied Linguistics series and serves as the General Editor of Language Learning. Anna Giacalone Ramat (Ph.D., University of Florence) is Professor Emerita of Linguistics at the University of Pavia (Italy). She has been Professor of Linguistics since 1975 and of Sociolinguistics in the 1982–1991 period. She is a former President of the International Society for Historical Linguistics, the Societa` Italiana di Glottologia, and the Societas Linguistica Europaea. Her main areas of research are historical linguistics, grammaticalization theory, languages in contact, plurilingualism and minority languages, and second language acquisition. Paz Gonza´lez (Ph.D., Utrecht University, The Netherlands) is Assistant Professor at Leiden University (The Netherlands), where she teaches Spanish language and Linguistics at the Department of Latin American Studies, and she is a member of the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics. Her research interests are second language acquisition, bilingualism, language

Author biographies

453

variation, and language instruction, all viewed from a crosslinguistic perspective. She has published Aspects on aspect: Theory and applications of grammatical aspect in Spanish and several articles in international journals. Susanne Niemeier (Ph.D., University of Duisburg) is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Foreign Language Teaching Methodology at the English department of the University Koblenz-Landau, Campus Koblenz (Germany). In 2004 she achieved her ‘‘Habilitation’’ from the University of Bremen (Germany). Her main areas of research are applied cognitive grammar, grammar teaching, the connection between language and culture, bilingual education, and early English instruction. She is the current president (2012-present) of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association. Stefano Rastelli (Ph.D., University of Pavia) is Assistant Professor at the University of Pavia (Italy). His main area of interest is second language acquisition. He has published works on the following topics: auxiliary selection, passive voice, null subjects, aspect, and verb actionality. Jason Rothman (Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles) is Associate Professor at the departments of Spanish and Portuguese Studies and Linguistics at the University of Florida. He is co-executive editor of Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, associate editor of Hispania, and editor of the book series Issues in Hispanic Linguistics published by John Benjamins. His areas of research are: the cognitive processes of adult second language acquisition, adult multilingual acquisition, heritage language acquisition, and child first language acquisition. Recent articles have appeared in Applied Linguistics, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, International Journal of Bilingualism, International Review of Applied Linguistics, Second Language Research, and Studies in Second Language Acquisition, among other journals. M. Rafael Salaberry (Ph.D., Cornell University) is Professor of Second Language Acquisition in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Texas in Austin. His main areas of research are the acquisition of tense-aspect among adult second language learners, L2 teaching in the university setting, and bilingual education. His latest book publications are: Language allegiances and bilingualism in the US, Marking past tense in second language acquisition: A theoretical model, The art of teaching Spanish (with Barbara La¤ord), and Tense and aspect in Romance languages: Theoretical and applied perspectives (with Dalila Ayoun). He has published his work in Applied Linguistics, Bilingualism,

454

Author biographies

The Canadian Modern Language Review, Language Learning, Language Learning and Technology, and The Modern Language Journal, among other journals. He is on the Editorial Board of Language@Internet. Yasuhiro Shirai (Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles) is Professor in the Department of Linguistics, University of Pittsburgh, and he is currently Invited Scholar at the National Institute of Japanese Language and Linguistics and Invited Professor from Overseas at Sophia University, both in Tokyo. His research interests include first and second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology, and cognitive models of language acquisition/processing. He was a Japan Foundation Fellow (2001–2002), is editor of Studies in Language Sciences, an associate editor of First Language, and serves on the editorial boards of Studies in Second Language Acquisition, IRAL, and Journal of Cognitive Science. He is currently President of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences.

Subject index Accomplishment 4, 18, 60, 68, 98– 100, 123, 132, 137, 160, 176, 177– 9, 271–7, 283–4, 287–295, 299, 306, 339, 363–4, 366, 377–8, 381 Achievement 4, 18, 60, 68, 98–100, 123, 132, 134–5, 137, 142, 160, 161, 176, 178–9, 201, 271–2, 274– 8, 283–4, 287–299, 339, 363–4, 366, 377–8, 382, 392, 398, 405, 409, 416–7, 441 Actional pairs 396–7, 408, 414 Activity 26, 60, 70, 92, 98–9, 131, 160, 268, 272–76, 277–79, 281, 283, 286–90, 295–99, 315, 370, 377–8, 381, 392, 397–9, 405, 408 Actual event 35–6, 71, 74, 76–78, 80– 2, 198 Actual occurrence reading 57, 63–65, 69, 71 Actual past situation 79, 84 Aktionsart 153, 160, 185, 295, 303, 401 Aspect hypothesis 6, 98–101, 119, 137, 159–60, 175–6, 181, 258, 263, 271, 278–80, 298, 302, 304– 7, 322, 358, 362, 378–80, 382–3, 392, 398, 400–03, 405, 421–22, 428–9, 431, 447, 449 Atelic see telic Background 3, 5, 12–13, 30, 37, 41, 44, 47, 66–7, 82, 103, 129, 137, 193, 197, 213–215, 222, 230, 231– 3, 236, 239–40, 245–8, 250–1, 253, 258–9, 265, 268, 309, 315– 18, 320, 346, 349, 353, 361, 364– 7, 369–70, 377–8, 380, 424, 432– 3, 443–4 Basic verbs 393, 413–4, 417–8, 422 Bounded-unbounded 17–22, 24–8, 34, 39, 60, 64–8, 70, 82, 85, 164–6, 169–71, 249, 320, 399, 405, 416, 418

Boundedness 27, 54, 66, 68–70, 82, 187, 216 Coding 4–5, 23, 77, 81, 83–4, 125, 165, 171, 211, 260, 268, 271, 280– 2, 285, 287–8, 295, 289–9, 300, 325–32, 336, 338–41, 353–5, 358– 9, 362, 368, 392, 396, 415–6, 424, 434–5, 445 Cognitive grammar 11, 58, 442 Conceptualization 12–14, 29, 53, 58, 114, 188, 194, 199, 217, 293, 296 Construal 11, 14, 17, 22, 58, 64, 65, 69, 98, 107, 262, 315, 345, 349, 426, 430, 446 Construction grammar 2, 52, 90, 106, 108, 110, 112, 217 Constructions 3, 7, 30, 48, 52–3, 72, 90–5, 98, 101–2, 104, 106–7, 109, 111–4, 117, 129, 207, 210–1, 213, 215, 389, 422 Contingency of form-function mapping 92, 94, 97, 102 Default past 119, 159, 175, 177, 178, 183, 190, 280, 304 Discourse grounding 263, 309–10, 315–6, 318–9, 321–4, 326, 328– 30, 340–1, 345, 392, 424, 430, 435, 439 Discourse hypothesis 4–5, 101, 119, 180, 258, 309, 350, 353, 355, 428 Durative 18, 138, 159, 161–70, 175, 179–81, 193, 200, 207, 214, 272, 294, 317, 320, 342, 363, 391, 399, 401–2, 404, 407, 417–8, 431 Dynamic 2, 14, 60, 99–100, 108, 110– 1, 114–5, 117, 123, 148, 163, 230, 233, 267, 271–3, 276, 285–7, 296, 318, 329, 363, 378, 389, 394, 406, 434

456

Subject index

Foreground 5, 12–14, 44, 47, 66, 82, 87, 213, 222, 230–3, 236, 239–40, 245–8, 249–53, 256, 259, 265, 268, 309, 315–20, 346, 349, 353, 364–6, 370, 377–8, 392, 428, 432 Frequency 1, 3, 6, 21, 51, 89–94, 96– 99 101–07, 111, 292, 298, 365, 367, 385, 396, 398, 414, 429–30, 433–4, 441, 443

135, 141, 163, 171, 175, 177–8, 182, 184, 188, 190, 193, 209, 260, 265, 271–307, 309, 324, 328–31, 339, 341–2, 344–5, 349, 362, 365, 370, 372, 376, 378, 383–4, 387, 391, 392, 394, 398, 401–3, 421, 424, 426–32, 435, 445, 449 Logistic regression 5, 358, 370, 376, 382

Generative paradigm 145 Grammatical aspect 17, 19, 99, 114, 119, 133–4, 141, 159–62, 165, 164, 169, 171, 174–5, 179–84, 193, 219, 262, 277, 280, 283, 286, 289, 294, 304, 328, 284, 365, 386, 417, 423, 426, 428, 443, 447, 453

Mental spaces 40–2, 50–1 Minimalist 1, 119, 123, 125–6, 147, 428 Mixed methods 418, 425, 436 Modality 7, 16, 29, 30, 34, 38, 40–2, 48, 53, 88, 116, 119, 129, 144, 249, 254, 262, 265, 267–68, 300, 302, 317, 377–8

Habitual 3, 24, 36, 76–7, 105–6, 115, 130, 132, 152, 168, 172–3, 188– 90, 192–4, 198–9, 200–02, 207–8, 214–7, 249, 251, 273, 279, 282–3, 285, 289–90, 295–6, 317, 320, 402, 424, 431 Heritage learners 141–43

Narrative 4, 37, 40, 42, 44–5, 47, 67, 71, 100, 103, 109, 119, 131–2, 134, 139–40, 177, 184–5, 215, 220–3, 229–69, 275, 280, 301, 303, 304, 309–45, 353–5, 360–2, 364, 367–9, 376–7, 380–5, 398, 405, 410–1, 418, 424, 428, 432, 439, 445, 448 Non-accidental 116, 191, 194, 196–7, 202–6, 212

Image schema 12 Imperfect (IMP) 188–9, 1921–96 Imperfective predicates 60, 64, 68 Imperfectivity 22, 82, 133, 148, 169, 192, 365 Implicational scale 379, 382, 387 Interface hypothesis 12, 142–3, 145, 155, 441 Interpretable features 126 Iterative 12, 23–5, 105–6, 115, 152, 188, 190, 198–202, 213, 215, 217, 282–3, 289–90, 294–5, 297, 299, 317, 407 (Language) prompts 3, 187, 189, 200, 202–6, 207–9, 212, 241–2, 252, 254, 256–7 Lexical aspect 19, 99–101, 103–05, 109–111, 116, 119, 128–9, 133,

Outer/inner aspect 119, 128, 133–35, 141 Perfective predicates 60, 64, 65, 68, 70–1 Perfectivity 124, 128, 133, 148, 192, 217, 317, 322, 365, 401, 403 Phasal pairs 396–7, 400, 408, 413–4, 417–8 Plus principle 163–4 Predication e¤ect hypothesis 159–60 Predicational aspect 160–4, 167, 171 Preterite (PRET) 57, 63–71, 76–85, 427 Property reading 57, 63–4, 66–7, 71, 85

Subject index Prototype 7, 12, 15, 34–37, 49, 54, 91, 96, 99–100, 117, 275–6, 279–80, 301, 306, 310, 343, 388, 403–404, 422 Prototypicality of meaning 92, 96, 99, 102 Psycholinguistics 110, 113, 114, 155, 302, 452 Punctual 18, 24–7, 168, 193, 202, 214–5, 272–5, 279, 294–9, 303, 316–7, 320, 327, 354–5, 358, 363– 4, 370, 380, 399, 415–6 Radial network 15 Recency 92, 95, 206 Redundancy 92, 96–7, 107, 442 Salience 36–7, 41, 46–7, 92, 95, 97–8, 106–7, 109, 111, 315, 319, 349, 434, 442 Semantic entailments 122, 141, 144 Semelfactive 24, 176, 272–3, 299, 370, 399 State 17–18, 20, 23, 32, 68, 98–9, 123, 132, 137–8, 153, 160, 170, 175–6, 178–9, 181, 249–50, 271, 272, 277, 287, 290, 295–6, 305, 339, 362, 364, 380, 402, 404, 428 Structural plane 191, 198–9 Task 219–260, 280, 336, 341, 366, 395, 424, 432–469, 434

457

Telic-atelic/telicity 7, 66, 98–100, 103–4, 107, 123–30, 132, 138, 148, 153, 161–2, 173, 176–8, 184, 188–9, 191–3, 201, 209, 213–4, 216, 273–9, 320–1, 324, 327, 329, 363–4, 370, 380, 391–4, 396, 398– 401, 403–4, 408–10, 413, 416–8, 421, 428, 449 Temporality 45, 110, 127, 139, 161, 183, 219, 221, 232, 254, 263–4, 267, 307, 316, 322, 325–6, 341–2, 345–6, 389, 401, 420, 422, 443, 444, 446 Terminative 159, 163–4, 166–71, 175, 179–81, 416 Type and token frequency 93, 101 Universal Grammar (UG) 119, 120– 24, 125–6, 128–9, 143–45, 154, 204, 432 Unboundedness 25, 54, 66, 82 Uninterpretable features 132, 137, 142 Universal grammar 119, 146–47, 149, 152 VARBRUL 358, 365, 367, 370–1, 376, 382, 389 Virtual event 57, 71–2, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81 Virtuality 76, 82, 85–6 Zipf’s law 94, 101