Stable and developmental optionality in native and non-native Hungarian grammars

The existence of optionality is well attested in natural languages. It can be defined as the coexistence of two variants of a given construction with identical Logical Form (LF) representations within the same grammatical system. The existence of optionality within both stable (native and non-native) and developing grammars seems to contradict the fundamental claim of the Minimalist Program (MP). In the MP, syntactic optionality is excluded within the computational system because of economy principles which require an ‘optimal realization of interface conditions' (Chomsky, 1995: 171).As a result, movement is possible only if it is necessary. Movement which is possible but not necessary (i.e., truly optional) is not permitted. Thus, at the level of competence, optionality may occur precisely because neither alternative qualifies as a unique optimal realization of interface conditions. This article presents evidence from the grammaticality intuitions of native speakers and English-speaking second language (L2) learners of Hungarian about optional and categorical constructions. It is argued that while often observed, stable native optionality is highly restricted and difficult to capture. This might be due to the fact that developmental L1 optionality disappears when the input that children receive is sufficient and/or sufficiently robust. Where the input is not sufficient, optionality lingers on, creating fuzzy grammars and borderline cases in grammaticality. However, such stable native optionality may eventually be resolved by categorization (one alternative is expunged from the grammar) or by semantic differentiation (leading to quasi-optionality). While stable native optionality is unpredictable, developmental optionality is relatively predictable in both early and end-state non-native grammars. The nature of early L2 optionality depends on the characteristics of the initial state. Advanced and end-state non-native optionality persists only if the target language input is non-robust or parametrically ambiguous. Therefore the resolution of optionality at ultimate attainment depends not only on the L2 initial state but also on the intrinsic nature of the primary linguistic data that the learners are exposed to. It is well known that the evidence L2 learners receive is qualitatively different from that obtained by first language (L1) acquirers, and quantitatively limited compared to it. This, in conjunction with the hypotheses created initially, may lead to non-native-like representations that are nonoptimal realizations of the interface conditions. In the face of non-robust and parametrically ambiguous data, L2 learners are either found to fall back on L1 values or resort to general learning strategies, thus ultimately exhibiting divergent representations in end-state grammars.

[1]  A. M. Pettiward.  Movement and optionality in syntax. , 1997 .

[2]  Lynn Eubank,et al.  Optionality and the Initial State in L2 Development , 1994 .

[3]  Lydia White,et al.  The Verb-Movement Parameter in Second Language Acquisition , 1990 .

[4]  V. Cook.  Evidence for Multicompetence , 1992 .

[5]  Gita Martohardjono,et al.  The Development of Second Language Grammars: A generative approach , 1999 .

[6]  Maria-Luise Beck.  Morphology and its Interfaces in second-Language Knowledge , 1998 .

[7]  Jacquelyn Schachter,et al.  On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition , 1990 .

[8]  K. Grohmann.  Word Order in Hungarian: The Syntax of A-Positions (review) , 2002 .

[9]  A. Kroch.  Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change , 1989, Language Variation and Change.

[10]  Wayne Cowart,et al.  Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments , 1997 .

[11]  Donna Lardiere.  Case and Tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state , 1998 .

[12]  René Coppieters.  Competence Differences between Native and Near-Native Speakers , 1987 .

[13]  Anthony S. Kroch,et al.  Function and grammar in the history of English , 1989 .

[14]  Geoffrey Poole,et al.  Optional Movement in the Minimalist Program , 1996 .

[15]  Susan Pintzuk,et al.  Variation and change in Old English clause structure , 1995, Language Variation and Change.

[16]  Michel DeGraff.  UG and acquisition in pidginization and creolization , 1996, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[17]  David Birdsong.  Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition , 1992 .

[18]  Lydia White,et al.  Functional Categories in Child L2 Acquisition of French , 1996 .

[19]  Lydia White,et al.  How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition , 1996 .

[20]  Cecilia Yuet Hung Chan,et al.  The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: the ‘failed functional features hypothesis’ , 1997 .

[21]  Maria-Luise Beck.  The Status of Verb-Raising Among English-Speaking Learners of German , 1996 .

[22]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Indeterminacy in the Grammar of Adult Language Learners , 1996 .

[23]  The use of acceptability judgements in second language acquisition research , 1996 .

[24]  Lynn Eubank,et al.  "Tom Eats Slowly Cooked Eggs": Thematic-Verb Raising in L2 Knowledge. , 1997 .

[25]  Antonella Sorace,et al.  Losing the V2 Constraint , 1999 .

[26]  K. Wexler,et al.  Verb movement: Finiteness and head movement in early child grammars , 1994 .

[27]  Jacquelyn Schachter,et al.  Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition: Testing a proposed universal , 1989 .

[28]  Bruce Hayes,et al.  Gradient Well-Formedness in Optimality Theory , 2000 .

[29]  Carlo Cecchetto,et al.  Introduction to Government and Binding Theory , 1996 .

[30]  Carson T. Schütze.  The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology , 1998 .

[31]  Maria-Luise Beck,et al.  L2 ACQUISITION AND OBLIGATORY HEAD MOVEMENT , 1998, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[32]  Beatrice Santorini,et al.  Variation and change in Yiddish subordinate clause word order , 1992 .

[33]  V. Cook.  The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence , 1991 .

[34]  J. Zwart.  The Minimalist Program , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[35]  DAVID ADGER,et al.  Economy and optionality: Interpretations of subjects in Italian , 1996 .

[36]  S. Pintzuk.  Verb seconding in Old English: verb movement to Infl , 1993 .

[37]  Robin Clark,et al.  A Computational Model of Language Learnability and Language Change , 2018, Diachronic and Comparative Syntax.

[38]  Alison Henry,et al.  Belfast English and standard English : dialect variation and parameter setting , 1995 .

[39]  Lynn Eubank,et al.  On the Transfer of Parametric Values in L2 Development , 1993 .

[40]  G. Ioup,et al.  Reexamining the Critical Period Hypothesis , 1994, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[41]  Donna Lardiere,et al.  Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar , 1998 .

[42]  Sascha W. Felix,et al.  The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning , 1988 .

[43]  N Langer.  Scrambling is not Optional , 1996 .

[44]  A. Sorace,et al.  MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION OF LINGUISTIC ACCEPTABILITY , 1996 .

[45]  Luigi Burzio,et al.  Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach , 1986 .

[46]  A. Sorace.  Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non native grammars of Italian , 1993 .

[47]  Naoki Fukui.  Parameters and optionality , 1993 .

[48]  K. Kiss.  Identificational focus versus information focus , 1998 .

[49]  Lydia White,et al.  Long and Short Verb Movement in Second Language Acquisition , 1992, Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique.

[50]  Ianthi Maria Tsimpli,et al.  Linguistic modularity? A case study of a 'Savant' linguist* , 1991 .