Nigel Duffield

VP-Ellipsis and Anaphora in Child Language Acquisition

In this article, we report on experiments investigating childrens knowledge of the constraints on ellipsis constructions in English, focusing on subtle contrasts between verb phrase-ellipsis (VPE) and VP-anaphora (VPA). These contrasts are of theoretical interest insofar as they present an apparent learnability paradox: On one hand, the negative constraints on these constructions are underdetermined by the positive evidence available to the learner (Crain (1991)); on the other hand, languages systematically vary in the availability of VPE. Hence, it seems as if the constraints cannot be directly encoded in Universal Grammar. Our results-from 2 parallel experiments employing the same stimuli but with different methodologies-show that young children can correctly distinguish VPE from VPA, respecting the constraints on each.

NATIVE SPEAKERS' VERSUS L2 LEARNERS' SENSITIVITY TO PARALLELISM IN VP-ELLIPSIS

This article examines sensitivity to structural parallelism in verb phrase ellipsis constructions in English native speakers as well as in three groups of advanced second language (L2) learners. The results of a set of experiments, based on those of Tanenhaus and Carlson ( 1990 ), reveal subtle but reliable differences among the various learner groups. These differences are interpreted as showing that some L2 learners can acquire sensitivity to parallelism in the absence of surface transfer. Furthermore, the results cast doubt on two conventional theoretical claims: that the parallelism effect has a syntactic basis and that it is uniquely linked to instances of surface anaphora (Hankamer & Sag, 1976 ). The research reported here investigates native speakers’ (NSs) and second language (L2) learners’ knowledge of the acceptable use of verb phrase ellipsis (VPE) constructions in English. Specifi cally, we investigate the parallel

Factoring out the parallelism effect in VP-ellipsis: English vs. Dutch contrasts

Previous studies, including Duffield and Matsuo (2001; 2002; 2009), have demonstrated second language learners’ overall sensitivity to a parallelism constraint governing English VP-ellipsis constructions: like native speakers (NS), advanced Dutch, Spanish and Japanese learners of English reliably prefer ellipsis clauses with structurally parallel antecedents over those with non-parallel antecedents. However, these studies also suggest that, in contrast to English native speakers, L2 learners’ sensitivity to parallelism is strongly influenced by other non-syntactic formal factors, such that the constraint applies in a comparatively restricted range of construction-specific contexts. This article reports a set of follow-up experiments — from both computer-based as well as more traditional acceptability judgement tasks — that systematically manipulates these other factors. Convergent results from these tasks confirm a qualitative difference in the judgement patterns of the two groups, as well as important differences between theoreticians’ judgements and those of typical native speakers. We consider the implications of these findings for theories of ultimate attainment in second language acquisition (SLA), as well as for current theoretical accounts of ellipsis.

Roots and Rogues in German Child Language

This article is concerned with the proper characterization of subject omission at a particular stage in German child language. It focuses on post-verbal null subjects in finite clauses, here termed Rogues. It is argued that the statistically significant presence of Rogues, in conjunction with their distinct developmental profile, speaks against a Strong Continuity approach to the acquisition of null subject knowledge in German, and urges a reconsideration of the notion of Optionality in early grammars. The significance of the Rogues stage is considered in the context of specific theoretical proposals about argument omission: those of Rizzi (1992; 1994; 2000), and of Wexler (1994; 1998), are contrasted with the Weak Continuity approach proposed by Clahsen and his associates (e.g., Clahsen (1990/1991), Clahsen and Penke (1992), Clahsen, Eisenbeiß, and Penke (1996)). The data presented here, which complement related work by Hamann (1996), provide additional empirical support for these latter hypotheses.

How do you like your doughnuts

Ever since the derivational theory of complexity (DTC) apparently bit the dust in the late 1960s, experimental psycholinguistics have been afflicted by a dualism at least as troublesome as the mind/brain dichotomy, namely, the grammar/parser distinction. The idea that mentally represented grammar is something fully dissociated from the human language processor is less than compelling, yet it has implicitly informed much of the last half centurys psycholinguistics practice on both sides of the formalist–functionalist divide.

Processing VP-ellipsis and VP-anaphora with structurally parallel and nonparallel antecedents: An eyetracking study

In this paper, we report on an eye-tracking study investigating the processing of English VP-ellipsis (John took the rubbish out. Fred did [] too) (VPE) and VP-anaphora (John took the rubbish out. Fred did it too) (VPA) constructions, with syntactically parallel versus nonparallel antecedent clauses (e.g., The rubbish was taken out by John. Fred did [] too/Fred did it too). The results show first that VPE involves greater processing costs than VPA overall. Second, although the structural nonparallelism of the antecedent clause elicited a processing cost for both anaphor types, there was a difference in the timing and the strength of this parallelism effect: it was earlier and more fleeting for VPA, as evidenced by regression path times, whereas the effect occurred later with VPE completions, showing up in second and total fixation times measures, and continuing on into the reading of the adjacent text. Taking the observed differences between the processing of the two anaphor types together with other research findings in the literature, we argue that our data support the idea that in the case of VPE, the VP from the antecedent clause necessitates more computation at the elision site before it is linked to its antecedent than is the case for VPA.

The kids are alright … aren't they?

In this commentary three aspects of the feature-based model that Lardiere assumes are discussed: the value of formalization in the investigation of second language acquisition, the extent to which native speakers converge on the same grammatical representations, and the length of time it takes to establish a mature native grammar. These factors need to be given serious consideration if the investigation of second language acquisition is to be successful.