Syntactic-Semantic Interphase in the Acquisition of a Foreign Language: the English Resultative Construction

CELI, MARIA ALEJANDRA; TABULLO, ANGEL; PARIS, LUIS

Barcelona

Workshop; 18th Workshop on Syntax, Semantics and Phonology; 2022

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Spanish native speakers who learn English a Foreign Language (EFL) need to acquire the different subtypes of English Resultative Construction (ERC) during their L2 learning process. The ERC carries a number of syntactic-semantic interface features that conform to a particular way of event codification: that of satellite-framed languages (Talmy, 2000). That is, Manner tends to be codified in the main verb whereas Result lies on the satellite (an Adjectival or Prepositional Phrase). Additionally, the ERC corresponds to a family of constructios (Goldberg & Jackendoff, 2004) with different subtypes: ERC-Path, which codifies Change of Location by means of a PP (as in 1), ERC-Property which codifies Change of State by an AP (in 2), and ERC-Fake Reflexive which also codifies Change of State and includes a reflexive pronoun as Direct Object (as in 3). 1)Bill rolled the ball down the hill. 2)Mary danced John tired.3)The baby cried himself asleep.Interestingly, Spanish is a verb-framed language with an opposite way of event codification in which Result is codified in the main verb and Manner is stated in a satellite. Sentence (4) in Spanish stands for the ERC-Property in (2) above:4)Mary dejó cansado a John de tanto bailar Mary let tired to John of so-much dance “Mary left John tired from so much dancing”Given the typological differences and the syntax-semantic contrast between these two languages, we wonder to what extent Spanish native speakers who learn English as L2 recognize the different types of ERC at different proficiency levels. In order to do so, we conducted an Acceptability Judgment Task (AJT) with response time measures applied to both, Spanish native speakers who learn EFL, and a control group of English native speakers. The goal was to analyze how L2 participants with different proficiency levels manage to recognize the different syntax-semantic selectional restrictions of the different subtypes of ERC and how it contrasts to that of native speakers of English. Results show that Spanish native speakers differ in the accuracy (F = 14.229, p < .001) and response times (F = 8.284, p < .001) for the different ERC subtypes. In particular, the ERC closer to Spanish (ERC-Path) showed better response accuracy (p’s < .001) and shorter response times than the ERCs further from Spanish grammar (ERC-Property and ERC-Fake Reflexive) (p’s < 0.014). In addition, native speakers of English showed no significant differences in the acceptability and time response of the different conditions, which may leave construction-complexity effects aside. We interpret results in terms of the effect of the relative distance of each subtype of ERC to the Spanish event construction style. The ERC with syntactic-semantic features similar to Spanish are better identified by Spanish participants at earliest proficiency stages than those ERC with a further syntax-semantic configuration from Spanish (ERC-Property and ERC-Fake Reflexive). As proficiency increases, these differences tend to disappear and the recognition of the different constructions improves. That is, as subjects’ proficiency increases, Spanish speakers seem to improve their representations of the syntax-semantic interface of the L2 leading to a better way of thinking for speaking in a foreign language (Slobin, 1996).LINK TO POSTER: https://view.genial.ly/63485012a3146f0018a68b87/interactive-content-wossp-2022