Velnić, Marta

Singular Generic Noun Phrases in L3 Norwegian

m.vel — Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:10:06 +0000

Singular Generic Noun Phrases in L3 Norwegian m.vel Fri, 20/10/2023 - 12:10

Authors

Velnić, Marta

Slabakova, Roumyana

Dahl, Anne

Type

Talk

Conference

52nd Poznan Linguistics Meeting-PLM

Date

2023-09

Attachment

Presentation

Abstract

Singular generic noun phrases in L3 Norwegian

Introduction. In this study, we explore the effect of previously acquired languages on the acquisition of generic singular nouns in L3 Norwegian. We look at three different types of generics: Kind, denoting members of a species; characterizing, or prototypical representatives of a class (Carlson & Pelletier, 1995); and type-denoting, non-referential NPs (Borthen, 2003). Acquisition of genericity is prone to cross-linguistic influence as studies from L2 (Ionin, Montrul, Kim, et al., 2011; Snape, 2013; Snape et al., 2013) and L3 (Ionin, Montrul, & Santos, 2011) have shown.

Rationale. We focus on the form–to–meaning mapping of singular forms (bare/definite/indefinite) in the three types of generic NPs. Norwegian and English are compatible in their use of the definite singular in kind contexts (1) and the indefinite singular specifically for characterizing contexts (2). Norwegian and Polish show similarities in the use of the bare form, as this form is used in Norwegian to express number-neutral meanings (3). Polish does not have articles, while English bare singulars are ungrammatical; the target L3 Norwegian uses all three forms (Table 1- see table in attached abstract). If CLI comes from L1 Polish, we will expect target-like behavior in type-denoting contexts and a possible over-acceptance of the bare form across the test items; if L2 English is the source of transfer, we expect high accuracy in kind and characterizing contexts.

Participants. The trilingual participants resided either in Norway (PolN, n=14) or in Poland (PolP, n=26). Our control groups consisted of Norwegian native speakers (Nor, n=32), and native English speakers residing in Norway (EngN, n=36).

Materials. We used a contextualized acceptability judgment task which was distributed via an online platform. The participants read a context sentence after which the target generic sentence appeared. They were instructed to judge this sentence as good/bad in the given context.

Analysis. We fitted glmer models on each NP form with response (good vs. bad) as the dependent variable, and group and condition as independent variables. Participant and test item were set as random effects.

Results. The PolN group results revealed a good grasp of the semantic uses of the forms (e.g, statistically significant rejection of the indefinite in Kind contexts). The PolP group results do not show any statistical differences, indicating overall acceptance of all test items. In the group comparisons, the definite form is accepted significantly less in the Kind condition, but it is accepted significantly more in type-denoting conditions when compared to the controls, suggesting that our target groups have not fully acquired the use of the definite form in Norwegian. The Polish L1 speakers are more accurate with the indefinite form by accepting it in characterising contexts, but they nevertheless have a significant rejection of this form in type-denoting conditions, differing significantly from control groups.

Interpretation. The PolN group is more finely attuned to the semantic differences in Norwegian than the PolP group. Both groups signal transfer from L1 Polish rather than L2 English, as the bare singular is highly accepted in all three conditions. Possible explanations will be discussed.

Keywords: Genericity, Third language acquisition, Acceptability judgment task, Norwegian

(1) Kind context

Context: Mange dyrearter som har levd på jorda er nå borte for alltid. Et eksempel er at ...

Item: elefantfuglen/ en elefantfugl/ elefantfugl er utryddet

Translation: Many animal species that have lived on our planet are now gone forever. For example, the elephant bird/an elephant bird/ elephant bird is extinct.

(2) Characterizing context

Context: På skolen i dag lærte vi noen ganske ukjente fakta om dyreriket. Et eksempel er at ...

Item: sjiraffen/en sjiraff/sjiraff har lilla tunge.

Translation: Today at school we learned some little-known facts about the animal kingdom. For example, the giraffe/a giraffe/giraffe has a purple tongue.

(3) Type-denoting

Context: Under pandemien var mange mennesker ensomme. Forskning har vist at ...

Item: det er sunt å ha hunden/ en hund/ hund.

Translation: During the pandemic a lot of people suffered from loneliness. Research has found that it is healthy to have the dog/a dog/dog.

REFERENCES

Borthen, K. (2003). Norwegian bare singulars. Det historisk-filosofiske fakultet. Carlson, G. N., & Pelletier, F. J. (1995). The generic book. University of Chicago Press. Ionin, T., Montrul, S., Kim, J.-H., & Philippov, V. (2011). Genericity distinctions and the interpretation of determiners in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 18(4), 242-280. Ionin, T., Montrul, S., & Santos, H. (2011). Transfer in L2 and L3 acquisition of generic interpretation. BULD 35 Proceedings. Snape, N. (2013). Japanese and Spanish adult learners of English: L2 acquisition of generic reference. Studies in Language Sciences: Journal of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences, 12, 70-94. Snape, N., Mayo, M. d. P. G., & Gürel, A. (2013). L1 transfer in article selection for generic reference by Spanish, Turkish and Japanese L2 learners. International Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 1-28.

Generic Noun Phrases in the Third Language

m.vel — Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:04:24 +0000

Generic Noun Phrases in the Third Language m.vel Fri, 20/10/2023 - 12:04

Authors

Velnić, Marta

Slabakova, Roumyana

Dahl, Anne

Type

Talk

Conference

52nd Poznan Linguistic Meeting-PLM

Date

2023-10

Attachment

Presentation

Abstract

Generic Noun Phrases in the Third Language

Introduction. In this study, we examine the effect of input and previous language knowledge on the acquisition of genericity in L3 Norwegian of Polish native speakers who also speak English. Generic meanings generalize over kinds, expressing a certain amount of regularity (Carlson & Pelletier, 1995); characterizing generics generalize over the prototypical representative of the class (e.g., Bananas are yellow) and contrast with episodic sentences. Previous studies have shown that the acquisition of genericity is prone to cross-linguistic effects in the L2 (Ionin, Montrul, Kim, et al., 2011; Snape, 2013; Snape et al., 2013) and in the L3 (Ionin, Montrul, & Santos, 2011; Ionin et al., 2015).

Rationale. We focus on the form to meaning mapping of plural forms. Norwegian and English are compatible: the bare plural (bananas/bananer) yields a characterizing reading referring to all/the majority of bananas while the definite plural (the bananas/bananene) is appropriate for the episodic reading referring to specific bananas (2,3). Polish does not have articles; thus, the bare noun is ambiguous between the two readings (Table1). We predict that the episodic conditions will be unproblematic for the participants as the use of the bare plural is shared across the three languages. In addition, the Polish native speakers are more likely to accept the bare plural (in appropriate and inappropriate contexts), compared to the bilingual EngN group.

Participants. The trilingual participants resided either in Norway (PolN, n=14) or in Poland (PolP, n=26). Our control groups consisted of Norwegian native speakers (Nor, n=32), and native English speakers residing in Norway (EngN, n=36).

Materials. We used a Truth Value Judgment Task inspired by Ionin and Montrul (2010), distributed online. The participants saw a picture depicting the target NP (1000ms) followed by a written description. They were instructed to read the description (1) after which a summary sentence appeared (2,3) with the subject expressed either as a bare or a definite plural.

Analysis. We fitted glmer models for each of the target groups, with response (true vs. false) as the dependent variable and condition (characterizing vs. episodic) and noun form (bare vs. definite) as dependent variables, participant and test item were set as random effects. Additional analyses will be discussed at the conference.

Results. The PolP group demonstrated a clear preference for the bare form, a CLI effect from Polish, although they rejected the definite in the generic condition (p < .001). At the same time, they rejected the bare plural in the characterizing condition more than the other groups. Furthermore, this group demonstrated a different pattern in their L2 English, suggesting that the semantic distinction was acquired in English but not transferred to Norwegian. The PolN group were more advanced in understanding the form–meaning mappings, thus evidencing the positive effect of their Norwegian environment. This group also had a stronger grasp of the distinction in English, even though they did not readily reject the definite plural.

Interpretation. Confirming our predictions, our results provide evidence of native language CLI as well as the positive effect of abundant native input.

Example context

NOR: Det er en dagligvarebutikk i byen som selger uvanlig frukt og grønnsaker. Mens en banan vanligvis er en gul frukt, er deres bananer blå og de smaker som vaniljeis.

ENG: There is a supermarket in town that sells unusual fruit and vegetables. While the banana is usually a yellow fruit, their bananas are blue, and they taste like vanilla ice cream.

Generic (bold signals acceptable)

Bananer er gule. /Bananene er gule. Bananas are yellow/The bananas are yellow.

Episodic

Bananer er blå./Bananene er blå. Bananas are blue./The bananas are blue.

References

Carlson, G. N., & Pelletier, F. J. (1995). The generic book. University of Chicago Press. Ionin, T., Grolla, E., Santos, H., & Montrul, S. A. (2015). Interpretation of NPs in generic and existential contexts in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(2), 215-251. Ionin, T., & Montrul, S. (2010). The role of L1 transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite plurals in L2 English. Language Learning, 60(4), 877-925. Ionin, T., Montrul, S., Kim, J.-H., & Philippov, V. (2011). Genericity distinctions and the interpretation of determiners in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 18(4), 242-280. Ionin, T., Montrul, S., & Santos, H. (2011). Transfer in L2 and L3 acquisition of generic interpretation. BULD 35 Proceedings. Lange, K., Kühn, S., & Filevich, E. (2015). "Just Another Tool for Online Studies” (JATOS): An Easy Solution for Setup and Management of Web Servers Supporting Online Studies. PLos One, 10(6). Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, , 44 (2), 314-324 Snape, N. (2013). Japanese and Spanish adult learners of English: L2 acquisition of generic reference. Studies in Language Sciences: Journal of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences, 12, 70-94 Snape, N., Mayo, M. d. P. G., & Gürel, A. (2013). L1 transfer in article selection for generic reference by Spanish, Turkish and Japanese L2 learners. International Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 1-28.

CLI in mirrored properties

m.vel — Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:58:29 +0000

CLI in mirrored properties m.vel Fri, 20/10/2023 - 11:58

Authors

Velnić, Marta

Type

Talk

Conference

51st Poznan Linguistics Meeting (PLM)

Date

2022-09

Attachment

Abstract

Presentation

Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in mirrored properties

Marta Velnić ([email protected]" rel="nofollow">[email protected]) NTNU- Norwegian University of Science and Technology

CLI takes place when the languages of a bilingual exert influence on one another; vulnerable when the two languages have (i) surface structure overlap, and (ii) at the interface between two modules of the grammar (i.e. syntax & pragmatics) (Hulk & Müller, 2001). Previous research has found that the overlapping variant is usually produced more frequently in the language with two variants, when compared to monolingual peers (Bernardini, 2003; Kupisch, 2014; Rizzi et al., 2013; Westergaard & Anderssen, 2015).

The current study explores the outcomes of CLI when both languages have two syntactic variants, but with opposite pragmatic implications: possessive structures in Norwegian-Italian bilingual children. Both languages have the prenominal and postnominal possessive, and their use is context dependent. In Norwegian the postnominal possessive is the unmarked variant used for neutral contexts whereas the prenominal possessive is marked and signals contrast or emphasis, while the opposite is true for Italian (table 1). In both languages the unmarked variant can have an emphatic intonational contour, in which case it signals contrast. This combination of factors has good grounds for CLI to occur, but the direction of CLI and which factors play a role is currently theoretically unexplored.

We designed an elicitation task that tested both neutral contexts (characters interacting with their own objects) and contrastive contexts (characters interacting with objects belonging to other characters). Thirty-one Norwegian-Italian bilingual children (15 female) aged 4-10 (mean=6;3) were tested in both languages. Most of the participants were residing in Norway (n=28). Children were tested in both languages. The controls consisted of Norwegian-English (n=15) and Italian-English (n=12) bilingual children.

Our generalized linear model found (i) more postnominals in the contrast condition in Italian (p<0.05) indicating some intuition on the pragmatic use of the variants, (ii) more marked forms in the neutral context in Norwegian (p<0.001), (iii) a strong interaction of condition and language (p<0.001) signaling a higher usage of marked forms in the contrast conditions in Norwegian, thus being more target-like.

To this model, we then added the effects of dominance (Italian-dominant, Balanced, Norwegian-dominant) obtained based on the data of a preliminary task. Dominance had an effect only on Norwegian since the Italian responses were too uniformed. Our results indicate that the children are more target-like in Norwegian as their Norwegian dominance/proficiency increases (fig. 1).

Since the responses in the Italian task were almost exclusively prenominal (fig.2). we will thus argue for a simplification of the Italian system to the unmarked and more frequent variant, similar to what the literature on heritage languages reports (Montrul, 2010). This cannot be attributed to CLI from Norwegian as the exposure to Norwegian would enhance the use of the postnominal variant. Nevertheless, the simplified Italian system is still found to influence the use of Norwegian variants: 11 participants were target-like in the contrast condition but overused the prenominal in the neutral condition. This is pragmatically infelicitous, but linguistically in line with the expected effect of Italian on Norwegian (overproduction of the prenominal). From our controls we discovered a clear effect of CLI manifested with a significant overproduction of the prenominal in both groups (an effect of English). However, Norwegian-English bilinguals residing in GB had a higher use of the prenominal in the neutral condition (p<0.01)(fig.3), whereas the group residing in Norway paired with our target bilinguals in their responses. Thus, CLI is only detectable in the non-simplified system, and thus the direction is from simplified to intact abiding the predictions for CLI. However, factors like dominance and language status influence the accuracy of the non-simplified system.

Figure 2: Distribution of the variants divided per condition and language

Figure 3: Use of the variants in the Norwegian-English

controls based on residence

REFERENCES:

Bernardini, P. (2003). Child and adult acquisition of word order in the Italian DP. In N. Müller (Ed.),(In)vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism (pp. 41-81). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2001). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 227-244. Kupisch, T. (2014). Adjective placement in simultaneous bilinguals (German–Italian) and the concept of cross-linguistic overcorrection. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 222-233. Montrul, S. (2010). Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 3-23. Rizzi, S., Gil, L. A., Repetto, V., Geveler, J., & Müller, N. (2013). Adjective placement in bilingual Romance-German and Romance-Romance children. Studia Linguistica, 67(1), 123-147. Westergaard, M., & Anderssen, M. (2015). Word order variation in Norwegian possessive constructions: Bilingual acqusition and attrition. In J.Bondi Johanessen & J. C. Salmons (Eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Acquisition attrition and change (pp. 21-45). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Genericity in second and third language acquisitionAn overview of the ADIM project (WP4)

m.vel — Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:52:07 +0000

Genericity in second and third language acquisitionAn overview of the ADIM project (WP4) m.vel Fri, 20/10/2023 - 11:52

Authors

Velnić, Marta

Slabakova, Roumyana

Dahl, Anne

Type

Talk

Conference

51st Poznan Linguistic Meeting (PLM)

Date

2022-09

Attachment

Abtract

Presentation

Genericity in second third language acquisition

Plan for the ADIM project- work package 4

Expressing genericity is universal, yet no language has a specific linguistic marker for marking genericity (Krifka & Gerstner, 1987), thus within a language there may be different types of NPs that can express genericity (Lazaridou‐Chatzigoga et al., 2015). Whether a specific sentence is existential or generic is disambiguated by context.

This project aims to investigate whether the universal meaning helps acquire the morphological form in the different languages. There is evidence from L2 (Ionin & Montrul, 2010; Ionin et al., 2013; Snape, 2013; Snape et al., 2013) and L3 studies (Ionin et al., 2015; Ionin et al., 2011) that mappings of previously acquired languages can influence the mappings on the additional languages. The participants in this project are adult speakers with L1Polish/L2English/L3Norwegian and bilingual Polish-Norwegian adolescents acquiring English as an L3 in Norwegian schools. The task will test the L2 English and L3 Norwegian of the adult participants and the adolescent’s L3 English.

The combination of available forms is diverse in the three languages as Norwegian allows five NP forms (table 1- see table in attachment) while Polish lacks articles and in English bare nouns are ungrammatical. This affects how the generic meaning is mapped onto the available forms (table 2- see table in attachment).

The tasks are currently being designed and include acceptability judgment tasks and truth value judgment tasks inspired by previous work by Ionin and colleagues (Ionin et al., 2015; Ionin & Montrul, 2010; Ionin et al., 2013; Ionin et al., 2011). We also plan to include a reading task with eye tracking to have an online measure for the acceptance of the target forms. The structures under investigation will include definite plurals (Unavailable in Polish and with divergent generic interpretation in English and Norwegian), bare plurals (ambiguous in Polish and with divergent generic interpretation in English and Norwegian), and bare nouns (similar in Polish and Norwegian but ungrammatical in English). We will also test definiteness as a control condition to check if the participants have acquired the article system of the target language (which they cannot transfer from the Polish L1).

Our prediction is that acquiring genericity is difficult because of the form/meaning overlap between the languages and that we should notice transfer effects from the previously acquired languages on the target language.

References

Ionin, T., Grolla, E., Santos, H., & Montrul, S. A. (2015). Interpretation of NPs in generic and existential contexts in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(2), 215-251.

Ionin, T., & Montrul, S. (2010). The role of L1 transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite plurals in L2 English. Language Learning, 60(4), 877-925.

Ionin, T., Montrul, S., & Crivos, M. (2013). A bidirectional study on the acquisition of plural noun phrase interpretation in English and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(3), 483-518.

Ionin, T., Montrul, S., & Santos, H. (2011). Transfer in L2 and L3 acquisition of generic interpretation. BULD 35 Proceedings.

Krifka, M., & Gerstner, C. (1987). An outline of genericity.

Lazaridou‐Chatzigoga, D., Katsos, N., & Stockall, L. (2015). Genericity is easy? Formal and experimental perspectives. Ratio, 28(4), 470-494.

Snape, N. (2013). Japanese and Spanish adult learners of English: L2 acquisition of generic reference. Studies in Language Sciences: Journal of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences, 12, 70-94.

Snape, N., Mayo, M. d. P. G., & Gürel, A. (2013). L1 transfer in article selection for generic reference by Spanish, Turkish and Japanese L2 learners. International Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 1-28.

CLI in mirrored properties

m.vel — Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:58:20 +0000

CLI in mirrored properties m.vel Fri, 20/10/2023 - 10:58

Authors

Velnić, Marta

Type

Invited Talk

Conference

Mini Seminar: Second and third language acquisition and use (UiO)

Date

2023-03

Attachment

Presentation

Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in mirrored properties

m.vel — Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:53:47 +0000

Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in mirrored properties m.vel Fri, 20/10/2023 - 10:53

Authors

Velnić, Marta

Type

Poster

Conference

ISBPAC

Date

2022-08

Attachment

Poster

Abtract

Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in mirrored properties

CLI takes place when the languages of a bilingual exert influence on one another; vulnerable when the two languages have (i) surface structure overlap, and (ii) at the interface between two modules of the grammar (i.e syntax & pragmatics) (Hulk & Müller, 2001). Previous research has found that the overlapping variant is usually produced more frequently in the language with two variants, when compared to monolingual peers (Bernardini, 2003; Kupisch, 2014; Rizzi et al., 2013; Westergaard & Anderssen, 2015).

The current study explores the outcomes of CLI when both languages have two syntactic variants, but with opposite pragmatic implications: possessive structures in Norwegian-Italian bilingual children. Both languages have the prenominal and postnominal possessive, and their use is context dependent. In Norwegian the postnominal possessive is the unmarked variant used for neutral contexts whereas the prenominal possessive is marked and signals contrast or emphasis, while the opposite is true for Italian (table 1). This combination of factors has good grounds for CLI to occur, but the direction of CLI and which factors play a role is currently theoretically unexplored.

To this model, we then added the effects of dominance (Italian-dominant, Balanced, Norwegian-dominant) obtained based on the data of a preliminary task. Dominance had an effect only on Norwegian, since the Italian system was too simplified. We found (i) a marginal significance (p<0.1) between balanced and Italian-dominant participants (ii) more post-nominal structures in neutral conditions in Norwegian-dominant than the balanced participants (p<0.05). Thus, the children are more target-like in Norwegian as their Norwegian dominance/proficiency increases (fig. 1).

Since the responses in the Italian task were almost exclusively prenominal (fig.2). We will thus argue for a simplification of the Italian system to the unmarked and more frequent variant, similar to what the literature on heritage languages reports (Montrul, 2010). This cannot be attributed to CLI from Norwegian as we would expect the exposure to Norwegian to enhance the use of the postnominal variant. Nevertheless, the simplified Italian system may still influence the use of Norwegian variants: 11 participants were target-like in the contrast condition but overused the prenominal in the neutral condition. This is pragmatically infelicitous, but linguistically in line with the expected effect of Italian on Norwegian. Dominance has an effect, but it cannot influence an already simplified system, such as the heritage language.

Table 1: Comparison of Italian and Norwegian possessives

Figure 1: Use of the two variants based on language dominance divided per condition

Figure 2: Distribution of the variants divided per condition and language

REFERENCES

Bernardini, P. (2003). Child and adult acquisition of word order in the Italian DP. In N. Müller (Ed.), (In)vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism (pp. 41-81). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2001). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 227-244. https://doi.org/undefined

Kupisch, T. (2014). Adjective placement in simultaneous bilinguals (German–Italian) and the concept of cross-linguistic overcorrection. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 222-233.

Montrul, S. (2010). Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 3-23.

Rizzi, S., Gil, L. A., Repetto, V., Geveler, J., & Müller, N. (2013). Adjective placement in bilingual Romance-German and Romance-Romance children. Studia Linguistica, 67(1), 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12009

Westergaard, M., & Anderssen, M. (2015). Word order variation in Norwegian possessive constructions: Bilingual acqusition and attrition. In J. Bondi Johanessen & J. C. Salmons (Eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Acquisition attrition and change (pp. 21-45). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Cross-linguistic influence in acceptability: possessive structures in Norwegian-Italian bilingual children.

m.vel — Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:44:24 +0000

Cross-linguistic influence in acceptability: possessive structures in Norwegian-Italian bilingual children. m.vel Fri, 20/10/2023 - 10:44

Authors

Velnić, Marta

Type

Poster

Conference

ISBPAC

Date

2022-08

Attachment

Abstract

Poster

Cross-linguistic influence in acceptability: possessive structures in Norwegian-Italian bilingual children

Cross-linguistic influence is a phenomenon in multilingual speakers in which Language A can influence language B for a specific property. According to Hulk and Müller (2001) CLI is likely to happen when there is (i) surface structure overlap, and (ii) interface between two modules of the grammar (i.e syntax & pragmatics) (Hulk & Müller, 2001). CLI is widely studied in bilinguals’ production (Anderssen & Bentzen, 2018; Kupisch, 2014; Nicoladis, 2006; Westergaard & Anderssen, 2015), but it can also influence acceptability in a way that they accept a structure more than their monolingual peers (Sorace et al., 2009).

In the current paper we investigate CLI in possessive structures in Norwegian-Italian bilingual children. Both languages have two possessive variants: one prenominal and one postnominal, but these have opposite distributions in terms of contextual use and frequency (table 1-see in attachmnet). In each language the marked variant signals change of possessor when the context allows for it (1,2).

We designed a forced-choice acceptability judgment task in OpenSesame Web. The task consisted of short animations in which a character either interacted with their own object (neutral condition) or with someone else’s object (contrast condition); two additional characters then described the scene, each using a different possessive structure, and the participants had to choose who described it better. Thirty-one Norwegian-Italian bilingual children (mean age=6;5) completed the task.

The preliminary results for the responses (table 2-see in attachment) show that in Italian marginally more marked variants (postnominal) are used in the contrast condition when compared to the neutral condition (p<0.1) which is in line with the pragmatics; marginally more marked variants (prenominal) used in neutral condition in Norwegian than in Italian, which may indicate CLI from Italian to Norwegian. Statistically, there is no indication of CLI from Norwegian to Italian, but the raw numbers in table 2 suggest this: more postnominal possessives used in the Italian neutral condition than in the (appropriate) contrast condition.

There was no significant effect in the reaction times (RTs) (table 3-see in attachment). Overall, the children were faster in the Norwegian task- here also the RTs reflected the contextual use as the fastest responses were for prenominals in contrast and postnominals in neutral condition. In Italian the fastest mean RTs is for the prenominal in neutral condition, but the children were slowest in choosing the postnominals in contrast condition, indicating that they still struggle with this choice.

We conclude that there is bidirectional CLI for possessives in Norwegian-Italian children. Nevertheless, the results from the responses and RTs incompatible: CLI from Italian to Norwegian is more pronounced, but the responses for Italian are slower and indicate that the choice of variant in the contrastive condition may still be problematic. CLI for acceptability is complex, but these results show an interesting interplay between response and processing. In future analyses we will integrate dominance and age, and we plan to compare this with production data from the same group.

Context: Minnie has a red bed and Daisy has a pink bed.

a. Minnie sover. Sengen hennes er myk. - The bed belongs to Minnie

Minnie sleeps. bed-the her is soft

b. Minnie sover. Hennes seng er myk. - The bed belongs to Daisy

Minnie sleeps. her bed is soft

a. Topolina dorme nel suo letto. – The bed belongs to Minnie

Minnie sleeps in-the her bed

b. Topolina dorme nel letto suo. – The bed belongs to Daisy

Minnie sleeps in-the bed her.

References

Anderssen, M., & Bentzen, K. (2018, 2018-November-09). Different Outcomes in the Acquisition of Residual V2 and Do-Support in Three Norwegian-English Bilinguals: Cross-Linguistic Influence, Dominance and Structural Ambiguity [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(2130). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02130 Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2001). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 227-244. https://doi.org/undefined Kupisch, T. (2014). Adjective placement in simultaneous bilinguals (German–Italian) and the concept of cross-linguistic overcorrection. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 222-233. Nicoladis, E. (2006). Cross-linguistic transfer in adjective–noun strings by preschool bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/s136672890500235x Sorace, A., Serratrice, L., Filiaci, F., & Baldo, M. J. L. (2009). Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. 119(3), 460-477. Westergaard, M., & Anderssen, M. (2015). Word order variation in Norwegian possessive constructions: Bilingual acqusition and attrition. In J. Bondi Johanessen & J. C. Salmons (Eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Acquisition attrition and change (pp. 21-45). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in mirrored properties

m.vel — Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:00:05 +0000

Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in mirrored properties m.vel Mon, 28/03/2022 - 10:00

Authors

Velnić, Marta

Type

Talk

Conference

Bilingualism Matters- Voices in Harmony

Date

2022-03

Attachment

velnic_slides-bm_voices_in_harmony.pdf

Full abstract

Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in mirrored properties

Session goals

CLI is an amply studied phenomenon in bilingual language acquisition, but studies have so far been conducted on language combinations in which one language had two variants whereas the other one had only one variant of a linguistic phenomenon (Bernardini, 2003; Kupisch, 2014; Rizzi et al., 2013; Westergaard & Anderssen, 2015). Hulk and Müller (2001) define CLI as dependent on the internal properties of the two languages, such as (i) surface structure overlap, and (ii) interface between two modules of the grammar (i.e syntax & pragmatics). The aforementioned research has found that the overlapping variant is usually produced more frequently in the language with two variants, when compared to monolingual peers. In the current study we explore CLI when both languages have two surface structures, but with opposite pragmatic implications. We thus explore the possessive structures in Norwegian-Italian bilingual children. Both languages have the pre-nominal and post-nominal possessive, and their use is context dependent. In Italian the pre-nominal possessive is used for neutral contexts whereas the post-nominal possessive signals contrast or emphasis, while the opposite is true for Norwegian (cf. table 1).

Significance to the field

This combination of factors has good grounds for CLI to occur, but the direction of CLI and which factors play a role is currently theoretically unexplored. We will thus shed light on bilingualism effects of a complex linguistic situations many bilingual children go through.

Methodology

We conducted an elicitation task set to elicit possessive structures in topical and contrastive conditions. The participants were 31 bilingual children (15 female) aged 4-10 (mean=6;3) who spoke Italian and Norwegian. Most of the participants were residing in Norway (n=28). The participants were tested in both languages.

The task was designed in power-point, one presentation for each language, depicting characters interacting with objects which were either their own (neutral condition) or belonging to other characters (contrast condition). The experiments were conducted on Zoom via screen share due to Covid-19 restrictions; participants were tested in the two languages on two separate days, at least one week apart.

Findings

The data for this study has just recently been collected and we are currently working on the analysis. Thus, what will be presented below are preliminary results.

The study found that in the Italian version of the task the children use the pre-nominal possessive almost exclusively (fig.1), as if the Italian system had been simplified to the unmarked and more frequent variant. This cannot be attributed to CLI from Norwegian as we would expect the exposure to Norwegian to enhance the use of the postnominal variant. The Norwegian task showed more variation as both variants were used, but this was not always pragmatically target-like.

Our generalized linear model[1] found (i) significantly more postnominals in the contrast condition in Italian (p<0.05) which indicates these bilinguals have a grasp of the pragmatic use of the variants, (ii) more marked forms (post-nominals) in the neutral context in Norwegian (p<0.001), (iii) a strong interaction of condition and language (p<0.001). Thus, the potential CLI can be observed in the use of the pre-nominal variant in neutral contexts in Norwegian; but also, to a lesser degree, in the post-nominal use in neutral contexts in Italian. We will thus argue that CLI can be bi-directional within the same property when the surface structure of both languages allows for this.

To this model, we then added the effects of dominance. Dominance was calculated based on the responses of the CLT tasks (Roch et al., 2015; Simonsen et al., 2012) administered to the child prior to the elicitation task. The children were categorized as Italian-dominant, Balanced, or Norwegian-dominant. There was no effect of dominance on the responses in Italian, but the Norwegian model found (i) a marginal significance (p<0.1) between balanced and Italian-dominant participants (ii) more post-nominal structures in neutral conditions in Norwegian-dominant than the balanced participants (p<0.05). Thus, the children seem to be more target-like in Norwegian as their Norwegian dominance/proficiency increases (fig. 2).

Conclusions

These preliminary findings suggest there is a simplification of the Italian system, similarly what literature on heritage languages has found (Montrul, 2010), but nevertheless the Italian system seems to also be able to influence the use of Norwegian variants. Thus, CLI can be bidirectional when the language systems allow for it, but also dominance plays a role as it contributes to a proficiency of a system.

NB: see table and figures in the file attached to this entry

REFERENCES

Bernardini, P. (2003). Child and adult acquisition of word order in the Italian DP. In N. Müller (Ed.), (In)vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism (pp. 41-81). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2001). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 227-244. https://doi.org/undefined

Kupisch, T. (2014). Adjective placement in simultaneous bilinguals (German–Italian) and the concept of cross-linguistic overcorrection. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 222-233.

Montrul, S. (2010). Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 3-23.

Roch, M., Levorato, C., & Tedeschi, R. (2015). Cross-linguistic Lexical Tasks: Italian version (CLT-IT). Universitá di Padova.

Simonsen, H., Hansen, P., & Luniewska, M. (2012). Cross-linguistic Lexical Tasks: Norwegian version (CLT-NO). UiO.

Dative Alternation in Norwegian: the effect of givenness and pronouns on RTs

m.vel — Wed, 26 Jan 2022 11:58:13 +0000

Dative Alternation in Norwegian: the effect of givenness and pronouns on RTs m.vel Wed, 26/01/2022 - 12:58

Authors

Velnić, Marta

Anderssen, Merete

Type

Talk

Conference

35th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop

Date

2021-06

Attachment

dative_alternation_in_norwegian-the_effect_of_givenness_and_pronouns_on_rts_cgsw35.pdf

Dative Alternation in Norwegian: the effect of givenness and pronouns on RTs

Dative Alternation (DA) is found in a number of Germanic languages. The alternation consists of the language having two different structures for expressing ditransitive verbs; the double object dative (DOD, Erik gave the girl a car) in which the recipient precedes the theme, and the prepositional dative (PD, Erik gave the car to the girl) with the opposite object order.

The question of what determines the choice of structure in ditransitives has been a long standing one. Several studies on languages with dative alternation such as English and Danish, employing a variety of tasks measuring reaction times (RT), have found that the DA is affected by givenness. While the DOD is preferred when the recipient is given (placing given>new arguments), the PD does not seem to be sensitive to information structure (Brown, Savova, & Gibson, 2012; Clifton & Frazier, 2004; Kizach & Balling, 2013). The fact that both word orders are generally accepted suggests that this preference is due to information structure rather than grammaticality.

Norwegian has DA: Erik ga jenta en bil-DOD, Erik ga bilen til jenta- PD. The current study investigates the alternation between PD and DOD in order to test whether the same sensitivity to information structure can be found in the dative alternation in Norwegian. We ask: (i) To what extent are ditransitive structures that violate the given>new principle accepted as grammatical in Norwegian? (ii) Is this reflected in RTs as in Danish and English? And, (iii), how are violations of given>new perceived when the given object is realized by a pronominal object as opposed to a DP? We included pr-objects because of the strong connection between pronominality and givenness: only given objects may be expressed with pronouns (Gundel, Hedberg, & Zacharski, 1993). We predicted that pr-objects would result in faster RTs in pronoun>non-pronoun orders as these reinforce the given>new order. Otherwise, Norwegian was expected to behave like Danish and English.

We used a speeded grammaticality judgement task designed in Open Sesame (Mathôt, Schreij, & Theeuwes, 2012). All test sentences were preceded by a context introducing either the theme (1) or the recipient (2); given elements were expressed by definite DPs or pronouns, while new objects were realized by indefinite DPs. RTs were measured from when the test sentence (3a-h) appeared on the screen, and the participants had to rate the sentences as either “good” or “bad”. There were three dependent variables: the structure (PD vs. DOD), given object (theme vs. recipient), and the referring expression of the given object (DP vs. Pronoun), giving us a 2x2x2 (=8) matrix of target sentences for each example. There were 12 examples of each type, amounting to a total of 96 test items in the task: each participant saw only half of the test items. 26 native speakers of Norwegian participated in the task.

The results are summarised in Table 1. and reveal both similarities and differences with previous studies on other Germanic languages. Similarly to other studies, DODs appear to be more sensitive to information structure than PDs in Norwegian: items violating given>new are significantly slower than orders obeying this principle (p-value=0,0476 with linear mixed effects). However, our results also reveal a significant qualitative difference between two structures as theme-given DODs were consistently regarded as less acceptable (63% and 44%). The result of the logistic regression revels that new>given orders have a lower acceptance ratio for both DP (p-value=2.81e-11) and pronominal objects (p-value=0.0041), but the interaction suggests a larger effect on the latter (p-value=4.62e-05). This is reflected also on the RTs as items with given themes were significantly slower to rate than items with given recipients for both DP objects (p-value=0.0018) and pronouns (p-value=0.0065).

Furthermore, our results suggest that the PD is not as contextually-independent as previously claimed as we find significant effects, for both qualitative and quantitative measures. The logistic regression revealed a higher acceptance ratio when the theme was given (p-value=0.00839). With regard to RTs, these were significantly slower with given recipients for DPs (p-value=0.0181), while for pr-objects, only a marginal effect was found (p-value=0.052), but note that items with pronouns were overall slower.

Thus, DA in Norwegian is similar to other Germanic languages as the DOD is more contextually sensitive than the PD. However, two key differences emerge: First, there may also be a qualitative difference between the two structures as we found a surprisingly low acceptance ratio of DOD structures when the given>new principle was violated, especially when the given object was a pronoun (example 3e; acceptance: 44%). Second, the PD is also contextually sensitive, most clearly with DP objects. This entails that both structures are dependent on context, but we found that speakers perceive the PD as contextually appropriate more quickly than they do the DOD.

A relevant difference between the current study and previous investigations of DA is the inclusion of pr-objects. Our results suggest that these yield faster RTs within the DOD (as predicted) but has the opposite effect on the PD. A possible reason for this discrepancy is that the PD has generally been described as cognitively less complex because of the use of a PP to mark the recipient. Within the DOD the thematic roles are disambiguated based on their position only, and thus the presence of the pronominal object will speed up processing, precisely because givenness reliably predicts word order. Hence, not only context but also referring expressions influence how the speakers process the two alternates.

Examples – provided in English for convenience

(1) Eric was cleaning out the fridge and found an open can of tuna in it. He was unsure whether it was good enough to eat, but he also didn't want to throw it away. -theme given

(2) Eric was woken up by a cat meowing under his balcony. The cat was small and cute, and Eric wanted to help it so... -recipient given

(3) a. He gave a cat the tuna. / b. He gave the tuna to a cat. / c. The gave the cat tuna.

d. He gave tuna to the cat. / e. He gave a cat it. / f. He gave it to a cat.

g. He gave it tuna. / h. He gave tuna to it.

References: Brown, M., Savova, V., & Gibson, E. (2012). Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(1), 194-209. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.08.006; Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (2004). Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Memory & Cognition, 32(6), 886-895.; Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 274-307.; Kizach, J., & Balling, L. W. (2013). Givenness, complexity, and the Danish dative alternation. Memory & Cognition, 41(8), 1159-1171. doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0336-3; Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, , 44 (2), 314-324.

The Effect of Givenness on the Dative Alternation in Norwegian: A Reaction Time Study

m.vel — Wed, 26 Jan 2022 11:53:54 +0000

The Effect of Givenness on the Dative Alternation in Norwegian: A Reaction Time Study m.vel Wed, 26/01/2022 - 12:53

Authors

Velnić, Marta

Anderssen, Merete

Type

Talk

Conference

12th International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics

Date

2021-06

Attachment

velnicanderssenngl12.pdf

The Effect of Givenness on the Dative Alternation in Norwegian: A Reaction Time Study

The question of what determines the choice of word order in ditransitives has been a long standing one. Several factors have been shown to affect the order of the objects. For example, results from self-paced reading tasks and reaction timed (RT) grammaticality judgements in English and Danish reveal that the double object dative (DOD, Erik gave the girl a car) is better when the recipient is given than when the theme is given, while the prepositional dative (PD, Erik gave the car to the girl) is found to be insensitive to givenness (Bridgwater et al. 2019; Brown et al. 2012; Clifton & Frazier, 2004; Kizach & Balling, 2013). As a result, PD has been argued to be the canonical order. Furthermore, the fact that both word orders are generally accepted suggests that this preference is due to information structure rather than grammaticality.

The current study investigates the alternation between PD and DOD to test whether the same sensitivity to information structure can be found in the dative alternation in Norwegian. We ask: (i) To what extent are ditransitive structures that violate the given-before-new principle accepted as grammatical in Norwegian? (ii) Is this reflected in RTs as in Danish and English? And, (iii), how are violations of given>new perceived when the given object is realized by a pronominal object as opposed to a DP? In our speeded grammaticality judgement task designed in Open Sesame, all test sentences were preceded by a context introducing one of the object arguments; RTs were measured from when the test sentence appeared on the screen, and given elements were expressed by definite DPs or pronouns, while new objects were realized by indefinite DPs. The participants had to rate the sentences as either “good” or “bad”. A total of 96 ditransitive structures were tested on 26 adult native speakers of Norwegian.

The results are summarised in Table 1. and reveal both similarities and differences with previous studies. DODs appear to be more sensitive to information structure than PDs in Norwegian as well: theme-given DODs were consistently regarded as less acceptable (63% and 44%), while recipient-given PDs were judged as less acceptable only when the theme was realised by a pronoun (73%). A linear mixed effects analysis revealed that fewer test items were judged as “bad” in the PD structure (p-value=4,47e-05). Further, our statistical analysis also revealed that items violating given>new are significantly slower than orders obeying this principle: p-value=0,0476 for PD and p-value=0,00938 for DOD; this means that PDs are also context dependent, even if considerably less so than DODs. For PDs, this is surprising, as previous research has shown no tendency related to word order with these structures. The results can be summarized as follows: First, violations of the given>new principle with DODs seem to be less acceptable in Norwegian than in Danish and English (more items judged as “bad”); second, RTs reveal that PDs are also sensitive to information structure (slower RTs when given>new violation); and third, the type of referring expression clearly plays a role when it comes to how degraded violations of givenness principles are considered (both on RTs and acceptance ratio). This shows that pronouns play an important role for word order in ditransitives. The canonical status of the PD may need to be re-evaluated in light of this.

References: Bridgwater, Kyröläinen & Kuperman (2019). The influence of syntactic expectations on reading comprehension is malleable and strategic: An eye-tracking study of English dative alternation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(3), 179-192. Brown, Savova & Gibson (2012). Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(1), 194-209. Clifton & Frazier (2004). Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Memory & Cognition, 32(6), 886-895. Kizach & Balling (2013). Givenness, complexity, and the Danish dative alternation. Memory & Cognition, 41(8), 1159-1171.

Velnić, Marta

Singular Generic Noun Phrases in L3 Norwegian

Generic Noun Phrases in the Third Language

CLI in mirrored properties

Genericity in second and third language acquisition An overview of the ADIM project (WP4)

CLI in mirrored properties

Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in mirrored properties

Cross-linguistic influence in acceptability: possessive structures in Norwegian-Italian bilingual children.

Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in mirrored properties

Dative Alternation in Norwegian: the effect of givenness and pronouns on RTs

The Effect of Givenness on the Dative Alternation in Norwegian: A Reaction Time Study

Genericity in second and third language acquisitionAn overview of the ADIM project (WP4)