![3D"Interfaz](3D"6.Escutia_archivos/image001.jpg")
=
![3D"Cuadro](3D"6.Escutia_archivos/image002.gif")
Fossilization of English as an L2 non-native
constructions at the syntax-discourse interface in Romance L1 speakers
Fosilización de construcciones no nativas del inglés c=
omo
L2 en la interfaz sintaxis-discurso en hablantes de L1 románica
Marciano Escutia López
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
mescutia@ucm.es
ABSTRACT
This study examines and compares =
the
English as a foreign language production of two groups of speakers with res=
pect
to certain manifestations of the expression of the subject in discourse. On=
e of
the groups consists of 12 advanced EFL university English majors living in
Spain, the other of 9 adult Romance speakers having lived in an English
speaking country for several decades. The hypothesis is tested that subject
inversion with unaccusative verbs and pronominal subject omission when
identified in discourse constitute fossilization phenomena as verified by t=
heir
perseverance in the second group of learners despite their long and rich
exposure to the L2 and their frequent interaction in it.
Keywords: English as a second/foreign language, (non) =
null
subject language, fossilization, syntax/discourse interface, adult language
learning
RESUMEN
Este estudio examina y
compara la producción del inglés como lengua extranjera de dos
grupos de hablantes con respecto a algunas manifestaciones de la
expresión del sujeto en el discurso. El primero es de 12 alumnos
españoles avanzados de inglés como lengua extranjera al final=
de
su licenciatura en Filología Inglesa, y el segundo de 9 hablantes
adultos de lenguas románicas residentes en países de habla
inglesa durante décadas. Se intenta comprobar la hipótesis de=
que
la inversión verbo-sujeto con verbos inacusativos y la omisió=
n de
los sujetos pronominales identificados por el discurso en la lengua nativa
constituyen elementos de fosilización si su pervivencia se mantiene =
en
el grupo segundo, a pesar de su larga y abundante exposición a la L2=
y
su frecuente interacción en la misma.
Palabras clave:
inglés como lengua extranjera/segunda, lenguas de sujeto nulo,
fosilización, interfaz sintaxis/discurso, aprendizaje adulto de la
lengua
1. INTRODUCTION
The goal of this paper is to make the case for the
fossilization of certain non-native constructions of English as a second and
foreign language (EL2, EFL, respectively. (2They are related here to the ex=
pression
of the subject by adult advanced Spanish learners (mainly) as well as by ot=
her
Romance language speakers. In order to do that, we will first describe the
concept of fossilization in L2 very briefly and concisely, its conditions a=
nd
possible causes. Then we will refer to some studies on fossilization about =
both
the EFL of advanced romance language students and of a romance language as =
a FL
by advanced English speaking students. Both are related to very similar
manifestations of fossilization dealt with here. Next, our data and hypothe=
ses
will be presented, comprising written and spoken EFL/EL2 production of adva=
nced
adult romance speakers from both tutored and untutored milieus, some living=
in
Spain and others who have been living in an English-speaking country for a =
long
time but all of them having really started learning and/or being exposed to=
the
language in post-adolescence. They are presented to witness to our general
hypothesis that the kind of items referred to are true examples of fossiliz=
ation.
Finally, our data will be discussed and some very brief comments will be ma=
de
regarding how they may impinge on the learning and teaching of the overt
manifestations of the subject in EFL.
Neither the linguistic features, the psycholinguist= ic mechanisms nor other kinds of factors involved in L2 learning will be the central issue here since our interest is purely factual, in the product, ve= ry concretely oriented and not directly concerned with the specifics of the process. Our aim is not so much to look at the L2 knowledge of the learners= as to point to some particular linguistic elements and discourse constructions= as candidates for fossilization. We look at the English of advanced L1 Romance-speaking adult learners and compare the linguistic production of two samples of them, one from last year L1 Spanish college English majors and t= he other from learners who have had many more years of exposure and practice in the L2. The non-native constructions pointed out will be referred to specif= ic manifestations of an underlying linguistic description and some comments wi= ll bear on the characteristics of the linguistic product and its acquisition.<= o:p>
This is a qualitative study so a quantitative analy=
sis
will not be carried out of the possible contexts of actual native or
non-native-like items with respect to a particular construction from the
production of these L2 learners (E2Ls. (2We just want to verify that the ty=
pes
of items presented occur normally in the linguistic production of both grou=
ps
in order to high-light such “inconsistency” between native and
non-native-like constructions present in the L2 production. Furthermore, it=
is
not our concern here whether these non-native constructions only affect the
level of externalization of the language or if they concern the underlying =
L2
competence.
=
2. WHAT IS FOSSILIZATION
Selinker (1972) first called fossilization one of t=
he
features of L2 production whereby a particular kind of (non-native) error
Lightbown (1985) characterized it as the natural en=
d of
many aspects of the grammar of adult L2 learners and Zobl (1980) hypothesiz=
ed
that fossilization is the result of crosslinguitic influence in IL creation,
which delays learning. Gass (1997) in her Input-Output model of L2L mentions
that fossilization occurs when input does not succeed in restructuring the =
L2
learner’s linguistic system.
Summarizing with Savillle-Troike (2006), the term
fossilization for L2Ls refers to the fact that many of them will stop their=
IL
development in some areas before reaching target language norms. She points=
out
as key factors in the process age, social identity, communicative need and =
lack
of motivation.
Han (2004, 2013) in her state-of-the art reviews on the topic and
gathering information from abundant studies and other summaries like Lightbown (2000, 2003) and Han & Odlin
(2006), states that in order to properly talk ab=
out
fossilization certain preconditions have to be met, like having the appropr=
iate
motivation to learn the language and getting both abundant exposure and eno=
ugh
interactional practice. She also remarks that fossilization is a local and
selective phenomenon, affecting only certain individual elements of the
grammar, not the whole of it; that it truly becomes evident when the L2Ls u=
se
the language to express their own meanings; and that L1 transfer is the maj=
or
influence encompassing it along with age-related maturational constraints. =
She
also notes that fossilization belongs in adult L2 learning rather than
children’s, and that the following forces conspire towards facilitati=
ng
it: (a) the variable nature of the target
structure (for example, an L2 apparently displaying optionality between both
presence or absence of S-V inversion or null subjects); (b) non-robust inpu=
t,
because of a dearth of frequent contact with L2 native speakers and real di=
scourse;
(c) crosslinguistic influence from an L1 unmarked usage, which may happen, =
for
example, when the L2 fossilizable structure has a wider distribution than in
the L1 (again, for example, the apparently optional presence of S-V inversi=
on
or null subjects in L2 Spanish with respect to L1 English. (2Finally,
she defends that fossilization ought to be studied longitudinally in order to verify a well-established lack of progress=
in
those linguistic features supposed to have stopped in their development. Al=
l these
are the elements of her Selective Fossilization Hypothesis (2009. (2Thus, h=
er
notion about the phenomenon could be summarized as a stable want of control=
of
a second language (feature) despite constant exposure to robust input.
In terms of the psycholinguistic factors involved in the process,
3.
FOSSILIZATION IN ENGLISH L1/L2 AND ROMANCE L1/L2
LEARNING
The types of items discussed here are constructions
found in the interaction of a Romance L1 with EFL/EL2. They could be said to
belong to what Sorace (2004) calls “soft
syntax” or grammatical aspects at the syntax-discourse interface, as
these are L2Ls’ non-native constructions occurring within a text, eit=
her
written (as in the case of our group of advanced college students) or oral =
(as
in the interviews and lectures of our group of adults having lived many yea=
rs
in an English-speaking country. (2She explains that they are not purely for=
mal
non-native constructions, are intrinsically very hard
to acquire and appear late developmentally
(Sorace & Keller 2005. (2This is so because of discourse aspects,
which might only be factored in if there has been a lot of rich environment=
al
L2 input exposure. Furthermore, adult L2Ls most probably behave here
differently from child acquirers because, unlike the latter, whose knowledg=
e of
the correspondences between grammatical forms and their functions is acquir=
ed
without cross-linguistic influence, adult L2Ls might be experiencing a
competition of other factors as well, mainly related to their L1 (Sorace 2004, 2005).
=
We
will examine briefly some of the research that h=
as
been carried out in L2L with respect to the expression of the subject. Thou=
gh
we distinguish between those studies that have concentrated on the (externa=
l)
syntax-discourse interface level from those that have done so on the (inter=
nal)
syntax-semantics one, things are not so clear-cut. It may be simply a matte=
r of
where they have placed the weight of the linguistic computation giving rise=
to
the non-native constructions of their studies.
3.1 &=
nbsp;
Research at the syntax-discourse interface level
Research in this area, at the level of the
externalization of grammar and its interaction with pragmatic-discourse fac=
tors
in production, points to attrition in the knowledge of the L2 relation betw=
een
morpho-syntactic properties and discourse pragmatics or form-meaning-functi=
on
(FMF) mapping (Lardiere 2006, Montrul & Bowles 2009, Sorace & Serratrice 2009, Han 2011; Han
& Lew 2012. (2Besides, some of that research concludes that fossilizati=
on
may extend also to some structures at the internal syntax–semantics
interface (Mon=
trul & Bowles 2009, Sorace & Serratrice 2009=
.
(2
One of the phenomena that has
been studied in Spanish L2 by L1 English speakers is u=
naccusativity,
which will also figure here in our own data. This is the property of certain
intransitive verbs whose internal NP theme argument is the syntactic surface
subject requiring inversion in Spanish according to contextual conditions. =
On
the other hand, in standard English, inversion requires the preverbal subje=
ct
slot to be filled with the pleonastic pronoun there2, e. g. Why did you s=
end
for more food? Because there came many more people in the end=
(rather formal)/many more peopl=
e
came in the end vs (Spa) porque
(ø) vino mucha más
gente al final/??porqu=
e
mucha más=
gente vino al final. The interrogation marks =
show
that though in Spanish S-V inversion might seem to be optional in contextle=
ss
syntactic terms, when the subject represents new information in focus,
inversion is required with such verbs3. Desp=
ite
the fact that advanced adult L2Ls of Spanish know rather early
that both preverbal and postverbal subjects are syntactically possible in
Spanish they do not use them properly in discourse (cf., for example, Liceras 1989; Liceras &am=
p;
Díaz 1999; Al Kasey and Pérez-Leroux 1998; Hertel 2003; Lozano
2002, 2006; Montrul and Rodríguez Louro 2006; Dominguez, L. & Arche, M. J. 2014. (2=
In the case of tutored contexts, this is an aspect hardly practiced =
in
class. The corresponding construction is, thus, amenable to fossilization, =
or
as Sorace (2005) calls it, “residual
optionality”, in the sense that some specific manifestation of it is
implicitly considered optional and there might lie the lack of ultimate
attainment in proficiency.
Another area=
that
has been the subject of studies about fossilization is the distribution of =
null
and overt subjects in romance languages: pronoun subjects may be null in
null-subject languages when referring to something already mentioned or
understood in context; overt ones are used when they refer to new participa=
nts
in the predication or for contrast with others (Fernández-Soriano 19=
91)4.
Advanced adult L2 learners from non-null subject L=
1s
soon learn that both null and overt subjects are possible in Spanish, but t=
hey
find it difficult to use them appropriately in discourse production, ruled =
as
they are by those FMF properties of the syntax-discourse interface (see, for
example, Pérez-Leroux and Glass 1999; Liceras
and Díaz 1999; Lozano 2003, 2006, 2009; Hertel 2003; Montrul
2005, 2006; Sorace and Fil=
iaci
2006; Belletti, Bennati and
Sorace 2007, Pladevall 2013.
(2
Sorace (2005)
found that near-native speakers of Italian overgeneralize overt subject
pronouns and preverbal subjects to contexts which would require null subjec=
ts
and postverbal subjects in native Italian. Obviously, these advanced speake=
rs
do not lack syntactic knowledge and when they use null pron=
ouns
and postverbal subjects, they do so correctly, that is, they have acquired a null subject grammar as shown =
in
context-free grammatical tasks. Again, it seems that the appropriate FMF
mapping conditions for the use of overt and preverbal subjects have not been
learned as they present optionality effects in their use. These may be due =
to
the lack of specification of the interface features [topic-shift] and [focu=
s],
as Sorace points out, which prevent the speakers from interpreting overt
subjects as shifted topics foci.
There is also research about residual optionality
changes in the pronominal system of native Italian speakers who have had ve=
ry
extensive exposure to English (Sorace 2000; Tsimpli, Sorace, Heycock and
Filiaci, 2004. (2Its results seem to show that these speakers display a sim=
ilar
pattern of optionality as the English near-native speakers of Italian, since
they appear to extend overt subjects and preverbal subjects to contexts
requiring a null subject or a postverbal subject, both in production and in
comprehension tasks. Thus, there is an overlap between the end-state knowle=
dge
of English near native speakers of Italian and the native knowledge of Ital=
ian
near-native speakers of English with respect to null/overt subjects and
pre/postverbal subjects. In both cases, the speakers’ grammar
specifications licensing null subjects are in place but the syntax-discourse
mapping rules on pronominal subjects are affected by attrition. However, th=
is
occurs for different reasons: in the case of the former group probably due =
to
the lack of robust L2 data in their environment and in the latter, just the
opposite, because of the length of their exposure to such robust input of
contextualized native English, which has ended up permeating the L1 with so=
me
of its interface conditions.
3.2 Research at the syntactic
competence level
Although the studies reviewed so far restrict
fossilization to the syntax-discourse interface leaving syntactic knowledge
intact, other studies suggest that this attrition might also affect syntact=
ic
competence as well. These are studies that have used both oral or written p=
roduction
tasks and grammaticality judgements, which might seem to be more directed to
the learners’ purely syntactic knowledge since no context is provided=
.
Lardiere (2007) presented a native speaker of Chine=
se,
Patty, who had lived as an adult in the USA for more than 20 years, with two
grammaticality judgement tasks on English adverb placement 18 months apart.=
She
found that Patty’s knowledge of verb raising, as related to adverb
placement (for example, with respect to examples such as *the chef cooked
slowly the meat), was native-like but also that her verbal regular
morphology across both tasks might be considered fossilized (as compared wi=
th
irregular verbs. (2The findings of this study confirmed the results of a
previous one looking only at production tasks (Lardiere 1998. (2
The same attrition symptons have been found in EFL
near-native Spanish speakers with respect to that-trace effects in
grammaticality judgments, fill-in-the blanks and wh- question formulation t=
asks
(Escutia 1999. (2The presence of the complementizer that in such
construction (e.g., Who did you say *that came to the party?) seemed to be optional in the grammar of these advan=
ced
speakers, especially in the case of those whose real exposure to the L2 had
begun in their post-adolescent years. Most of them were EFL teachers themse=
lves
who had never been made aware of this constraint. This would seem to be an
example of residual optionality in their grammatical representation since no
discourse to respond to was provided.
In Escutia (1998, 2002) two study cases were report=
ed
of two respective adult Spanish advanced learners of English who had both l=
ived
in an English speaking country for a long time. Their L2 spontaneous (every=
day
conversation) and semi-spontaneous oral performance (production uttered dur=
ing
a recorded interview) was gathered and presented later to them in disguised
form as individual contextless items in an acceptability judgment task. Some
(then considered) derived properties of the Pro-Drop and Verbal Agreement
parameters of Universal Grammar (UG), or innate constraints in the developm=
ent
of natural grammars, were examined trying to show that the learners had not
fixed them univocally. The studies also tried to show that their L2 compete=
nce
-as seen both from the two different tasks, one more introspective and the
other more spontaneous- was rather uniform in that both their judgments and
oral production showed lack of detection of some of the differences between=
the
L2 native grammar and their own non-native one.
Thus, the knowledge shown by the oral production da=
ta
could not solely be ascribable to circumstantial performance or discourse
interface factors but reflected some kind of more stable underlying grammat=
ical
representation. It was concluded that both learners had developed an L2 gra=
mmar
where certain aspects, supposedly derived from the fixation of parameters, =
had
not been univocally acquired. This seemed to be the case as indicated,
specifically, by the following phenomena: the presence of some null pronomi=
nal
referential subjects (those in embedded subject-correferential clauses: They don’t think that *(they) are
coming); the absence of some pleonastic pronouns (especially in embedded
clauses: I think *(it) is important=
to be
there); inverted subjects with unaccusative and passive verbs (but then (it) happened many th=
ings;
and also it was established a school) and in
embedded relative clauses with a relativized object (The moment that represents the picture is my graduation); the
presence of that-trace effects;=
and
adjacency violations or adverbial interruptions between a verb and its obje=
ct
because of L1 transfer of verb raising (I
saw physically the university. (2Still, in spite of the convergence fou=
nd
in the two types of tasks, the more introspective one was somewhat more
accurate probably because it taps closer to the syntactic competence of the
speakers while the other, less accurate, has to deal more with discourse
interface conditions.=
On the other hand, Escutia (2008, 2010) studies how
English and Spanish as a foreign language (EFL and SFL, respectively) advan=
ced
students seem to construct their L2 grammar with respect to unaccusative and
passive predicates as seen in consistent written production data. As mentio=
ned
before, these are intransitive predicates which favor verb - subject invers=
ion
(both in Spanish and in English) and (overt) expletive anticipation of the
notional postverbal subject (in Standard English, there for NPs and it for
clausal subjects. (2Those data, in turn, are examined in Escutia (2012) to
compare the structures produced by those learners, and conclude that both t=
ypes
of advanced learners may be using similarly expletive or default pleonastic=
it and the Spanish pronoun se, respectively, producing parall=
el
fossilizable structures (e. g.: *it
happened something terrible / *se ocurrió algo terrible. (2The f=
act
that Escutia (2016) also finds converging introspective data by an advanced
SpL2 learner with very long and rich exposure to the L2 unaware of judging =
his
own naturalistic production with se overgeneralizations as individual
contextless items (e. g. *se faltar=
on
muchos a clase) might suggest that it and se could have
equivalent syntactic value in their respective L2 grammars in constructions
that are subject to fossilization.
Moskovsky and Ratcheva (2014) examined two-year
longitudinal data from a Russian university teacher, an advanced fluent adu=
lt
learner of English, with excellent cognitive and motivational dispositions,=
who
had been living in an English-speaking country for eight years totally inme=
rsed
in the L2 language and culture. He showed symptoms of fossilization in his
production with respect to different types of items but the study centered =
on
article use in particular, looking at his fluctuation between native and
non-native usage and backsliding. They also presented their learner with a
grammaticality judgement task to test his intuitions about the use of artic=
les
in English, which was also presented to eight native controls, showing a cl=
ear
difference in knowledge with the latter. Thus, these authors suggest that
fossilization is a competence phenomenon, rather than just a performance on=
e,
when the learners are trying to produce their own meaning.
The results of the previous studies, then, are
congruent with Han’s (2006) remarks about the consistency between
grammaticality judgments and naturalistic data. In fact, she concludes that
grammaticality judgments may well be a “viable alternative for studyi=
ng
fossilization” (p. 76. (2Thus, such a more monitorized type of task, =
may
confirm prior findings based on naturalistic production within ongoing
longitudinal investigations of fossilization.
Nevertheless, current research (see, for example, Lozano & Mendikoetxea 2013 and Mendikoetx=
ea
& Lozano 2018) centers at the same time on the interface between syntax=
and
externalization (both discourse and phonetic realization) and on the
language-internal interface (lexicon-syntax. (2Authors favor, thus, a
multi-interface approach in order to provide a d=
eeper
understanding of the factors involved in, for example, inversion in L2
acquisition and in interlanguage grammars in general by using corpus and
experimental data, looking both at core syntax and the interfaces and
considering representational and processing models as well.
In any case, whether fossilization is a competence =
or a
performance phenomenon, or has to be approached from a more global perspect=
ive,
taking into account both internal and external interfaces, our goal here is=
just
detecting it both in the oral and (more monitored) written production of
certain constructions by adult learners of EFL/L2. In order to do that, it =
is
not necessary to go into either their theoretical linguistic underpinnings,=
the
locus of occurrence or source of their attrition.
3.
THE STUDY
4.1 Learners and types of items
As mentioned in the introduction, the data for this study have been
drawn from two sources: first, in the case of the twelve linguistic majors,
from their written assignment papers about applied linguistics; second, in =
the
case of the nine Romance language speaking personalities, from oral intervi=
ews
(mainly) and a few video lectures. The former are last year college students
with an advanced level of English as measured by their having passed the C1
level exam of the Common European Framework of Reference5 the ye=
ar
before. The latter group is made up of nine learners: four speakers of
peninsular Spanish, one of Mexican Spanish, one of Brazilian Portuguese and=
two
of Italian. Seven of them have spent more than twenty years in English spea=
king
countries having to use the L2 in their jobs and are still living in those
countries for most of the year. Although the other two do not live in
English-speaking countries, they have acted in many English-speaking films =
and
spent considerable time both in England and the United States. Despite not all having the same L1, L2Ls from
typologically similar L1 backgrounds tend to fossilize around the same
linguistic elements (Trenkic 2009; Balcom 1997; Oshita 2001. (2They =
have
been chosen because their production data are publicly available and because
they started really learning English in their post adolescent years, as did=
the
college students, most of whom just took an EFL compulsory class every year=
of
their pre-university school life.
Both groups are trying to get their own meaning across but through
different means and different amounts of planning because the students̵=
7;
papers do require more and, in that sense, correspond to a more monitored k=
ind
of production than the rather spontaneous one of the oral interviews or even
the lectures of one of the personalities, which are not read but delivered
orally using powerpoint displays. If the types of non-native constructions examined a=
lso
occur in the personalities’ less planned L2 production, this would
support their not being idiosincratic performance mistakes but rather resul=
ting
from similar underlying linguistic specifications and their interaction with
contextual factors. Showing that their non-native constructions are similar=
to
those of our advanced students would point to their being part of a set that
tends to fossilize. Let us not forget that fossilization should be m=
ost
evident in production tasks like these, where learners primarily attend to
meaning and draw from their own linguistic resources (Ellis 2003: 16).
The fact that we are contrasting data from two clea=
rly
diverse groups, one from a tutored academic L2 learning setting and the oth=
er
from an untutored and more unstructured one does not constitute a drawback =
of
the study, just the opposite: if it is found that both groups produce the s=
ame
kind of utterances, which is our general hypothesis, these may be candidates
for fossilization since they occur both in rather spontaneous production as
well as in a more introspective kind, as the students do not have to encode=
the
L2 on the spur of the moment, unlike the personalities, but can think more
about it. Thus, if that is the case, their presence might signal their rath=
er
persevering status in the IL of adult L2Ls with the same or typologically
similar L1s. In fact, if speakers of typologically similar L1s coincide in =
the
type of error, it may be a sign that the factors at play are mainly linguis=
tic
and not idiosincratic. Furthermore, although both groups are of adult learn=
ers,
the academic group is rather younger than the other. This plays in favor of=
the
candidacy of fossilization for the tested items since the long passing of t=
ime
with exposure to robust input of learners with good cognitive capacity and
motivation (and continous study of the L2 in most cases) does not seem to
change the outcome for the second group, again, a sign of attrition in L2L.=
As mentioned above, fossilization is a local phenom=
enon
(cf. Han & Odlin 2006), and, as such, only some specific units of
fossilization related to the expression of subjects will be examined, not a=
ll
the possible manifestations of a supposedly native overarching linguistic
setting encompassing them. After having observed their pervasiveness in the
production of high-intermediate and advanced EFL students, the non-native i=
tems
chosen to confirm their condition as possible fossilization candidates and
whose presence in both sets of data we predict are the following: (1) null
expletives and null subordinate subjects correferential with a main or matr=
ix
clause referent: I think *(it) is important to be there; They don’t think that *(the=
y)
are coming (cf. White 1985, Liceras 1989,
Phinney 1989 Escutia 1998, 2002 and many others), presented in two different
chart columns in the appendices, and (2) inverted subjects -both clausal and
phrasal- with unaccusative and copula/passive verbs anticipated or not
preverbally by a non-standard inserted expletive: (it) happened many things; it was established a sch=
ool6 (cf. Escutia 2008), again corresponding to two
different columns. Because of=
our
previous experience with stud=
ents,
we should expect inversion more frequently anticipated by the expletive than
not.
The frequent production of both types of items already found in the
studies mentioned above, suggests a lack of command of the distributional
properties of the target construction in advanced EFL learners. English
requires overt expression of the subject of a clause, whether main or
subordinate (except for imperatives and some minor clauses (as in
The same happens with subject-verb inversion, which is freer in Span=
ish
though it is required syntactically with unaccusative<=
/span>
and reflexive-passive verbs (which are really much more frequent than
periphrastic passives: Se abrieron las puertas > las puertas =
fueron abiertas: <=
/i>‘seref opened the doors’ > R=
16;the
doors were opened’. (2Inversion is preferable with intransitive verbs=
as
the focus position of new information without, as in English, an anticipato=
ry
expletive of the post-verbal subject (e. g. ¿
The two items chosen here as predicted to occur in =
both
sets of data, then, production of inverted and null subjects, might seem to
have to do more with accuracy at the syntax-discourse interface because, in
terms of semantic alignment, the L1 and L2 are congruent with respect to the
syntax-semantics interface, as the subject in the case of unaccusatives and
passives in either is really the internal argument of the verb. Besides, bo=
th
the subject, in the case of the expletives in English, or the null pronouns=
in
Spanish have no semantic role or, having one, it is discoursively recoverab=
le,
respectively.
4.2 The data=
Because this is a qualitative
study, only the error tokens will be provided, in order=
to
show if their type of item forms part of these learners’ IL. We have =
also
observed that the corresponding native-like counterparts (with non-inverted
subjects and overt pronominal ones) also belong in their IL, as they are
advanced proficient L2Ls. It is precisely this residual optionality having =
to
do with discourse factors that characterizes fossilization.
4.2.1 The students’ written data
As explained
above, these data correspond to non-native constructions from the written
essays of 12 college students about different topics in Applied Linguistics.
Nine of them were female, corresponding more or less to the female/male rat=
io
of students obtaining in our English department. We think that this female
predominance in the sample is not a drawback of the study since it has been
shown that women have, in general, higher linguistic ability than men. What=
is
meant is that, apart from other motivational or social factors, when learni=
ng
language, girls’ brains show greater activity in the areas used for
language encoding while boys’ show activity in the areas associated w=
ith
visual and aural functions (Burman, Bitan & Booth 2008. (2This may play=
in
favor of the production data being in fact more native-like. All of them we=
re
done at home and under the express proviso of using their own language, not
copying from texts, as it is evident from the non-native constructions they
show.
Table 1 is provided below with the total number of
tokens per type of item. Appendix I shows the specific utterances the stude=
nts
produced. Although, for reasons of space, the broad context of the utteranc=
es
is not given one can easily ascertain the topic being discussed if one is
minimally acquainted with certain areas of Applied Linguistics.
|
Item |
Student=
I |
Stu II |
Stu III |
Stu IV |
Stu V |
Stu VI |
Stu VII |
Stu VIII |
Stu IX |
Stu X |
Stu XI |
Stu XII |
|
|
Inversion |
5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
2,4 |
|
2,It + inversion<=
/span> |
5 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
10 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
1 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
4,5 |
|
Null S Main |
2 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1.08 |
|
Null S Subord |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1,16 |
![](3D"6.Escutia_archivos/image004.jpg")
Table 1. Students’ results
4.2.2 Personalities’ oral production=
As
already mentioned, nine L1 Romance-language personalities have been chosen =
as a
second group of L2Ls for comparison: four male speakers of peninsular Spani=
sh
and five female ones (one speaker of Peninsular Spanish, one of Mexican
Spanish, one of Brazilian Portuguese and two of Italian. (2All of them are,
then, speakers of typologically similar languages in terms of subject omiss=
ion
and inversion7. The personalities have been chosen -apart from t=
he
reasons given before- because it is not easy to find other type of people w=
ith
the same conditions of exposure, length of residence and abundance of data.=
The
names that will be used are fictional ones in order to<=
/span>
keep their anonymity as safe as possible8.
Although they have their own different
backgrounds, all of them have in common that, at some point in their career=
s,
they took the step of going to work and/or live in an English-speaking coun=
try
either for life (Jess and Gaby), or as their operational base where they sp=
end
long periods of time. In all cases they have been learning the L2 for at le=
ast
twenty years (most of them many more), have had language coaches and have t=
aken
formal classes for long periods of time. They do not use it in the same deg=
ree
because in the case of three of them their partners are L1 speakers of the =
same
language, but all have to use and be exposed to =
it
much of the time for their work and social life.
Let us provide some more detail of their E=
nglish
language backgrounds. Jess, 86, has lived in the United States for almost s=
ixty
years since he arrived in his late twenties knowing little English. His data
come from both oral lectures and interviews. The case of Alda
is a bit different from the others because she does not use English so much
nowadays but has done so very often for most of her professional life and
frequently gives interviews in the language. She is now 86 and went to work=
in
the USA in her early twenties, lived for long periods of time in English
speaking countries and has interacted in the language very often. Her case =
is
like that of Yoc, 77, in their continuous expos=
ure
and interaction in English for decades. Maddy, 56, studied some EFL in scho=
ol
but when she started her professional life in the USA in the early 1990s, s=
he
could speak very little and, according to hersel=
f, she
just picked it naturally because she has a good ear for languages (reported=
ly,
she speaks three foreign languages, apart from his native Italian) but she =
has
always used a language coach for her many films in English. Gaby, 70, is
Brazilian and went to live and work in the United States in her mid-thirties
knowing little English and has lived there since then. Both Raúl, 51,
and Roz, 60, had to learn the language at the workplace -like Yoc- in their early twenties in the USA, where, at the
beginning, they had to read their lines phonetically by heart though all th=
ree
would later take formal lessons for years. Bea and Belle, 46 and 51 years o=
ld,
respectively, started learning the L2 in their late teen years (apart from =
the
EFL classes they had in high school) and even lived in the United States for
one year as students before returning to their countries first and then goi=
ng
back again two years later, after which they have spent most of the time th=
ere
working in English. This earlier exposure to English shows both in their
fluency and pronunciation as compared with the others -except, perhaps less
clearly, with Gaby and Maddy- who are as fluent but have a bit more of a
foreign accent.
One may safely say that the data of all th=
ese
speakers probably reflect the end-state grammar of mature and
highly-exposed-to-the-language seasoned L2Ls, which may provide a window in=
to
aspects of ultimate attainment and fossilization. The learners’ suitability for participation in fossilization research is optimal in
terms of length of residence, cognitive capacity, learning conditions,
motivation, exposure to input and opportunity to engage in authentic
communication (Han 2013).
Table 2 below displays the total number of tokens p=
er
type of item. For each speaker, a
table is provided in Appendix II with their respective oral utterances.
|
Item type |
Yoc (pen. Sp.) |
Raul (pen. Sp.) |
Jess (pen. |
Gaby (brazil) |
Bea (Mexican) |
Roz (pen. Sp.) |
Belle (pen. |
Alda (Italian) |
Maddy (Italian) |
|
|
Inversion |
2 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1.5 |
|
It+invers |
4 |
6 |
1 |
3 |
9 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3.5 |
|
Null S Main |
4 |
6 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
4.6 |
|
Null S subord |
2 |
7 |
6 |
12 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
![](3D"6.Escutia_archivos/image005.jpg")
Table
2. Personalities’ results
3.
DISCUSSION
In tables 1 and 2 the same kind of non-native
constructions are present in both groups of L2Ls for different types of
production tasks. It is clear from these data that all of these L2Ls have
difficulties in identifying the subject in a native-like manner. They seem =
to
be entrenched non-native constructions, as confirmed by their perseverance =
in
the speakers with much higher exposure to robust L2 input and interaction,
pointing to a well-established underlying linguistic system whose
specifications can hardly be modified and its restructuring might only occur
partially. On the other hand, comparing writing that has been planned, whic=
h,
arguably, might seem to be closer to some kind of learned grammatical syste=
m of
knowledge, with less planned spontaneous interview conversations and still
finding coincidences in the types of non-native constructions found may poi=
nt
to a core of rules based on the interplay between the L1 and L2 underlying
grammars and discourse factors. Probably, the oral interviews reflect better
the leaners’ attempts to express their own meaning, leading more like=
ly
to fall back on their L1 as the conceptual basis for articulation (Han 2010;
Han & Lew 2012. (2
For both groups, there are fewer tokens of
unanticipated inverted subjects with unacussative, copula, passive or
existential verbs than with it
insertion (looking at the average, half, approximately, for both groups. (2=
In
some cases there are none, as for Bea and Belle, which might be a sign of
higher proficiency given the high number of interviews sifted through for b=
oth
(with Alda it is not so clear due to the smaller number of interviews found=
. (2With
complement or unergative verbs there are very few in either group: one from
student I of an embedded
relative clause with a relativized complement: This shows the capacity t=
hat
*has the brain to process information; student X with two tokens of
quotative inversions with insist
(e.g.:….insisted Yari); and
students XI and XII with being =
(e.g.: ...being their goal to affect the way in which they think=
),=
possible
in their L1 but not in the L2.
There is also student IX with three examples of passives with there which, though correct, sound=
very
unnatural (marked with ?, like ?The=
re
have been selected repurposed apps) as compared with their corresponding
unanticipated ones with the passive subject in canonical syntactic position=
.
Among the personalities, Jess, Gaby and Yoc present
several cases of unanticipated inversions with be and unaccusatives =
come and happen (e.g.: ...and ca=
me
with the congress the voting for impeachment; and then was one thing after
another; happened many crazy things); Raúl also with be, =
and
Roz one token of an
embedded relative clause with a relativized complement and a transitive ver=
b (I
could see in him the effect that *was producing my performance. (2Jess =
has
the example This is something <=
/span>that made it possible the human
organization of humans where an expletive anticipates a NP object rather than
subject like all other cases encountered but the phenomenon is basically the
same because, again, only clausal objects can be anticipated this way. Thus, it seems that all participants are
aware of the thematic nature of the only (internal) argument of unaccusative
constructions keeping it verb internally but still having to fill the synta=
ctic
subject position to the left of the verb as the L2 syntax calls for.
It is no wonder that the learners have difficulty w=
ith inversion
for these verbs since the absence of inversion in the L2 with unaccusatives=
and
passives is less close to the semantics than its presence in the L1. Underl=
ying
semantics point to the syntactic subject as the internal (postverbal) argum=
ent
of the predicate and placing it preverbally involves its syntactic movement
there. Besides, the learners might have received little negative feedback to
the contrary, especially the personalities as their interaction in the L2 h=
as
probably been more focused on meaning than the students’. As in the c=
ase
of null subjects, the L2 does not provide evidence of the interdiction of
postverbal subjects.
In
their advanced EFL classes, the students have been made aware of and do
corresponding practice in, the use of anticipatory it only with clausal subjects and unstressed there with NPs. Using these structures involves linguistic
knowledge both at the level of the syntax and its interface with discourse
factors (focus) and phonetic ones (like the end-weight principle of keeping
more linguistic material after the verb. (2The fact that these notional
subjects may correspond to new information and so tend to appear postverbal=
ly
is independent of the provision of an anticipatory syntactic element which,
besides, is not necessary in their L1 (cf. Escutia 2008. (2The latter is ra=
ther
a sign of building an internal grammatical system with specifications of bo=
th
the L2 (provision of expletive it)
and the L1 (inverted NP subject), as such an structure does not exist in th=
e L1
and the standard variety of the L2 -the one they work with in their classes=
and
books- requires a different expletive. Still, the IL of these students is
moving within a possible gram=
mar
since other (non-standard) varieties use the same expletive as our students=
in
all contexts (i.e. black vernacular English: it ain’t no heaven for you to go. cf. Labov 1969).
These types of non-native constructions are found b=
oth
in the students’ planned writing and in the older learner’s
spontaneous or half-spontaneous oral production as some -few, just for one
speaker- of the data are also drawn from lectures, more amenable to followi=
ng a
certain structure or an outline. Thus, a broad spectrum is covered of what =
has
been called the IL style continuum (Tarone 19839. (2This
points to their being a stable part of their L2 competence as manifested in
discourse processing and production along more (written) or less (spoken)
careful styles.
With respect to the production of null syntactic
subjects either in main or subordinate clauses, we find, as expected from t=
heir
presence in many previous studies, that all our L2Ls do produce them in
discourse. The fact that we find fewer in the students is due to the fewer =
data
taken from them. Those of main clauses correspond mainly to postverbal clau=
sal
subjects without expletive anticipation, especially in the case of the
students, which could be classified as just inversion of clausal subjects w=
ith
copula verbs. There are also some cases of null anaphora it whose
reference can be recovered in the preceding (students’) written or
(personalities’) spoken discourse: e. g., several examples from diffe=
rent
personalities with depend (Maybe (∅=
) depends on the role I’m playing<=
span
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso=
-ansi-language:
EN-GB;mso-no-proof:yes'>) and be (At the beginning (∅=
) was very flattering for him. (2Those of subordinate clauses occur both with
adverbial and embedded clauses whose referents are in the main clause (e.g.=
: whichi is really very good
because (∅=
:iti)
keeps you really humble=
; It represents the characteri in
the way that (∅=
=
: iti)
should have been represented. (2In some cases they correspond to a null anticipatory it of a postverbal clausal subject (e.g. I think (∅=
) is very nice once in a while to talk to people
who’s followed you all your life. (2As expected in cases of attrition, there are
inconsistencies within the same speaker: for example, Yoc and Raul produce,
respectively, the following utterances with internal inconsistencies in the
presence of referential it: No, because (∅)
was my time, it was my life and …=
; but
it doesn’t depend on me, (∅=
)
depends on what they offer you10=
.
It may really be the case, then, that L2
syntax-discourse interface structures are more amenable to implicit than
explicit learning (as Han 2013 suggests) in the sense that properties like
inversion, which depend so much on discourse factors may not be taught
explicitly and can only be learned through robust input and interaction.
However, they are first regulated by the syntax of either language and are
freer in word order in the learners’ L1. For example, with no context
provided, many people came to the party can be translated to =
the
L1 either, word for word, as mucha gente vino a la fiesta or,
with subject-verb inversion, vino mucha gente a la fiesta<=
/i>,
that is, with the subject placed pre or postverbally. The latter is the pro=
per
answer in Spanish to the question what happened (at the party)? with
respect to the party, the stage topic, displaying focus on the postverbal
subject. The L2 might answer both that many people came to the party or,
more formally, rather in written discourse, that there came many people =
to
the party. That is, in oral discourse, the L2 displays inversion much l=
ess
than the L1 because it is more syntactically determined even in the kind of
robust input that has been referred to, as it is quite formal and literary.
Thus, it seems that the L1 interface cues for inversion and keeping track of
subjects are overriding those of the L2, which are more syntactically
determined. That maybe partly why the interviews with the personalities do =
not
seem to show much higher proficiency in this area of inversion. Still, the =
fact
that they tend to provide an expletive of sorts to those inverted subjects shows that exposure to the L2 has=
left
in all the learners the awareness of the need for a preverbal syntactic
subject.
The same could be said about the omission of pronom=
inal
subjects in the L1, which, once their referent is mentioned in the preceding
discourse, either in the main or subordinate clause of a complex sentence, =
they
can be omitted and identified by the verbal inflectional morphemes. Thus, t=
he
learners may be using the discourse mechanism of identification of their L1=
. At
the syntactic level of the sentence they may not produce these non-native
constructions because, as advanced learners, they are proficient in the syn=
tax
of the L2. It is those other interface aspects ocurring when one has to pro=
duce
the language in discourse that may be more influenced by the L1 discourse
mechanisms of identification, less amenable to explicit teaching and more
permeable to L1 transfer.
As can be seen from the older learners’ speech, the it-insertion construction (iti +
VP (unacc./be/pass.)
+ NPi: take Alda’s
It’s<=
/span> not important the appearance, the way=
you
are with your friends), also common in the planned written IL (and also=
in
speech, though not recorded here) of advanced adult Spanish learners of Eng=
lish
in an institutional milieu seems to persevere in the spontaneous oral produ=
ction
of older Romance learners with long stays in English speaking countries and
much more time of exposure and practice of the language in natural contexts=
11.
This points to its being a clear candidate for fossilization in the English=
IL
of this type of speakers. It seems to be more frequent than simple inversion
with the same type of verb -as it does not happen with other types. Their
latter’s occurrence might then point to a lower level of language
proficiency as it does not acknowledge the need of a necessary preverbal
element. This may be consistent with the fact that Belle and Bea, the
apparently more proficient speakers, display no example of it despite their
many interviews consulted. This much lower frequency of unanticipated inver=
ted
subjects might go against its clear status as a fossil=
izable
type in favor of the anticipated ones (*…if
once happened in your life something like this (from Yoc)
might seem to be less proficient in the L2 than *it happened in your life something like this).
If, as it is likely, the input the EFL students in an instructed set=
ting
are exposed to is, on the whole, non-robust, that is, infrequent and
inconsistent, one may not rely on its doing the =
job of
correcting the L1 discourse biases about subject position and expression wi=
th
respect to new information and null subject production even though the synt=
ax
may be in place. Still, Spanish students nowadays are exposed to a lot of
English data, especially these ones, who take an interest in being immersed=
in
English because of their chosen college major. Besides, many spend their
summers in English speaking countries and watch a lot of English videos.
Furthermore, this type of students may develop a metalinguistic consciousne=
ss
about certain aspects of the language, in particular ab=
out
the non-omission of pronominal subjects as they are always warned about it.
However, the strength of the L1 discourse cues always at hand when one has to perform linguistically, along with both the null
semantic contribution of expletives and the ease of identification of
coreferential subordinate subjects may all cooperate in producing these
non-native constructions.
Even though we have concentrated more on the it-insertion construction, some of our learners retain both the
(unanticipated) inversion of subject with unaccusative=
,
copula and passive verbs - though it seems that in smaller measure than the
other- and the non-native use of null subjects instead of expletive -and ev=
en
referential- it in subordinate
subject coreferential clauses. All these seem to be manifestations of the s=
ame
underlying IL system, which legitimizes null (preverbal) syntactic subjects=
in
discourse. It runs parallel to how advanced English L2 learners of Spanish =
or
Italian do not produce inversion when it is appropriate -and even necessary-
and overproduce subject pronouns in their Spanish IL.
As explained above, the it insertion construction is consistent with the grammar=
s of
both the L1, which prefers inversion with the types of verbs (unaccusatives and passives) and corresponding discour=
se
conditions, and the L2, with both possibilities of either placing the NP
subject before the verb or anticipating it with an expletive (there, in the standard variety) and
placing the NP post-verbally. Besides, it also occurs in the opposite
direction, that is, when the L1 is English and the L2 is Spanish: in this c=
ase
the item chosen as expletive may be the Spanish pronoun se and it looks like this structure tends to fossilize as well,=
as
explained above (cf. Escutia 2016. (2This IL pr=
ovides
an intermediate solution whereby the same expletive occurs anticipating both
NPs and clauses, as it occurs in other natural languages like French (e. g.=
il existe =
la possibilité de les rencon=
trer
/il parait qu’il va faire de froid/il est mort le soleil ‘there exists the possibility of meeting them again/it seems
that it’s going to get cold/the sun has died’) or German=
(Es gibt
This it-insertion struct=
ure
does not exist in the L1, so it is not originated in L1 transfer but respon=
ds
to a creative construction of the IL system, which resorts to it rather than
inversion or placing the subject NP preverbally when it is the focus of
information. The fact of its presence in the IL of advanced L2L’s of
several L1 null subject romance backgrounds may point to its stability as a
fossilized idiosyncratic structure of null subject Romance IL.
These data seem to contradict those of Lozano & Mendikoetxea
(2013) of acceptability judgements of advanced (C2 proficiency level) EFL
learners who accept it-insertion
structures at the same level as Ø-insertion, as compared with the
corpora data they analyzed, where overproduction of the former was rampant.=
Our
own data conform more with these corpora data, probably because when it com=
es
to producing one’s own meaning (thus, at the level of the interface
syntax-discourse) L1 transfer seems to be more active.
For both sets of learners, we are moving within the
confines of adult age with respect to the beginning of significant exposure=
to
the L2. The data might be quite different for learners with as long but ear=
lier
exposure than our adult speakers, as some studies suggest (cf. Johnson and
Newport 1989, Long 1990, Newport 1991, Hartshorne,Tenenbaum, & Pinker, =
2018.
(2We have to consider that our students have basically had an EFL instructed
exposure to the L2 from their early adolescence. They may also have probably
listened to a fair amount of Engish multimedially and only had some more
intense face-to-face interaction with native speakers in their vacation
periods, which means that, if there really is a sensitive period for L2A ar=
ound
adolescence, they were either past or in the middle of it when they started
with that impoverished exposure to the L2. No doubt the case of the
personalities is even clearer in this respect since two of them seemed to b=
e in
the same situation as our students (Bea and Belle), and the rest really beg=
an
their real exposure to the L2 as adults.
It should have been very interesting to have presen=
ted
both groups with an acceptability judgement test of the items they had
themselves produced or with equivalent ones as more of the whole gamut of IL
styles might have been covered. This would have given us a more thorough
picture of their knowledge about the type of items discussed. However, as f=
ar
as it goes, one can say that the personalities’ data may confirm the
fossilizable status of the types of items chosen (though less clearly so of=
the
unanticipated inversion. (2Another drawback is the lack of a comparison with
what native speakers would do in their interviews to see if one finds the s=
ame
types of items.
We could have also added as candidates for fossilization the very common non-native constructions of S-Aux inversio=
n in
embedded questions (Escutia 2002), Adjacency ef=
fects
with adverbials (cf. White 1990, Trahey and Whi=
te
1993) and resumptive pronouns in relative clauses (Gas=
s
1979, 1982; Gass and Lee 2007), especially
relativizing the subject position (and also other positions), which might n=
ot
have been expected from learners who do not do so in their L1. All of these=
are
also present in the interviews data of the personalities. We have not taken
them into account due to the fact that they were=
not
so frequent in our student’s written output (although we have observed
them very often both in their oral and written production) and because of t=
he
focus of our study on those types of non-native constructions traditionally
associated with null subject languages. We leave them for possible future r=
esearch.
Finally, when presenting non-native constructions such as these, one=
may
feel the responsibility of providing some remedial work to restructure the
non-native linguistic system somehow. Such work could be applied to these
non-native constructions and doing extensive in-class controlled practice w=
ith
the students, making them aware of them as used non-natively in real texts =
like
the ones used here, apart from providing negative evidence or correction wh=
en
necessary. On the other hand, one may wonder if they are the natural end for
the type of learner studied here and no remedy is at hand except a cosmetic=
one
in those situations that naturally afford awareness and monitoring such as
written production or formal spoken tasks. Other speech situations do not l=
end
themselves to such awareness and control, which might anyway hinder natural=
ness
and even expressiveness in communication.
NOTAS
1 At the time they talked about (developmental) errors rather than
non-native constructions and also different from
(performance) mistakes.
2 Unless it is filled with and adverbial of place or time: …and
at that moment came the answer from the other side; Near the house stood an huge pine tree.
3 We are referring here to, and our examples mainly deal with, what =
some
authors consider to have clausal or sentential f=
ocus,
where one can postulate a “stage topic”, that is, an implicit t=
opic
which signals the spatio-temporal parameters of=
the
predication, the here and now of it (Erteschik<=
/span>‐Shir 1997).
4 These are the other type of discourse conditions dealt with in our
examples, when a clause may be pragmatically predicated of a topical refere=
nt
not having at the same time a surface syntactic topic, as illustrated in the
comparison between the English dialogue and the corresponding Spanish versi=
on:
P. What’s the problem with Michael?=
‘¿=
Qué
le pasa a Michael?
R. He’s just had an accident. &=
nbsp; ‘(*&Eacut=
e;l)
acaba de tener un accidente
Here, in R. the syntactic subject (Michael), referred to by the pron=
oun
he is the topic, in pragmatic terms. In null-subject Romance languages, like
Spanish, the syntactico-pragmatic conditions of=
the
language require for the third person pronoun él to be omitted see=
ming
on the surface (as if there is no apparent syntactic constituent as topic) =
even
though there is clearly a topical referent signaled by the verbal inflectio=
nal
morphology.
5 At the C1 CEFR level, a language learner can: understand a wide ra=
nge
of long and demanding texts or conversations; express ideas without too much
searching; effectively use the language for social, aca=
demic
or professional situations; create well-structured and detailed texts on
complex topics.
6 In both groups, the corresponding tokens from this category corres=
pond
to a real pronominal anticipation of a NP not mentioned before and not to an
anaphoric element referring back to some precedi=
ng
referent which is repeated again for clarification (after a comma in writing
and a small pause in speech. (2
7 It is for this reason that no French L1 speaker has been chosen ev=
en
though it is also a Romance language and there are plenty of speakers of th=
is
kind that might have been picked. French is a non-null subject language.
8 The same thing applies to the source and URL of the original
interviews or lectures the data have been drawn from. If a specialized
researcher -one who is supposed to be discreet about it because of their
exclusive professional interest- is interested in the exact place and time
where they can be found, they can email the author of the article.
9 Tarone (1983) distinguishes different
varieties within a speaker’s performance ranging from the one produced
for unattended speech data, which she calls the vernacular style, to a more
careful style when the speakers can monitor most their speech, with differe=
nt
varieties in between).
10 In the case of null subjects in general, we have tried not to use
those with third person referential or expletive it preceding the form is because in speech both might be
conflated and difficult to distinguish. Still, in a couple of cases that we
have allowed them, the automatic subtitles of the yout=
ube
screen have been activated to check for it trying to avoid that problem.
11 Although it only constitutes anecdotal evidence, I can witness to finding both myself, other English teachers and advanced learners using at times such idiosyncratic construction in speech on the spur of the moment.<= o:p>
12 It might be interesting to see if advanced L1 speakers of French =
and
German do produce the it-V-NP construction as well, which =
might
reflect L1 transfer. If it is a question of transfer in this case, our gues=
s is
that advanced speakers will be more conscious of it and will not do it.
REFERENC=
ES
Al-Kasey, T. and Pérez-Leroux, A.-T., 1998.=
Second
language acquisition of Spanish null subjects. In Flynn, S., =
Matohardjono, G., O'Neil, W. (eds.), The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 161-185.
Alexiadou<= /span>, A., E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert., 2003. The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford University Press. <= o:p>
Balcom, P., 1997. Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity.
Second Language Research=
13, 1,
pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897670080531
Barbosa, P., 1995. Null
Subjects. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Cambridge, Mass.
Barbosa, P., 2000. Clitics: A Window into the Null
Subject Property. In Costa, J=
., eds.),
Portuguese Syntax: Comparative Stud=
ies.
New York: Oxford Press, pp. 31-93.
Belletti, A., Bennati, E. & Sorace, A., 2007. Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evid=
ence
from near-native Italian. Natural Language Linguist Theory 2=
5: 657–689.
Burman, D., Bitan, T.,
Booth, J.R., 2008. Sex Differences in Neural Processing of Language Among
Children. Neuropsychologia: 46, 5, pp. 1349-13=
62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.12.02=
1
Domínguez, L. & Arche, M. J., 2014. Subject inversion in non-native Spanish. Lingua 145, pp. 243-265.
Erteschik<=
/span>‐Shir, N., 1997. The Dynamics=
of
Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., 2003. Task-based language learning a=
nd
teaching. Oxford University Press.
Escutia, M., 1998. V=
ariability
and non-variability in the English L2 acquisition of an adult Spanish speak=
er. Perspectives
on Spanish Linguistics, 2. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, pp. 25&=
#8211;
43.
Escutia, M. 1999. Age and
that-trace effects. Estudios ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 7, pp. 109-118=
.
Escutia, M., 2002. Universal Grammar, transfer a=
nd
variability: a case study.
Escutia, M., 2002. First language effect on Spanish learners’ product=
ion
of indirect interrogative clauses. <=
/span>Círculo
10. 1-5. Available at http://ww.ucm.es/info/circulo/no10/index.htm
Escutia, M., 2008. Transfer and Universal Grammar in U=
naccusative
Constructions Errors. =
Miscelánea, 37, pp. 23-38.
Escutia,
M., 2010. El uso de "se" con verbos inacusativos por estudiantes
avanzados de español como lengua extranjera: transferencia y
restructuración. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 23, pp. 129=
-152
Escutia,
M., 2013. Expletives and u=
naccusative
predicates in L2A. Higher Education of Social science 2, pp. 1-14.
Escutia, M., 2016. L2 Spanish preverbal ‘se’ in analysis and
production data. Revista Española de Lingüística
Aplicada, pp. 30-63
Fernández Soriano, O., 1989. Strong pronoun=
s in
null-subject languages and the avoid pronoun principle. MIT
working papers in linguistics 11, pp. 228–239.
Filiaci, F., Sorace A. & Carreiras,
M., 2014. Anaphoric biases of null and overt subjects in Italian and Spanis=
h: A
cross-linguistic comparison. =
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(7), pp. 825–843.
Gass, S., 1979. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. <=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Language
Learning 29, pp. 327–344.=
Gass, S., 1982. From theory to practice. In Hines, M. & Rutherford, W., =
eds.) On TESOL '81: 129–139. Washi=
ngton
DC: TESOL.
Gass, S., 1997. Input, Interacti=
on,
and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate=
s,
Publishers
Gass S. and Lee, J., 2007. Second Language Acquisition of Relative Claus=
es. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition. Volume 29, 2, pp. 329-335
Han, Z. -H., 2004. Fossilization in Adult Second
Language Acquisition. Clevedon, England: Mu=
ltilingual
Matters.
Han, Z.-H., 2006. Fossilization: Can grammaticality
judgment be a reliable source of evidence?. In H=
an
Z.-H. & Odlin, T., eds.) Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition, pp. 56– 82. Cle=
vedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Han, Z.-H., 2009. Interlanguage and fossilization:
Towards an analytic model. In=
Cook,
V. & Wei, L., eds.) Contemporary
applied linguistics I: Language teaching
and learning. London: Continuum, pp. 137-162.
Han, Z.-H., 2013. Forty years later: Updating the
Fossilization Hypothesis. Language Teaching 2, pp. 133 =
-171. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000511.
Han, Z.-H. & Lew, W.M., 2012. Acquisitional
complexity: What defies complete acquisition in SLA. In Szmrecsanyi=
,
B., & Kortmann, B., eds.), Linguistic Complexity in
Interlanguage Varieties, L2 Varieties, and Contact Languages.
Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S.=
, 2018.
A critical period for second language acquisition:
Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition,
177, pp. 263– 277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007
Hertel, T.J., 2003. “Lexical and discourse facto=
rs in
the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second
Language Research 19, pp. 273- 304.
Hilles, S., 1986. Interlanguage and the pro-drop parameter. Second
Language Research 2, pp. 33-52.=
Johnson J.S. and Newport E.L., 1989. Critical peri=
od
effects in second language learning: the influence of maturational state on=
the
acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive
Psychology 21 (1), pp. 60-99.
Kato, Mary A., 1999. Strong and weak pronominals a=
nd
the null subject parameter. Probus 11(1. pp. 1–38.
Labov, W., 1969. The Logic of Non=
-Standard
English. Georgetown Monographs on Language and Linguistics, 22, pp. 1-3=
1.
Lardiere, D., 1998. Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 en=
d state
grammar. Second Language Research, 14 (4), pp. 359–375.
Lardiere, D., 2007. Ultimate Attainm=
ent in
Second Language Acquisition: A Case Study. New York: Routledge
Liceras, J. M., 1988. Syntax and stylistics: more on the pro-drop parameter=
. In Pankhurst, J. Studies on Language Acquisition, 7. De Gruyter Mouton
Liceras, J. M., 1989. On some properties of the pro-drop parameter: Looking=
for
missing subjects in non-native Spanish. In Gass=
, S.
& Schachter, J., eds.), Languag=
e accquisition: A linguistic approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–133.
Liceras, J. M., &
Díaz, L., 1999. Topic-drop versus
pro-drop: null subjects and pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of
Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese sp=
eakers.
Second
Language Research, 15(1), pp. 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1191/02676=
5899678128123
Lightbown<=
/span>, P. M., 1985. Great Expectations: Second-Language Acquisition Resea=
rch
and Classroom Teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 2, pp.
173–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.2.173
Lightbown<=
/span>, P. M., 2000. Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and secon=
d language
teaching. Applied Linguistics 21, pp. 431-462.
Lightbown<=
/span>, P. M., 2003. SLA research in the classroom/SLA research for the cl=
assroom.
Language
Learning Journal 27, pp. 4-14.
Long, M. 1990. Maturational constraints on language
development. Studies in second language acquisition 12, pp. 251–85.
Long, M. H., 2003. Stabilization and fossilization=
in
interlanguage development. In=
Doughty,
C. J. & Long, M. H., eds.), Han=
dbook
of Second Language Acquisition Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 487–535=
.
Lozano, C., 2003.=
Universal Grammar and focus
constraints: The acquisition =
of
pronouns and word order in non-native Spanish. University of Essex: Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Lozano, C., 2006a. “Focus and split
intransitivity: The acquisiti=
on of
word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second
Language Research 22(2): 145–187.
https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr264oa.
Lozano, C., 2006b. The development of the
syntax-discourse interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In: Torrens, V. & Escobar, L., =
eds.),
The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages. Amste=
rdam:
John Benjamins, pp. 371-399.
Lozano, C., 2009. Selective deficits at the
syntax-discourse interface: Evidence from the CEDEL2 corpus. In Leung, Y., Snape, N. & Sharwood-Smith, M., eds) Representational Deficits in Second Language Acquisition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 127–166.
Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea=
,
A., 2013. Corpus and experimental data: Subjects in second language researc=
h. In Granger, S., Gilquin
G. & Meunier, F., eds), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Loo=
king
back, Moving ahead. Corpora and Langua=
ge
in Use. Proceedings 1, Louvain-la-Neuve:
Presses universitaires de Louvain, pp. 313-323.
Mendikoetxea, A. & Lozano, C., 2018. F=
rom
Corpora to Experiments: Methodological Triangulation in the Study of Word O=
rder
at the Interfaces in Adult Late Bilinguals (L2 learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 4=
7(02),
pp. 411-430.
Montrul, S. and Bowles, M., 2009. Back to basics: Differential Object Marki=
ng
under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 12,=
3,
pp. 363–383.
Montrul, S. & Rodríguez-Louro, C., 2=
006. Beyond
the syntax of the null subject parameter: A look at the discourse-pragmatics
distribution of null and overt subjects by L2 learners of Spanish. In Torrens, V. & Escobar, L., e=
ds.), The acquisition
of syntax in Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 401̵=
1;418.
Moskovsky<=
/span> C. and Ratcheva, S., 2014. L2 Fossiliza=
tion:
A Competence or a Performance Phenomenon. The
Open Communication Journal 8, 9-17.
Newport, E., 1990. Maturational constraints on
language learning. Cognitive Science 14, pp. 11–=
;28.
Oshita, H., 2001. The unaccusative trap in sec=
ond
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition=
23(02), pp. 279 – 304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101002078.
Pérez-Leroux, A., Glass, W. L., 1999. Null
anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: probabilistic versus
generative approaches. Second Language Research, 15(2), pp. 22=
0–249.
https://doi.org/10.1191/026765899676722648
Phinney, M., 1987. The pro-drop parameter in second
language acquisition. In Roep=
er, T.
and Williams, E., eds), Parameter s=
etting.
Dordrecht: Reidel: pp. 221-38.
Pladevall<=
/span>, E., 2013. Adult L2 Spanish development of syntactic and discourse =
subject
properties in an instructional setting. RAEL (Revista
Electrónica de Lingü=
;ística
Aplicada) 12, pp. 111-129.
Saville-Troike M., 2006. Introducing Secon=
d Language
Acquisition. Cambridge Introductions to
Language and Linguistics.
Selinker, L., 1972. Interlanguage.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, pp. 209–231.
Singleton, D., 1989. Language acquisition: the age factor. Clev=
edon:
Multilingual Matters.
Singleton, D., 1995. Introduction: a critical look=
at
the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition research. In
Singleton, D. and Lengyel, Z., eds), The
age factor in second language
acquisition, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters=
: pp. 1–29.
Sorace, A., 2000. Syntactic optionality in non-native grammars. Second
Language Research, 16 (2), pp. 93–102.
Sorace, A., 2003. Near-nativeness. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (=
eds.),
Handbook of Second Language Acquisi=
tion
(pp. 130–151. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sorace, A., 2004. Native Language Attrition and Developmental Instability =
at
the Syntax-Discourse Interface: Data, Interpretations and Methods. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 7(02), pp. 143 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1=
017/S1366728904001543
Sorace, A., 2005. Selective optionality in language development in Syntax =
and Variation:
Reconciling the Biological and the Social. In Leonie Cornips
and Karen P. Corrigan (eds.) Current
Issues in Linguistic Theory 265, pp. 55–80.
Sorace, A. & Serratrice, L., 2009. Interna=
l and
external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural
overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism
13(2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339810
Tarone, E., 1983. On the Variability of Interlanguage Systems. Applied
Linguistics, 4, 2, pp. 142–164.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.142
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., H=
eycock,
C. & Filiaci, F., 2004. First language attr=
ition
and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers o=
f English.
International
Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 3, pp. 257-277.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069040080030601
Trahey, M. and L. White., 1993. Positive evidence and preemption in the se=
cond
language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition=
15, 181–204.
Trenkic, D., 2009. Accounting for patterns of article omissions and
substitutions in second language production. In M. P. García Mayo & R.
Hawkins (eds.), Second language
acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical Implications. Amsterdam: John Benj=
amins,
pp. 115–143.
White, L., 1985. The pro-drop parameter in adult
second language acquisition. Langua=
ge
Learning 35, pp. 47-62.
White, L., 1990. The verb-movement parameter in se=
cond
language acquisition. Language Acquisition 1, pp.
337–60. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0104_2
White, L., 2003. Second
Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer=
sity
Press.
Zobl, H., 1980. The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence=
on
L2 acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 43-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.
1980.tb00150.x
APPENDIX I: STUDENTS’ WRITTEN DATA
|
LEARNER |
INVERSION no expletive |
INVERSION it-insertion |
NULL SUBJECT Main clause |
NULL S Subordinate |
|
Student I |
First there=
is
cooing, then starts babbling After this
stage appears the one-word stage In this sta=
ge
come into play mistakes <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Verdana;mso-ansi-lan=
guage:
EN-US'>This shows the capacity that has the brain to process <=
span
class=3DGramE>information=
Then arises=
the
question of how much can language dictate what=
we
think |
Later it ar=
ose
the idea that Eskimos have certain prefixes In English =
and
Indonesian it is used the expression a long time Then it is
found a summary of the arguments It must be
borne in mind the following details: … It is
noticeable the wrong use of the particle |
The more
transformations the more difficult () is for us to process the sentence In English =
(∅) seems to be natural to have the pronou=
ns
he, she, it |
it is dange=
rous
in the sense that () might provoke undesirable responses |
|
Student II |
They have
exposed the idea that exist certain central metaphors |
In the Work=
of
Tannen it has been done a differentiation between the two types of
conversational styles It has also
been researched the tendency that subordinates have to use indirect speech Then it ari=
ses
the question of whether or not our mind is sha=
ped by
language |
… just
because you speak differently () doesn't mean you think different |
|
|
Student III |
Thought is
possible without language, being babies an example of this Thought and
language are different, being language the means by w=
hich
we communicate thoughts |
It will be
explained the possible connection between language and thought It will als=
o be
mentioned the different ways in which languages express different concept=
s ….. There is a =
part
in which it is described the variety of terms used. |
In Lackoff and Johnson (∅) is argued that there are central metap=
hors |
Unlike Engl=
ish,
Spanish only speaks of intentional actions when (∅) is obvious that someone did it |
|
Student IV |
In Russian =
are
used different adjective endings |
It has been researched the subtle shades=
of
meaning that different word orders convey It's interesting the thing that speakers
living in Miami probably have a minimal vocabulary for snow Thus, it is interesting the way in which
indirect speech can be used It was made an experiment which consiste=
d in
teaching speakers a new way to talk about time |
In that sim=
ple
sentence () is needed to mark the masculinity of the chair many times after readi= ng this info () is clear that speakers of different languages think differently<= o:p> For instanc=
e,
in English () is needed to change the verb to know if the action happened in t=
he past … and=
one
has to mark if (∅) is something that the person has heard=
|
To discuss =
the
belief that () is not language what shapes our thoughts You need to=
be
more specific and mention what kind of tree (∅) is They showed
images in which (=
∅) was clear who made the action |
|
Student V |
Not only was
described the theoretical background there There was a
difference between oral language and reading comprehension, being this
identified as the problem |
It is avoided possible confusions in the=
terminology It has been opted for the one suggested =
by E
Anthony However, it will be tackled the methods
which had an impact It is given priority to the teaching of =
speaking It was created a language learning program It is only used the target language it is taken into account the unconscious
elements involved It is needed an atmosphere in which lear=
ners
feel comfortable It is preferred fluency to accuracy It is suggested the employment of songs It is recommended the utilization of body
answers |
To understa=
nd
emotional meaning () is necessary to comprehend the vocabulary |
The princip=
al
advantage of this approach is that () allows the possibility of including other me=
thods … sin=
ce
the learners decide the materials that () will use in the classroom |
|
Student VI |
… to
learn a foreign language, being English the language in this case |
It was begun to take into consideration =
the
cultural factors It is presented/ defended the idea that
language must be treated as a whole/ that each person has 8 different It has been taken into account any kind = of factor that could influence language learning<= o:p> There is no method that could be conside=
red
the best and probably it will never be It existed a need for new approaches |
|
in German the Sun is feminine and in Spanish (∅) is masculine |
|
Student VII |
For the
learning of a foreign language are necessary two processes This is the=
way
how appears the study of other methods A subject in
which is taught the different phenomena of the language |
It happened something similar It will be included information about the
Orton-Gillingham approach if it is simultaneously used the multiple
sensory methods It should be avoided long texts It exists the conception that dyslexia c=
an
be cured |
|
In sum,
children even though () repeat to some extent words and phrases create language ….=
Taking into
account |
|
Student VIII |
In the next
point are going to be developed some of the activities that use multisens=
ory
techniques With dyslex=
ic
children might be used activities that use some of their senses In this poi=
nt
are presented some general exercices You can cre= ate a box in which appear words with these sounds<= o:p> ...using fun worksheets in which appears=
a
legend with simple instructions |
It is also
found the previously mentioned taboo words It occurred
bigger changes in word formation It occurred
bigger changes in word formation It occurred=
the
process of specialization It is found
such words as hobnob It has been
explained the different types of semantic change |
|
There are
advanced students who really feel that (∅) are bad at breaking words |
|
Student IX |
In the year=
731
in which can be found historical events such as the historical work of Be=
da |
Sometimes it
may occur the opposite process There have =
been
chosen popular applications oriented to language lear=
ning There have =
been
selected repurposed apps There have =
been
created five groups |
To understa=
nd
the history () is crucial not only to know…. |
|
|
Student X |
Visually co=
uld
be observed rare ocular movements In a state =
of
emotional discomfort, insisted C=
onture On the one
hand, appears a gradual start of stuttering Tension while producing language, insist=
ed Yairi |
It can also
occur other types of interruptions In this pap=
er
it will be used the term person who stutters It has been
found an excessive tension while stuttering It was anal=
yzed
different strategies that patients used It could al=
so
be found more phonemes where the subject stutters In this tes=
t it
can be seen three different punctuations given |
Now that (<=
/span>∅) is clear what kind of symptoms can app=
ear,
let’s continue with … …but =
for
a person who stutters (∅) might be a real struggle to form the sound |
The techniq=
ue
is called semantic feature analysis for the reason th=
at
(W=
09;) is a vocabulary strategy to help stude=
nts |
|
Student XI |
...being th=
eir
goal to affect the way in which they think |
Now it will=
be
analyzed the conversation It can be
clearly seen the influence of their L1. …but =
it
could have been a slight decrease at the end of the unit |
|
When the air
controller listens to the communication, (∅) hesitates about the pilot’s inde=
cision |
|
Student XII |
…being
the best education in nursery school In the last=
last day will be the awards ceremony |
it can also=
be
found a chapel in that school It was also
really noticeable the separation in class among the different “tribes” it will be
stated a hypothesis on the possible final results |
First of all (∅) is important to choose a topic of their interest |
Tell the
students that ( |
APPENDIX II: PERSONALITIES’ DATA
|
LEARNER |
INVERSION no expletive |
INVERSION it-insertion |
NULL S MAIN CLAUSE |
SUBORDINATE NULL |
|
YOC (L1 Peninsular Spanish) |
B=
ut if once happened in your life something like this
(2009) <= o:p> H=
appened
many crazy things in my life (2010) <= o:p> |
It
(=3Dthere) will be some time in the future for us to be together (1999) <= o:p> S=
o,
when it came that situation and starting to have time to play (2012) <= o:p> I=
can
play for all kinds of ages: It’s incredi=
ble thát (2014) <= o:p> It
was great the opera of Dubai (2018) |
F=
or
me, (∅ <= o:p> S=
o, (=
∅) was something that I didn’t think (2012) <= o:p> I
think so, () was a v=
ery
different situation (2014) <= o:p> N=
o,
because () was my time, it was my life
(2014) |
T=
he
girls, () is something that (<=
/span>=
∅:
they, people) think is very interesting<=
/span>
(2014) <= o:p> I
adore him because () was an incredible singer (2=
015) |
|
RAÚL (L1
Peninsular Spanish) |
W=
hen
you put two Spaniards together usually are long nights (=
2010) <= o:p> A=
nd
then are those characters that I want to put more attention to (2012) |
I=
t has to happen something that is out of control (2007=
) <= o:p> It’s spectacular the rugby nowada=
ys
(2008) <= o:p> It’s like this the world (2008) <= o:p> A=
nd that’s why it’s important friends and fa=
mily
because they remind you who you are (2012) <= o:p> I
think it’s important the body language (=
2012) <= o:p> <= o:p> |
B=
ecause
somebody will see it and (∅) will be meaningful to that
person (2010) <= o:p> B=
ut
it doesn’t depend on me, (=
∅=
) depends on what they offer =
you
(2012) <= o:p> F=
or
me, (∅ <= o:p> T=
he
other day (∅: I) was talking to Asgar about it (2018) <= o:p> T=
hey
just are with all the consequences. And usually (∅=
: they<=
span
style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk46331576'>) are peo=
ple
who are very loving and caring for others (2018) <= o:p> F=
or
me (∅ |
W=
e’re working in this movie that I
think (∅) is gon=
na
be a good one (2012) I wanted to know where (: it, the character) was coming from (2015) I think that (∅: it, his attitude) has to do with my mom (2017) …in other words, that (∅: it) is based on the material. (2017) If you want to
see the world of narcotrafic as (: it<=
/span>) was invented (2017) I knew that Because, again, (∅=
) shows you that the stronges=
t,
the people with real talent are good people, usually (∅=
) are great people endowed wi=
th
empathy (2018) |
|
JESS (L1 Peninsular Spanish) |
O=
rganisms
which can live only by killing other organisms, which (=
∅=
: there) have been several of these c=
ases
(2012) <= o:p> I=
f I
run the program again (:
there)
come different outcomes (2013) <= o:p> In some respects more important are behavioural differences between us and the apes (<= o:p> In
the final decade (=
: it) had been discovered that wh=
ere
the land is exposed but if there has been this kind (2015) <= o:p> <= o:p> <= o:p> <= o:p> |
.=
..that
made it possible the human organization of humans (2014) <= o:p> <= o:p> |
In
the old times ( <= o:p> Sometimes in the case of reli=
gion
(∅ For all the examples he gave,=
(=
∅=
: it) has been shown how the
evolution occurred (2013) <= o:p> Moreover (=
∅:
it, molecular biology) allows us to reconstruct the history of living
organisms (2015) <= o:p> F=
or
much of time ( <= o:p> B=
ut I
think that by and large (:
there)
will be progress (2016) <= o:p> <= o:p> |
W=
ilmut pointed out that (=
∅=
: it) had taken him 270 efforts to
clone Dolly (2012) So the best they can do for t= he genes is to be eaten by the female so that (= ∅: she)= is very healthy, produces more healthier babies (2012)<= o:p> The theory of intelligent des=
ign
accomplishes exactly the opposite of what (=
∅=
: it) intends (2013) What bipedalism implies is th=
at (∅=
: it Those genes will be favored
because () are more likely to be
transmitted to more progeny (2014) The only animal that is aware
that (∅ Those things will be favored
because (:they)are more likely to be transmitted to
more progeny (2014) …so (=
∅: he, Hu=
me)
derives moral principles from facts (2014) Gorillas and chimpanzees cann=
ot
speak, not only because (:
they)=
don’t have the ability but also because they c=
annot
emit the sounds we can (2016) …if (=
∅: it, li=
fe) happened long ago then I me=
an a
few thousand years (2017) If (=
∅) had occ=
urred
we would know about it (2017) A person living in Scandinavi=
a can’t do very well because (=
∅:
she)
cannot synthesize vitamin D (2017) |
|
GABY (Brazilian) |
that’s when came in the bottle the
message that he needed to talk to me (2016) <= o:p> A=
nd
came with the congress the voting for impeachment (2016) <= o:p> A=
nd
then was one thing after another (2016) <=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> And then was =
the
same director who invited me to do acting (2016) And then beca=
me
part of my life being recognized in the street (2016) |
What’s wrong in Brasil
is that it should be a dialogue and not like a country divided (2016) <= o:p> It’s happening something right no=
w:
that Brazil is divided (2016) <= o:p> T=
he
present, which is now the past because it passed a year (2017) <= o:p> <= o:p> |
W=
hen you’re not representing a character as a star
that’s when (∅) should matter (2016) <= o:p> A=
nd
when (∅ (=
2016) <= o:p> &=
#8230;and
that’s why (∅=
: the film) becomes so strong (2017) <= o:p> |
W=
hy
did you impose that (∅: it) would be me to do that
character (2016) <= o:p> He
showed me where (=
∅: it <= o:p> I
think that (=
: it) came in the time when we ne=
eded
something and that film represents that
resistance… and as long as (:
there)=
is
democracy we have the right (2016) <= o:p> &=
#8230;
because (: it, the
film)
became in a way connected with that story (2016) <= o:p> &=
#8230;.
because (: it, th=
e film) touched them in that way (<=
/span>2016) <= o:p> I
think that (: it, the
film)
brought back columns of discussion (2016) <= o:p> W=
hy
Sao Paulo was so ugly because (∅) was so big and
everything… (2016) <= o:p> A=
nd
there is a long silence, so (∅) creates some feeling that y=
ou don’t know what’s g=
onna
happen (2016) <= o:p> He
told me (=
: it) was go=
nna
be relaxed and it really was (2016) <= o:p> T=
he
other day that was the occupy movement that they took over the city, so (=
=
∅=
: it) demonstrated that the city =
was
not the few makers in the art (2016) <= o:p> That’s when I think that (=
∅:
her call to be an actress) started (2017) <= o:p> I
think that (=
: it) is the audiences that decid=
es
(2016) <= o:p> I
think (∅: there=
) would be movies by then (20=
16) <= o:p> B=
ecause
I thought (=
: it) could be one of the friends
(2017) |
|
BEA (Mexican Spanish) |
|
&=
#8230;because
it’s being stolen all the money (2006) <= o:p> It’s really not investigated the
wonders of the other half (2015) <= o:p> It
must also be exciting for men what can be our contribution (2015) <= o:p> It
did not help that part (=3D that part didn’t
help) (2015) <= o:p> It
was divided the school between the good nuns and the bad ones (2017) <= o:p> It
was too clear your thought process (2017) <= o:p> It
makes no sense the character (2017) <= o:p> I=
t doesn’t work because it’s still very str=
ong
his accent (2017) It
just keeps feeling strange this movie (2017) |
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> …but for the youth (=
=
∅:
it, this fact) is very important (=
2015) |
Because my father was very
jealous, () didn=
217;t
allow me to go to college until I turned 16 (2015) I think that (<=
span
style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk46331576'>=
∅) is important to tell our
stories (2017) |
|
ROZ (L1 Peninsular Spanish) |
I
could see in him the effect that was producing my performance (2019) |
It
was too big the light that the character produced (=
2018) <= o:p> A=
nd
then it came to me what he was explaining before (2019) |
T=
he
happiest time for me in America was not in front of a camera, (∅=
) was in 49th street (2015) <= o:p> I=
n a
way (∅ <= o:p> F=
or
us (∅ At
the beginning ( <= o:p> F=
or
me has been very important all the work that I=
have
done with him (2019) <= o:p> F=
or
me was very important all the silences of the
character (2019 <= o:p> |
T=
he
meaning of the bull is that () is a bull (2018) <= o:p> &=
#8230;
and the other issue I thought that () was faith (2015) <= o:p> I=
am very grateful to my profession not for what (=
=
∅=
: it) gave me in terms of being
famous…but in terms of what it taught me as a human being (2015) <= o:p> It
represents the character in the way that (=
∅=
: it) should have been represented
(2018) <= o:p> I
like to be precise because (:
there)=
may
be movies that have not been very strong that year
but they have a fantastic soundtrack (2018) <= o:p> For me is almost impossible to verbalize =
how
emotional (=
∅=
: it) is to have reached this point with this
movie (2019) <= o:p> It was one of the best
experiences in my life because (∅) actually
established a new order (2019)&nb=
sp;
|
|
BELLE (L1 Peninsular Spanish) |
|
It’s really inspiring everything =
that
he gives you (2012) <= o:p> It’s very intriguing this picture
(2018) <= o:p> |
(=
this
time) (∅: it <= o:p> &=
#8230;but
(∅ <= o:p> Y=
es,
in a way (∅: it |
… I like that (<=
/span>∅=
: it <= o:p> Which is really very good because (∅) keeps you really humble (20=
18) <= o:p> Because that day I think (∅=
: he A=
nd I
think that (∅) is as important for him as =
the
first day (2019) |
|
ALDA (Italian) |
<= o:p> |
It has spread so much the
Mediterranean diet that it is wonderful (2012) It (: there)’s somethin=
g incredible
that it’s happening to me (2016) I=
t’s not important the appearance;
the way you are with your friends that’s life, the good life (2020)=
|
M=
aybe
(∅ <= o:p> Sometimes was difficult to wo=
rk
with him (2014) <= o:p> <= o:p> |
You cannot imitate Chaplin
because (∅) is uni=
mitable
(1977) …and it’s
now that I feel that (∅) is gone forever (2009) I
think (∅=
) is very nice once i=
n a
while to talk to people who’s followed =
you
all your life (2016) I=
t’s so moving sometimes that (∅=
) really brings up tears (201=
6) |
|
M=
ADDY (=
Italian) |
<= o:p> |
…and so it was really a
beautiful experience this movie (2013) <= o:p> I=
don’t know what it means really to have a base=
and I
don’t know how it’s gonna be my l=
ife
next year (2013) <= o:p> |
… a=
nd
also Keanu Reeves, so (∅) was a very big cast (2013) If itR=
17;s
a big budget or not (∅) doesn’t really matter
(2013) I love animals but, because o=
f that,
(∅ Actually (∅=
) was funny at the beginning
(2016) For me, (∅=
) was like the possibility to
back in film (2018) |
I started out as a model beca=
use
(∅ <= o:p> …because Italian movies=
are
not anymore like (∅) used to be (2012) <= o:p> W=
hen
I work with him I don’t think that (∅=
) is my husband (2012) <= o:p> I
think more of the process of creation because was really, it was really t=
he
process of creation (2013) <= o:p> W=
hen
we did the rape scene was actually easier that=
way
(2010) <= o:p> &=
#8230;
and was really interesting to work with Sophie=
and
really there was a beautiful chemistry between us and was beautiful to go=
to
Cannes together (2016) <= o:p> |
<= o:p>