German is not SVO The acquisition of verb placement and the (unused) chances of second language...

German is not SVOThe acquisition of verb placement and the (unused)

chances of second language tuition

Steffi WinklerVrije Universiteit Amsterdam

EuroSLA 19, September 4, 2009, Cork

Das Verb muss stehen am Ende

Main concern of my current work

How can we fruitfully use the multifarious findings

of language acquisition research

in the didactic praxis of classroom teaching?

Steffi Winkler, VU Amsterdam [email protected] 2

Outline of the talk

1 Background German clause structure and L1 transfer

2 Verb placement & finiteness in classroom curricula Textbook analysis and critical remarks

3 Verb placement & finiteness in naturalistic settings What unturored learners can teach us: Strategies and stepping

stones

4 The intervention study Concept, design, and expected outcome


Background – German clause structure

• German: V2 language with SOV basic word order

• Structural consequences for declaritive main clauses:

• Vlex = V-final in clauses with compound verb forms (see 1a)

• Vlex = V2 in clauses with simple verb forms (see 1b)

(1) a. Marco will eine Pizza essen Marco wants a pizza eat

b. Marco issti eine Pizza ti

Marco eats a pizza

from a learner‘s perspective, German input data are highly ambigious with respect to the underlying position for the verb

both evidence for SOV (1a) and SVO (1b) in surface structureSteffi Winkler, VU Amsterdam [email protected] 4

essen

tiissti

Background – L1 transfer

Mechanism of L1 transfer

• consequence of surface structure alternation: learners whose L1 is SVO overgeneralize the SVO pattern of their native language in their early German interlanguage grammar(compare Alternation Hypothesis by Jansen et al. 1981)

• N.B.: no „blind“ L1 transfer, but structural transfer due to positive evidence for the L1 SVO structure in the L2 input data (Müller 1998)



Corpus data evidence for L1 structural transfer in German L2

• ZISA corpus (Clahsen et al. 1983)• untutored adult learners• L1‘s: Italian, Spanish, Portuguese

• ESF corpus (Perdue 1993)• untutored adult learners• L1: Italian

• DiGS corpus (Diehl et al. 2000)• tutored child / adolescent learners• L1: French

• Pisa corpus (Ballestracci 2006)• tutored adult learners• L1: Italian



Structures affected by L1 transfer (wrt declarative main clauses only)

(I) Root sentences (SVO)

(2) a. ein mann kaufen brot (Manuel P., ZISA) a man buy bread

b. ich ankomme hier in W. (Pascua S., ZISA) I arrive (on-come) here in W.

(II) Periphrastic constructions (sentence bracket missing or incomplete)

(3) a. ich habe warten 3, 4 Stunden (Anton, ZISA) I have wait 3, 4 hours

b. ich habe schon gemachtdie Militär (Marcello, ESF) I have already made the army

c. ich kann spielen Federball (Catherine, DiGS) I can play badminton



Structures affected by L1 transfer

(III) Inversion ( no inversion / no inversion + no sentence bracket)

(4) a. ein klein buch ich habe gekauft a small book I have bought

(Anton S., ZISA)

b. nach 2 Uhr wir haben nach Hause zurückgekommen

after 2 o‘ clock we have to home returned

(anonymous, Pisa)

c. für die Urlaub ich habe gesachte mein schäfte for the leave I have said my boss

(Marcello, ESF)



Negative influence of L1 transfer on acquisition of Germanclause structure (Haberzettl 2005)

• child L2 acquisition: L1 Russian (SVO) vs. L1 Turkish (SOV)

• Turkish children: initial SOV hypothesis structure building strategy, establishment of German clause structure / sentence bracket from right to left; successful acquisition process

(3)


pre-field left SB middle field right SB

pizza essen

(ich) will pizza essen

(ich) esse pizza

I

II

III

N.B.: very similar patterns can be observed in child L1 acquisitionof German (Jordens 1990, Winkler in press)


Negative influence of L1 transfer on acquisition of Germanclause structure (Haberzettl 2005)

• Russian children: initial SVO hypothesis reorganization of the learner system in the acquisition process; acquisition problems can be observed

• didactic implications (Haberzettl 2006):

• early introduction of OV patterns as counterevidence to misleading SVO initial hypothesis

BUT

• children‘s textbook analysis: late introduction of OV structures


Research question I

How is the phenomenon of word order and

verb placement dealt with in

German as a foreign language textbooks

for adults?


Textbook analysis – Overview

Berliner Platz Schritte International Tangram aktuell studio d

• popular textbooks (based on a survey in adult education courses in Germany and Goethe Institutes worldwide)

• level A1 according to Common European Reference Frame (CERF), equals to 80 – 200 hours of instruction

• present analysis based on an (assumed) mean of 140 hours of instruction


Textbook analysis – Legend

SVO structures with lexical simple verbs

SVO structures with lexical particle verbs

SOV structures with modal verbs

SOV structures with auxiliary verbs

inverted structures


Textbook analysis – Results

SVO lex verbs SVO part verbs SOV modals SOV aux


Textbook

No. of lessons

Berliner Platz

SchritteInternational

Tangram aktuell

studio d

1-20SVO SVO SVO SVO

21-40

41-60

SVO Inve

rsio

n

SVO

Inve

rsio

n

Inve

rsio

n

Inve

rsio

n61-80

SOVSVO

SOV

SOV81-100 SOV

SOV SVO101-120SOV

121-140 SOV SOV

Textbook analysis – Summary

Introduction order in textbook curricula

• early dominance of SVO patterns

• relatively late evidence for underlying SOV structure

• introduction of inversion before modal and auxiliary verbs

• sentence bracket is established from left to right

(5) pre-field left SB middle field right SB

I Marco isst eine Pizza

II Marco isst die Pizza auf

III Morgen isst M. eine Pizza

IV Marco will eine Pizza essen

V Marco hat eine Pizza gegessen


Textbook analysis – Critical remarks

Two main points of criticism

1. Dominance of SVO patterns in early acquisition phases

• support for learners‘ misleading SVO hypothesis

2. Divergence of classroom acquisition orders and natural acquisition sequences

• establishment of sentence bracket from left to right

• introduction of V2 phenomena and inversion before modal and auxiliary verbs


Textbook analysis – Critical remarks

Why should second language tuition respect naturalacquisition sequences?

• acquisition orders have shown to be robust also in classroom settings

• reference study: ZISA project (Clahsen et al. 1983)

• Ellis (1989) for L1 English

• Pienemann (1989) for L1 English

• Tschirner (1999) for L1 English

• Diehl et al. (2000) for L1 French

• Ballestracci (2006) for L1 Italian

Classroom tuition “can not change any of the inherent processes in SLA“ (vanPatten 2003: 88)


What untutored learners can teach us

Finiteness and verb placement in untutored acquisition

• Basic Variety approach (Klein & Perdue 1992, 1997)

• Nominal Utterance Organization (NUO) Pre-Basic Variety

• Infinite Utterance Organization (IUO) Basic Variety

• Finite Utterance Organization (FUO) Post-Basic Variety I & II

Step 1: The copula (Becker 2005)

• copula form is: first verbal element for the expression of finiteness

(7) mein mann is in arbeite (Angelina, ESF corpus)

my husband is in work

copula is : assertion marker (AST), establishment of a relation of validation between topic and predicate, thus serves the expression of semantic properties of finiteness (Klein 2006)Steffi Winkler, VU Amsterdam [email protected] 18


• copula form is as a „dummy auxiliary“ (van de Craats 2009)

(8) frau is kauf brotwoman is buy bread

dann frau is geld an mann (Manuel P., ZISA corpus)

then woman is money to man

• reported by• Haberzettl (2003) for L2 German• van de Craats (2009) for L2 Dutch• Bernini (2003) for L2 Italian

• (slightly) different interpretations, but copula form is: expression of finiteness-related functions copula form is: structural precursor for V2 finiteness position



Finiteness and verb placement in untutored acquisition

Step 2: Auxiliaries and modal verbs (Becker 2005)

• finite forms of auxiliaries and modal verbs in utterance-second position

(9) a. er hat nicht die zug gesehen (Tino, ESF corpus)

he has not the train seen

b. du muss nich so mache (Tino, ESF corpus) you have-to not like-this make

Step 3: Lexical verbs and lexical particle verbs (Becker 2005)

• finite forms of lexical (particle) verbs in utterance-second position

(10) a. ich mache nicht auf (ESF corpus) I make not open

b. ich sage nicht deine name (ESF corpus) I say not your nameSteffi Winkler, VU Amsterdam [email protected] 20


Why are functional verbs (i.e. copula, modals, auxiliaries) andlexical verbs treated differently?

Functional approaches (e.g. Becker 2005)

• periphrastic construction allow the learner to separate out finiteness information (FIN) and lexical information (LEX) encoded in the verbal complex

• information structural status / scope relations within the utterance can be expressed by means of surface linearization

(11) a. Marco will eine Pizza essenFIN LEX

b. Marco issti eine Pizza ti

LEX+FIN tlex


[TOPIC] FIN < [PRED(Argument +LEX ]

[TOPIC] LEX+FIN < [PRED(Argument +tlex ]


Why are functional verbs (i.e. copula, modals, auxiliaries) andlexical verbs treated differently?

Formal approaches (e.g. Parodi 2000)

• athematic, i.e . functional verbs, are interpreted as carrier of agreement features by the learner

• due to value [+Agr], these verbs appear in a raised position, i.e. in a structural position above VP / IP



The crucial role of auxiliaries

Dimroth et al. (2003), Jordens & Dimroth (2006)

• auiliaries function as a bootstrap into the target functional category system

• only after the acquisition of auxiliaries, phenomena such as V2 movement and inversion occur

Schimke (2009), Verhagen (2009)

• empirical evidence from production and comprehension for the crucial role of auxiliaries in untutored L2 acquisition



Naturalistic vs. classroom acquisition –

Critical summary of Section 2 and 3

With respect to L1 structural transfer, the early dominance of

SVO patterns provides support for learners‘ misleading SVO

initial hypothesis.

From a developmental point of view, classroom progression

runs counter to acquisition sequences observed in naturalistic

settings.



Naturalistic acquisition Classroom progression

I [+finite] copula I [+finite] lexical verbs

[+finite] copula

II [+finite] auxiliary verbs II [+finite] particle verbs

[+finite] modal verbs Inversion

III [+finite] lexical verbs III [+finite] modal verbs

[+finite] particle verbs [+finite] auxiliary verbs

Inversion


Research question II

Following Dimroth (2009):

Against the background of these findings,

how should a didactic concept

for the classroom acquisition

of German verb placement look like?


Intervention study – Concept

Two main foci

1. Provision of counter-evidence to an underlying SVO

structure in German

2. Orientation on strategies and „stepping stones“ employed by

successful untutored learners


Intervention study – Concept

Guidelines for early input structuring

1. Dominance of (S)OV patterns

2. Minimization of lexical verbs in V2 position

3. Focus on the copula as early finiteness marker in V2

4. Early introduction of modals and auxiliary verbs


Intervention study – Input design

Step 1: OV patterns establishment of V-final slot Copula in V2 establishment of finiteness position


Copula constructions

Ich bin Steffi.I am Steffi

Mein Freund ist 41 J. alt.My boyfriend is 41 y. old

Das Sofa ist rot.The sofa is red

Die Stühle sind zu teuer.The chairs are too expensive

OV structures

Was kann man abends machen?What can one do in the evening?

Bier trinkenbeer drink

Freunde treffenfriends meet

ein Buch lesena book read

ins Kino gehento the cinema go


Step 2: Relation between V2 finiteness and V-final position Copula [-finite], modal verbs wollen (want), können

(can)


Copula constructions

Was ist wichtig in Deutschland?What is important in Germany?

fleißig seindiligent be

pünktlich seinpunctually be

Ich bin pünktlich

pünktlich sein

OV structures

Was willst du abends machen?What do you want to do in the evening?

Ich will ein Buch lesenI want a book read

Ich will ins Kino gehenI want to the cinema go

sentence bracket

sentence bracket


Step 3: Further consolidation of sentence bracket

• Perfect auxiliary haben (to have) + regular past participles

Ich habe Deutsch gelerntI have German studied

Ich habe Essen gekochtI have food prepared

• Modal verbs müssen (have to), sollen (shall), dürfen (to be allowed to)

Ich muss Obst einkaufenI have to fruits buy

Ich soll meine Freundin anrufenI am supposed to my friend call



Step 4: Sentence bracket with particle verbs

Ich muss Obst einkaufen

Ich kaufe Obst ein

Step 5: Present Perfect with auxiliaries haben and sein Irregular past participles

Ich kaufe Obst ein

Ich habe Obst eingekauft

Ich stehe um 9 Uhr aufI get at 9 o‘clock up

Ich bin um 9 Uhr aufgestandenI am at 9 o‘clock up-got



Step 6: Lexical verbs as carrier of finiteness in V2

Ich mache jeden Tag 2 Stunden SportI do every day 2 hours of athletics

Step 7: Inversion with all verb / word order types

Nächsten Sommer will ich an die Ostsee fahren

next summer want I to the baltic see go

Am liebsten kaufe ich auf dem Markt einpreferably buy I at the market [particle]

Manchmal esse ich auch Fischsometimes eat I also fish



Other aspects to be considered in input design

• introduction of sentential negation• (information structural) interaction with finiteness

• introduction of possessive haben (to have)• possessive haben is a precursor to auxiliary haben, both in language

acquisition and in historical development (van de Craats 2009, Kotin 1999, respectively)

• (early) chunk-like introduction of inversion, SVO vs. OVS• (Ich habe ein Fahrrad, aber eine Auto habe ich nicht)

I have a bike but a car have I not

• variable constituents are allowed in the pre-field

• focus on semantic function of finiteness, i.e. the linking of the topic element in pre-field with the focus constituent of the utterance


Intervention study – Procedure

Participants

• university students with SVO native language

• novice learners of German, no SOV language as L2, L3 . . .

• test group and control group

Input / Instruction

• 80 hours of instruction (equals to level A1 in academic settings)

• test group: modified input sequence

• control group: traditional input sequence

Testing

• production and comprehension / processing of structures with sentence bracket and inverted structures

• immediately after the course, 2-4 weeks laterSteffi Winkler, VU Amsterdam [email protected] 35

Intervention study – Expected outcome

Expected outcome

Learners of the test group will do better wrt

• mastering of the sentence bracket

• acquisition of inversion

Thank you


References

References

Ballestracci, S. (2006): Zum DaF-Erwerb ausgewählter grammatischer Strukturen der deutschen Sprache bei italophonen Studierenden der Pisaner Fakultät der Lingue e Letterature Straniere. Doctoral Dissertation. Università di Pisa, Department for Linguistics.

(http://www.humnet.unipi.it/dott_linggensac/Tesi%20discusse.php)

Becker, A. (2005): The semantic knowledge base for the acquisition of negation and the acquisition of finiteness. In: H. Hendriks (ed.): The Structure

of Learner Varieties. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. 263–314.

Bernini, G. (2003): The copula in learner Italian: Finiteness and verbal inflection. In: C. Dimroth & M. Starren (eds.): Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 159-186.

Clahsen, H., J. Meisel & M. Pienemann (1983): Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.

Diehl, E., H. Christen, S. Leuenberger, I. Pelvat & T. Studer (2000): Grammatikunterricht: Alles für der Katz? Untersuchungen zum Zweitspracherwerb Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.


References

Dimroth, C. (2009): Lernervarietäten im Sprachunterricht. In: Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 39 (153). 60-80.

Dimroth, C., P. Gretsch, P. Jordens, C. Perdue, and M. Starren (2003): Finiteness in Germanic languages: A stage-model for first and second language development. In: C. Dimroth and M. Starren (eds.): Information

Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition. 65-93. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (1989): Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. In: Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11. 305-328.

Haberzettl, S. (2005): Der Erwerb der Verbstellungsregeln in der Zweitsprache Deutsch durch Kinder mit russischer und türkischer Muttersprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Haberzettl, S. (2006): Progression im ungesteuerten Erwerb und im gesteuerten Erwerb. In: B. Ahrenholz (ed.): Kinder mit Migrationshintergrund. Spracherwerb und Fördermöglichkeiten. Fillibach. 203-220.


References

Jansen, B., J. Lalleman & P. Muysken (1981): The alternation hypothesis: the acquisition of Dutch word order by Turkish and Moroccan foreign workers. In: Language Learning 31. 315-336.

Jordens, P. (1990): The Acquisition of Verb Placement in Dutch and German. In: Linguistics 28. 1407-1448.

Jordens, P. & C. Dimroth (2006): Finiteness in children and adults learning Dutch. In: N. Gagarina and I. Gülzow (eds.): The Acquisition of Verbs and

their Grammar: The Effect of particular languages. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 167-195.

Klein, W. (2006): On Finiteness. In: V. van Geenhoven (ed.): Semantics in Acquisition. Dordrecht: Springer. 245–272.

Klein, W. & C. Perdue (1992): Utterance Structure. Developing Grammars Again. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Klein, W. & C. Perdue (1997). The Basic Variety. Or: Couldn’t Natural Languages be much Simpler? In: Second Language Research 13. 301-347.


References

Kotin, M. (1999): Die Basisrelationen des Deutschen und die Auxiliarisierung von "haben", "sein" und "werden". In: Zeitschrift fuer deutsche Philologie

3. 391-419.

Müller, N. (1998): Die Abfolge OV/VO und Nebensätze im Zweit- und Erstspracherwerb. In: H. Wegener (ed.): Eine zweite Sprache lernen: empirische Untersuchungen zum Zweitspracherwerb. Tübingen: Narr. 89-116.

Parodi, T. (2000). Finiteness and verb placement in second language acquisition. In: Second Language Research 16. 355-381.

Pienemann, M. (1989): Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. In: Applied Linguistics 10. 52-79.

Perdue, Clive (1993). Adult language acquisition: cross-linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schimke, S. (2009): The acquisition of finiteness in Turkish learners of German and Turkish learners of French. Doctoral Dissertation. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.


References

Tschirner, E. (1999): Lernergrammatiken und Grammatikprogression. In: B. Skibitzki & B. Wotjak (eds.): Linguistik und Deutsch als

Fremdsprache. Festschrift für Gerhard Helbig. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 227-240.

van de Craats, I. (2009): The role of IS in the acquisition of finiteness by adult Turkish learners of Dutch. In: Studies in Second language a

Language Acquisition 31. 59-92.

vanPatten, B. (2003): From input to output. A teacher‘s guide to second language acquisition. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Verhagen, J. (2008): The acquisition of finiteness in Dutch as a second language. Doctoral Dissertation. VU Free University Amsterdam, Amsterdam

and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.

Winkler, S. (in press): The acquisition of syntactic finiteness in L1 German. A structure-building approach. In: C. Dimroth and P. Jordens (eds.): Functional elements learner language. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.


German is not SVO The acquisition of verb placement and the (unused) chances of second language...

Documents

Transcript of German is not SVO The acquisition of verb placement and the (unused) chances of second language...