Ejecución presupuestal de la vigencia 2002

Introduction

Few people start learning a second language because it has exotic sounds, or elegant sentence structure. Meaning is what we are after. We would like to understand and to be able to convey thoughts and feelings and observations in another language the way we do in our native language. Ever since Aristotle, linguists have considered language to be the pairing of form (sounds or signs or written strings) and meaning. In this chapter, I examine the road to meaning, that is, how we come to understand and convey meaning in a second language, and where the pitfalls to that goal may lie. I will begin by distinguishing between several types of meanings: lexical, grammatical, and semantic. Next, I will situate them in the language architecture.

When language learners think of semantics, they think almost exclusively of the meaning of words. Semantics, however, involves much more than word meaning. Lexical meanings are stored in our mental lexicon while sentential semantics is compositional, based on combining the meanings of all the words in a sentence and taking their order into account. Take for example the English sentence Someone criticized everyone. Depending on the context, it may mean that there is a certain person who criticized every other person in a situation; in other words, everyone was criticized by one individual. The sentence may also mean that everyone was criticized by some person or other. In the first reading we have one critic, in the second we have possibly many critics. Of these two readings, only the first is available for the equivalent Japanese sentence Dareka-ga daremo-o semeta (Hoji, 1985, p. 336), while the second is not. Although the quantifiers dareka and daremo may be equivalent in meaning to someone and everyone, when used in speech, they give rise to two sentence meanings in English, only one sentence meaning in Japanese. This difference is captured and explained by the rules for calculating sentence meaning in the two languages, and is the research focus of (phrasal) semantics. The Principle of Compositionality (Frege, 1884) ensures that the meaning of the whole sentence (the proposition) is a function of the meanings of the parts and of the way they are syntactically combined.

Grammatical meaning also comes into consideration in calculating sentence interpretation. Consider the two sentences Jane eats meat and Jane ate meat. They contain two identical lexical items (Jane, meat) and the third, the verbal form, encodes a grammatical difference in tense and aspect. We understand that a present characteristic or habitual (but not an ongoing) event is meant by the first utterance (e.g., Jane is not a vegetarian) while a past habitual event or a past completed event is a possible reading of the second.1 Grammatical meanings are mostly encoded in inflectional morphology (-ed for past simple, -s for third-person singular present simple, etc.), for more on their acquisition see Lardiere (Chapter 7, this volume).

When learning a second language, speakers are faced with different acquisition tasks regarding meaning: they have to learn the lexical items of the target language, that is, map linguistic form and lexical meaning one by one. This is certainly a laborious task but learners are facilitated in it by detecting semantic components, or primitives, that can combine to make up lexical meaning. Learning the functional morphology is not qualitatively different: abstracting away from irregular morphology, once learners learn that -ed in English encodes a past habit or a past completed event, they can apply this knowledge to all English regular verbs. As in lexical learning, primitives of grammatical meanings reflected singly or combined in various morphemes help learners in grammar acquisition. The aspectual meanings of habitual, ongoing and completed event con- stitute examples of such primitive grammatical meanings. Sentential meanings are calculated using universal mechanisms of human language.2 Once the lexical and grammatical meanings are learned, sentential meanings are calculated using a universal procedure and do not constitute a barrier for acquisition. I will explain these claims based on current assumptions of the language architecture.

Historical discussion

Within lexical semantics, one fruitful approach has been to view lexical meanings as made up of primitives, or semantic components. This kind of analysis is called componential analysis (Katz, 1972; Katz and Fodor, 1963). For example, the meaning of wife is viewed as containing the components [human], [female], [adult], [married] while spinster contains the components [human], [female], [adult], [unmarried]. Semantic relations between words such as synonymy, hyponymy, etc., are easily explained by comparing sets of component meanings. Katz and colleagues aimed at establishing a semantic metalanguage through identifying recurring se- mantic components in words across languages. This type of analysis also highlights the selectional restrictions that we see in combining words into sentences. For example, why is the sentence in (1) perfectly grammatical, but doesn’t make any sense? Because the selectional restrictions of the verb and the object require what is spread on the bread to be spreadable, and socks are not.

(1) I spread my warm bread with socks.

Some linguists apply the component analysis of verb meanings to explain syntactic behavior, the intuition behind this approach being that employing semantic primitives in different combinations helps us describe grammatical processes correctly. The gist of this approach (Levin, 1993) is to set up verb classes with distinct syntactic behavior, for example, motion verbs, causative and inchoative verbs, etc. Furthermore, these linguists postulate different linking rules mapping grammatical functions (subject, object) with thematic roles (Agent, Theme, Goal, Location) (Levin and Rappaport Hovav, 1995, 2005). For example, in the locative alternation below, (2a) links the direct object to the Theme argument while (2b) links the object to the Goal argument, and these two linking rules apply to some verbs but not others (3a, b).

(2) a. She sprayed pesticide on the roses. AGENT—THEME—on GOAL b. She sprayed the roses with pesticide. AGENT—GOAL—with THEME (3) a. *She covered a blanket on the bed. AGENT—THEME—on GOAL

A related research program is that of Talmy (e.g., Talmy, 1985) who studies how semantic components associated with verbs of motion (Figure, Ground, Path, Manner) are combined not only in single words but in phrases, and highlighted their different conflation patterns in different languages.3Both of these theoretical approaches to lexical semantics have been utilized in L2 acquisition research, to be reviewed in the next section.

Let us consider briefly the essential philosophical divide between theories of semantics without being able to do it justice: the divide between representational and denotational approaches to meaning. Within representational approaches, semanticists like Jackendoff and Cognitive Grammar proponents view semantic analysis as discovering the conceptual structure that underlies language; the search for meaning is the search for mental representations in the human mind/ brain. Denotational, or formal semanticists, on the other hand, argue that understanding the meaning of an utterance is being able to match it with the situation it describes. In Portner’s (2005, p. 9) example, one could think of the meaning of dog in terms of the concept DOG in the human mind (the representational approach), or in terms of the real-world animals represented by that word: Spot, Shelby, Ziggy, etc. (the denotational approach).

Formal semantics borrows from logic the notion of truth and the formalisms of propositional logic in order to calculate the truth value of sentences and to characterize semantic relations such as entailment, conjunction and disjunction. The meaning of the sentence is equivalent to its truth conditions. Thus, knowing the meaning of an English sentence such as (4) involves understanding what situation in the world this sentence would correspond to, or in what situation it would be true:

(4) It is sunny and warm in Iowa City.

Topics frequently discussed in formal semantics research and textbooks include the relationship between syntax and semantics (compositionality), types of predicates and modifiers, referring expressions, quantifiers, tense and aspect, modality, discourse representation structures, etc. Unlike cognitive semantics, which is more often than not concerned with lexical semantics (see below), formal semantics is predominately focused on the rules of computing meaning when words combine in sentences and discourse.

Cognitive semantics comes on the representational side of the philosophical debate of what is meaning.4Thus, proponents of cognitive semantics reject the correspondence theory of truth of formal semanticists (the meaning of a sentence is equal to its truth conditions) and argue that linguistic truth or falsity must be relative to the way an observer construes a situation, based on her or his conceptual framework. In other words, meaning is the product of the human mind. Human beings have no access to a reality independent of human categorization, and the real focus of semantics should be the human conceptual frameworks and how language reflects them. Rooted in this fundamental understanding of meaning, cognitive linguists (Lakoff, Johnson, Fauconnier, Langacker, Talmy, among others) study the mental categories that people have formed in their experience of acting in the world. Important topics in this theoretical approach are metaphor and metonymy as essential elements in our categorization of the world (Lakoff, 1993), image schemas which provide a link between bodily experience and higher cognitive functions (Johnson, 1987), mental spaces that speakers set up to manipulate reference to entities (Fauconnier, 1994), conceptual processes such as viewpoint shifting, figure-ground shifting, scanning and profiling (Langacker, 1993, 1999, 2002). In sum, cognitive semanticists take mean- ing to be an experiential phenomenon and argue that the human experience of interacting in society motivates basic conceptual structures, which in turn make understanding language possible.

Next, we shall survey another view of semantics, that of Jackendoff’s (2002) Parallel Language Architecture. I have chosen to represent this theoretical model in more detail for several reasons. Firstly, Jackendoff’s views of semantics, although highly idiosyncratic, bridge formal and cognitive semantics and pay particular attention to where the language variation lies. Secondly, he articulates a coherent picture of the grammar that takes into account psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic views. Most importantly for our purposes in this chapter, his views of the language architecture are used by L2 researchers to inform their research questions.5

The answer to the question“What is the architecture of the language faculty?” is crucial for understanding the L2 acquisition process, because it bears directly on what has to be learned and what can come for free in acquiring a second language. While looking at Jackendoff’s theoretical assumptions, particular attention will be paid to how the different types of meaning (lexical, phrasal) are accessed and computed compositionally (Figure 8.1).

In his 2002 book Foundations of Language, Jackendoff argues that linguistic structure should be viewed as a collection of independently functioning layers, or levels, of structure: phonological structure (PS), syntactic structure (SS), and conceptual structure (CS), see Figure 8.1. In order to make linguistic theory more compatible with findings from neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics, Jackendoff proposes that all three modules (autonomous levels) of the grammar build structure by compositionally combining the units of the particular level. He calls his model the Parallel Architecture.

At each level of the language architecture, a number of rules and constraints operate, allowing the formation of fully-specified structure at that level. These are called integrative processes. SS, for example, works with objects like syntactic trees, their constituents and relations: noun phrases, verb phrases, grammatical features, etc. CS operates with events and states, agents and patients, individuals and propositions. It has three tiers, each of which conveys a different aspect of sentence meaning: predicate logic, reference, topic and focus. Although independent, the three linguistic levels are linked by interfaces. At the interfaces, we have another kind of process, a process that takes as input one type of linguistic structure and outputs another. These are called interface processes. Note that the interface processes are qualitatively different from the integrative ones.

In this chapter, we focus on the operations at the conceptual level and the syntax-semantics (SS-CS) interface.6Syntactic structure needs to be correlated with semantic structure and that correlation is not always trivial. The syntactic processor works with objects like syntactic trees and

Phonological formation rules Syntactic formation rules Conceptual formation rules Phonological structures Syntactic structures Conceptual structures Interfaces to hearing and vocalization PS-SS interface rules SS-CS interface rules Interfaces to perception and action PS-CS interface rules

Figure 8.1 Tri-partite parallel architecture

their constituents: noun phrase, verb phrase, etc. In contrast, a semantic processor operates with events and states, agents and patients, individuals and truth of propositions. For example, in the sentence in (5), the teacher is a noun phrase in subject position in the syntax, but an Agent in the semantics.

(5) The teacher ate the apple.

The operations at the interface are limited precisely to those structures that need to be correlated and they do not see other structures and operations (like case-marking) that would have no relevance to the other module.

Core issues

When more than one language come into play, these different computations (lexical, syntactic, conceptual and interface) get even more complicated. Rooted in the language architecture, the core issue of the second language acquisition of meaning is how we come to possess the target meanings and to use them in comprehension and production. That is why it is crucial to identify the locus of language variation. The crucial question for L2 researchers of meaning then is: How much of semantic/conceptual structure is part of Universal Grammar and how much of it may be parameterized? Jackendoff argues that while the content of meaning is the same (concepts and relations between them), different linguistic forms map different natural groupings of meanings. (Jackendoff, 2002, p. 417). Let me illustrate a mismatch at the syntax-semantics interface with marking of politeness in languages like German, French, Bulgarian, and Russian, as opposed to English. German reserves the second-person plural pronoun Sie for situations when there is only one addressee, but the speaker wants to be polite, while using the singular du in all other cases. French, Bulgarian and Russian, among other languages, work similarly to German. English, however, does not reflect this distinction in the morphology of personal pronouns. This does not mean that English speakers have no concept of politeness; they express it differently.

Another example would be the grammaticalization of semantic concepts in inflectional morphology. Compare the marking of tense in English and Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai. While English has a separate, productive piece of morphology (-ed) to indicate that an event or state obtained in the past, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Thai do not. This of course does not mean that these speakers have no concept of past; it is just expressed differently. The interpretation of a past event or state is based on the overt aspectual marking, time adverbials and monitoring of the discourse context.

Finally, let us take an example from lexical semantics. In English, verbs that express psycho- logical states can appear with a Theme subject and an Experiencer object, as in (6) while in Chinese this usage is not possible, as (7) illustrates.

(6) The book disappointed Mary. (7) *Nei ben shu shiwang le ZhangSan

that CL book disappoint PERF Zhang San “That book disappointed Zhang San.”

Of course, Chinese can express a similar meaning, but with another construction (Juffs, 1996). However, this gap in argument structures presents difficulties for L2 acquisition: in learning English, Chinese speakers have to learn the availability of constructions such as (6); in learning Chinese, English speakers have to de-learn, or acquire the fact that (7) is unavailable.

To recapitulate, most of the language variation in meaning, then, is found at the lexicon-syntax and at the syntax-semantics interfaces. Linguistic semantics is the study of the interface between conceptual structures and linguistic form. The operations at the interface are non-trivial computa- tions. When learning a second language, a speaker may be confronted with different mappings between units of meaning on the conceptual level and units of syntactic structure.

Data and common elicitation measures

Before we look at concrete linguistic properties and their acquisition, a few remarks on the type of elicitation procedures used in this area of L2 acquisition are in order. How do we gain access to the linguistic interpretations learners attribute to input strings? The tasks for studying interpretive properties have evolved from the staple grammaticality judgment tasks assumed to be the main tool of the generative linguist. Most of the studies looking at L2 semantics use the Truth Value Judgment Task (TVJT) (Crain and McKee, 1985), especially versions adapted to the needs of adult L2 acquisition. In a TVJT, a story is supplied, sometimes in the native language of the learners to establish clear and unambiguous context.7A test sentence in the target language appears below the story. Learners are asked to judge whether the test sentence is appropriate, or fits (describes) the story well. Participants answer with Yes or No, True or False. Some test sentences are ambiguous so a story supplies only one of their two available interpretations; in such a case, those sentences appear under another story as well, supporting their second interpretation. Typically, stories and test sentences are squared in a 2 × 2 design, giving a quadruple of story-test sentence combinations, as illustrated below (Figure 8.2):

Meaning 1 Meaning 2

Test sentence 1 √ √

Test sentence 2 √ *

Below is a quadruple of story-test sentence combinations from Slabakova (2003). The experiment investigates whether speakers of English know that a bare infinitive such as eat must refer to a complete event (I saw him eat a cake), while the gerund eating only refers to the process and need not refer to a complete event (I saw him eating a cake, see more on this study later on in this chapter). For lack of space, each story is followed by the two sentences here, but in the actual test each story- sentence pairing is judged on its own.

(9) Matt had an enormous appetite. He was one of those people who could eat a whole cake at one sitting. But these days he is much more careful what he eats. For example, yesterday he bought a chocolate and vanilla ice cream cake, but ate only half of it after dinner. I know, because I was there with him.

I observed Matt eat a cake. True False I observed Matt eating a cake. True False

Alicia is a thin person, but she has an astounding capacity for eating big quantities of food. Once when I was at her house, she took a whole ice cream cake out of the freezer and ate it all. I almost got sick, just watching her.

I watched Alicia eat a cake. True False I watched Alicia eating a cake. True False

The first story in the quadruple in (9) presents an unfinished event (the cake was half-eaten); consequently, only the sentence with the gerund describes it correctly; the sentence with the bare infinitive should be rejected by a speaker who knows the two meanings. The second story in (9) represents a complete event, so both the test sentence with a bare infinitive and the one with a gerund are true. Note that all the test sentences are grammatical under some interpretation in the target language, so learners are not invited to think about the form of the sentences but just to consider their meaning. Nevertheless, this task reveals much about the learners’ grammars, and more specifically, about the interpretations they map onto linguistic expressions. Its main advan- tage is that learners do not access metalinguistic knowledge that may be due to language instruction but rather engage their true linguistic competence.

Another advantage of the TVJT is that it does away with judgment preference, since the expected answer is categorically True or False, and never both. In this respect, it is interesting to note that White et al. (1997), investigating the interpretation of reflexives in French-English and