Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish

Abstract

Much recent research in SLA is guided by the hypothesis of L2 interface vulnerability (see Sorace 2005). This study contributes to this general project by examining the acquisition of two classes of subjunctive complement clauses in L2 Spanish: subjunctive complements of volitional predicates (purely syntactic) and subjunctive vs. indicative complements with negated epistemic matrix predicates, where the mood distinction is discourse dependent (thus involving the syntax-discourse interface). We provide an analysis of the volitional subjunctive in English and Spanish, suggesting that English learners of L2 Spanish need to access the functional projection Mood P and an uninterpretable modal feature on the Force head available to them from their formal English register grammar, and simultaneously must unacquire the structure of English for-to clauses. For negated epistemic predicates, our analysis maintains that they need to revalue the modal feature on the Force head from uninterpretable to interpretable, within the L2 grammar. With others (e.g. Borgonovo & Prévost 2003;Borgonovo, Bruhn de Garavito & Prévost 2005) and in line with Sorace's (2000Sorace's ( , 2003Sorace's ( , 2005 notion of interface vulnerability, we maintain that the latter case is more difficult for L2 learners, which is borne out in the data we present. However, the data also show that the indicative/subjunctive distinction with negated epistemics can be acquired by advanced stages of acquisition, questioning the notion of obligatory residual optionality for all properties which require the integration of syntactic and discourse information.

Ultimate attainment of anaphora resolution in L2 Chinese

“…The acquisition of Ø topic provides further evidence to the claim that some aspects at the syntax-discourse external interface are acquirable (Ivanov 2012;Iverson et al 2008;Kraš 2008;Rothman 2007Rothman , 2009Slabakova et al 2012;Slabakova and Ivanov 2011;Zhao 2008Zhao , 2012a. The current study supports the proposals of White (2011) andYuan (2010) that interface vulnerability may not be domain-wide in that Ø topic at the syntax-discourse interface is acquired in comparison with some syntax-discourse properties that have proved to be vulnerable to ultimate fossilisation as discussed in Sorace and Filiaci (2006), among others.…”

“…These findings are not fully consistent with the predictions of the IH, but this study is not the only one that has produced findings inconsistent with the IH. The non-acquisition of narrow syntactic properties is also found in Coppieter (1987), Sorace (1993) and Kraš (2011), while the acquirability of the syntax-discourse interface categories are consistent with Ivanov (2012), Iverson et al (2008), Kraš (2008), Rothman (2007), Slabakova et al (2012, Slabakova and Ivanov (2011) and Zhao (2008Zhao ( , 2012a. This study provides supporting evidence to the claim that the (non-)acquirability of a particular interface cannot be generalised (White 2011;Yuan 2010).…”

“…Ivanov (2012) shows that advanced English-speaking learners have acquired the pragmatic meaning of clitic doubling in Bulgarian. Iverson et al (2008) report that advanced L2 learners of Spanish have acquired the discourse-dependent distinction between the indicative and subjunctive complements with epistemic predicates. Kraš (2008) finds that near-native Croatian-speaking learners have acquired the discourse-pragmatic constraints on the interpretation of overt and covert pronouns in sentences with temporal clauses.…”

Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition

“…Furthermore, Sorace proposed the Interfaces Hypothesis to account for optionality-the alternation of targetlike and non-target-like forms and interpretations in production and comprehension-in both near-native L2 grammars and adult L1 attrition. Other researchers believe that the Interfaces Hypothesis should also be extended beyond optionality to include other non-native patterns (Iverson et al, 2008;Slabakova and Ivanov, this issue).…”

Between syntax and discourse

“…Subsequent research has documented similar asymmetries with respect to other linguistic phenomena (Belletti & Leonini, 2004;Lozano, 2006;Valenzuela, 2006). However, other empirical studies have either failed to detect any apparent signs of instability in domains predicted by the Interface Hypothesis to be vulnerable or suggested that such interface-related difficulties are not pervasive (Donaldson, 2011(Donaldson, , 2012Ivanov, 2012;Iverson, Kempchinsky, & Rothman, 2008;Leal Méndez, Rothman, & Slabakova, in press;Slabakova & Ivanov, 2011;Slabakova, Kempchinsky, & Rothman, 2012). Researchers have also challenged some aspects of the hypothesis on theoretical grounds, including the imprecise formulation of the proposal, difficulty of distinguishing interface-related phenomena from noninterface-related phenomena (and, by the same token, external interfaces from internal interfaces), difficulty of positioning the hypothesis within specific theoretical models of language architecture, and potentially an overly "restrictive" focus of the proposal, originally formulated only for some bilingual populations and not others (Domínguez, 2013;Montrul, 2011;Rothman, 2009;Rothman & Slabakova, 2011;White, 2011).…”