Extending Processability Theory: Exploring the Syntax Pragmatic Interface
2.1 The Topic Hypothesis in Processability Theory
Paper presented at the 5th PT International SLA and Processability Symposium, Deakin University, Melbourne, 26-28 September 2005.12
This paper, concerning the role of the Topic Hypothesis in PT, perhaps best exemplifies the specificity of my own contribution to the overall development of this theoretical extension, engendered, it should be said, from attempting to work out PT-based hypotheses for specific languages such as Italian and Japanese.
The hypotheses explained in this and the following paper, whose genesis I would place around the publication of Di Biase and Kawaguchi (2002), had a rather long incubation time. The article just mentioned (§1.3) forced me to work out an LFG grammatical formalism that could account for certain typological peculiarities of Italian, vis-à-vis the more PT-familiar German and English. Lexical Functional Grammar (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982, Bresnan, 1982), the chosen grammar for the original PT (Pienemann, 1998), was now even more appealing in the newer version (Bresnan, 2001, Dalrymple, 2001, Falk, 2001) because, in response to problems arising from LFGers‟ typological work on both configurational and non-configurational languages, it developed its formalism to account, coherently and cross-linguistically, for the mapping of grammatical relations inherent in the lexicon of each language (Lexical Mapping Theory), on the one hand, and the formal mapping of pragmatically motivated „grammaticised‟ discourse functions on the other hand (following Bresnan and Mchombo‟s seminal work (1987) on Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa). Without significantly changing the original 1982 formalism (cf. Falk, 2001, 194), these developments in LFG dealt plausibly with two crucial sources of language-specificity, which are central to SLA research: the lexicon, and surface organisation (c-structure).
While all three authors looked at and worked on the overall article, Kawaguchi‟s contribution focused on the development of the Lexical Mapping area (cf. Kawaguchi, 2005), but her overall contribution was particularly important as her work focused on Japanese, a language that is both Topic prominent and Subject prominent (Li and Thompson,
12
The theoretical framework proposed here is based on a joint chapter by Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B. and Kawaguchi, S. (in press). Extending Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1976). Needless to say, the overall fit and coherence for the extension could not have been achieved without the theoretical import of the architect himself of the original PT, Pienemann, who could see how each new component might fit within the architecture of PT and could test their plausibility from a broader psycholinguistic and SLA research perspective.
My contribution to § 2.3 is fairly substantial throughout, I believe. I helped with the formulation of the Unmarked Alignment Hypothesis as an initial ordering principle for learners to move on to various degrees of additions and disruptions of the canonical order, as they learn to attribute grammatical functions correctly and then master discourse-pragmatic choices. One form of this hypothesis was already part and parcel of the original PT (cf. Pienemann, 1998, 84-5), with concepts such as „serial order strategy‟ used to “map semantics onto linguistic form,” negotiate procedural gaps and organise canonical schema. The current formulation owes as much to Pinker (1984, 1989) as to recent Optimality Theory work done within LFG (e.g. the collection of articles in Sells, 2001).
The Unmarked Alignment Hypothesis, whose title Pienemann selected against contenders such as „initial state‟, or „initial hypothesis of syntax‟, for instance (cf. Platzack, 1994), signal that PT does not subscribe to a single and rigid universal canonical order, as Bohnacker (2006, 447) still appears to believe. In fact it accommodates Japanese (head-last for L2 as well as L1 acquisition) and in principle any other language. It is not unreasonable to believe, pace Bohnacker, that the canonical order (of a language) is easier to process than alternative orders in the same language, as has been found experimentally (e.g. Sasaki, 1998 for Japanese native and non- native speakers, or Weyerts, Penke, Münte, Heinze and Clahsen, 2002 for German natives).
In regard to the topic hypothesis, Italian is known as a pro-drop language while most of the other languages described in PT (German, Swedish, English) are non pro-drop. Italian word order is also particularly sensitive to discourse focus, and it prefers topicalisation to passivisation when giving thematic prominence to an argument of the verb. I looked at these phenomena from the point of view of having to learn them in the L2 and came to the conclusion that the learning of topic/focus discourse functions obey processing constraints and their development can be predicted much as in the original version of PT. Indeed this hypothesis, introducing Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG)‟s notion of functional uncertainty (Bresnan,
2001, 64-9) to developmental issues, helped better characterise how learners gradually proceed from a canonical order position.
Similarly, the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis, which utilises other LFG developments, refined in collaboration with Satomi Kawaguchi and Manfred Pienemann, utilises the same learning principle of developing from default mapping to more marked and special mappings. Again, Pinker‟s (1984) work on first language acquisition turned out to be seminal, where he introduced the notion of „exceptional verbs‟, i.e. verbs such as receive which map the Beneficiary (rather than the Agent/Giver) on the Subject. Similarly the L2 learner starts from canonically-mapping verbs (Agent/Experiencer on Subject, Patient/Theme on Object) and gradually learns that not all verbs behave that way. One more general issue which these new hypotheses help resolve, with the help of LFG‟s formalism incorporating discourse functions and Lexical Mapping Theory, is that PT is now able to shed the „saliency‟ explanation to which it made recourse for a series of „fronting‟ and other phenomena in German L2 13 and English L2 development. 14 Psycholinguistic research (as reviewed in Levelt, 1989) also indicates that languages tend to reserve for Topic the first (or in any case an early) position in the clause. In language processing, the topic is determined before lexical access and is often mapped on the subject, but, depending on the perspective adopted, it may be mapped on other grammatical functions, such as the object or an adjunct, and it may participate in different constructions (active, passive and so on). Learning to assign the topic function in the L2 will involve, then, lexical, syntactic and/or morphological operations (including „fronting‟, dislocation, morphological marking and others) which are likely to be language-specific in their distribution. That is what English may preferentially express with a passive construction (involving the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis), and Italian may preferentially express with word order choices (involving the Topic Hypothesis).
The language learner will then need to build those processing resources that allow for lexical mapping and discourse functions to be correctly marked in the target language and respond to language- specific discourse-pragmatic requirements. PT is now in a better
13
This was one remaining element of Clahsen‘s ‗strategies‘ approach, otherwise rejected in the original (1998) PT version.
14
Cf. Larsen-Freeman and Long‘s (1991) excellent explanation of what Long named the ‗predictive framework‘, on the basis of conference presentations and published work by Pienemann and Johnston in the mid 1980s.
position to look at integrating discourse pragmatic variables in its research.
2.1
The Topic Hypothesis in Processability Theory
Paper presented at the 5th PT International SLA and Processability Symposium, Deakin University, Melbourne, 26-28 September 2005.15
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to present an empirical study on the Topic Hypothesis, one of the current Processability extensions (Pienemann, Di Biase and Kawaguchi, forthcoming) and test out its applicability to Italian L2.
The Topic Hypothesis is based on non-canonical mapping of constituent structure onto grammatical functions (technically association between c- and f- structure). In second language acquisition learners will initially not differentiate between SUBJ and other discourse functions (e.g. TOP). The addition of non-arguments adjuncts (XP+Canonical order) instantiating contextual information (time, place of the event, etc.) will trigger a differentiation of TOP and SUBJ which extends successively to core arguments (e.g. Object). This will require learning of ‗new‘ functions, characterised in LFG as discourse functions (Bresnan, 2001), specifically Topic and Focus, as well as various types of information exchange (unification) required by the implementation of these functions. Levelt (1989, 138-ff.) demonstrates in a number of experiments that in discourse speakers use various linguistic devices to guide the listener‘s attention. One such device is topicalisation, which allows the speaker to mark as topic the referent that the message is about. Other devices may involve null realisation of subject, variation in word order or prosodic patterns for focusing, active/passive alternation and so on. These devices are to a large extent language-specific and generate syntactic complexity for the learner, (i.e. beyond canonical order). They need to be learned to ensure effective communication, however, because they aid the representation of meaning in the hearer. Their absence may result in failure, by the hearer, to represent the meaning intended by the speaker. Further, and importantly, these devices are syntacticised (i.e. grammatically encoded), therefore their development in the L2 is constrained by the processability of the structures involved.
15
The theoretical framework proposed here is based on a joint chapter by Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B. and Kawaguchi, S. (in press). Extending Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
The TOP hypothesis will be applied to two studies: one longitudinal and one cross- sectional involving English background formal (instructed) learners of Italian L2 in Australian universities. The longitudinal study looks at the way the discourse function (Topic) develops in a beginning learner in four interviews over one year, while the cross-sectional study involves six learners at different stages of development and one native speaker control.
Power point presentation slides 1.
Introduction
This presentation aims to discuss Processability Theory and its current extension (Pienemann, 1998; Pienemann, Di Biase and Kawaguchi, in press) in connection to the interface between syntax and discourse-pragmatics in second language development. In particular I will focus on motivating and explaining the Topic hypothesis, that is, the role of grammaticised discourse functions in Processability Theory.
Third, I will present some data from two Italian L2 studies which are compatible with the hypothesis.
2.
Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998)
outlines a universal hierarchy of processing procedures underlying stages of language development, focusing mainly on obligatory morphosyntactic structures which are acquired following an implicational pattern of feature unification:
(1) lemma access>lexical>phrasal>interphrasal 3.
Processability Theory extension (Pienemann, Di Biase and Kawaguchi, in press)
adds the developmental dimension of speaker-induced discourse-pragmatic choices (e.g. passive, topicalisation) and their marking in syntactic and morphological structure.
Two hypotheses propose to account for the development of this syntax-pragmatic interface in L2 learners:
- the Topic Hypothesis
- the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis 4.
What can these hypotheses contribute to PT?
Internally: they help clarify or account for a number of syntactic phenomena, particularly in languages that rely more on syntax than agreement morphology, as e.g. Chinese, Japanese;
but also issues such as e.g. the ‗intermediate‘ developmental stage in V2 languages such Swedish L2 or German L2, exemplified for GSL in (2) below where the ADV rule can now be characterised more generally in terms of the XP+Canonical Order stage.
5.
(2) GSL (First and Second years) – Implicational scaling: L1 = Swedish, L2= German (Håkansson, Pienemann and Sayheli, 2002)
Name SVO ADV INV
Gelika (Year 1) + - - Emily (Year 1) + - - Robin (Year 1) + - - Kennet (Year 1) + - - Mats (Year 2) + - - Camilla (Year 2) + - - Johann (Year 1) + + - Cecilia (Year 1) + + - Eduard (Year 1) + + - Anna (Year 1) + + - Sandra (Year 1) + + - Erika (Year 1) + + - Mateus (Year 2) + + - Karolin (Year 1) + + - Ceci (Year 2) + + - Peter (Year 2) + + - Johan (Year 2) + + + Zandra (Year 2) + + + Zofie (Year 2) + + + Caro (Year 2) + + + 6.
What can this hypothesis contribute to PT? (continued)
In pro-drop Languages such as Italian and Spanish L2 where the prevalence of pro- drop can now be accounted for in terms of canonical order where the TOP, undifferentiated from SUBJ, is currently in the discourse focus (PT has now few problems in deciding whether it is subject drop or topic drop, c.f. Liceras and Diaz, 1999). Notice that in learners this ‗drop‘ happens regardless of the (morphological) ‗subject marker‘ (Bresnan, 2001, 150-51) on the verb (cf. Di Biase and Kawaguchi, 2002, 277-79);
it can help account for those phenomena where topicalisation of arguments by dislocation from their canonical position is more easily done than with passivisation (e.g. Chinese or Italian vs. English).
7.
Contribution to external connectivity
It connects with linguistics and psycholinguistic research – where there is strong and growing interest in discourse and pragmatic issues
It partly connects with language professionals e.g. teachers (who sometimes comment that PT ―deals only with morphosyntax!‖) and interpreters/translators (the new hypotheis can contribute to language assessment and training at higher stages). 8.
Which topic do we mean in the Topic Hypothesis? Sentence topic!
According to Levelt (1989, 260 ff), the speaker takes a certain perspective on a conceptual structure to be expressed (this happens in the conceptualiser – that is, before lexical retrieval begins ).
In conceptualisation, then, there is first the choice of topic. When the speakers‘ purpose is to expand the addressee‘s knowledge about something , the message will highlight this topic concept, to distinguish it from the comment that is made about it. In its turn, the formulator will encode the topic in a ‗syntactically prominent‘ position. So, notice that in incremental language generation topichood is decided before subjecthood! 9.
What does ―syntactically prominent‖ mean? It can mean that the topic is encoded as a grammatical subject. Otherwise it can mean that the topic will be encoded early in the sentence, whether or not in the role of subject.
10.
Sentence topic: why is it encoded early in the sentence?
Continuing with Levelt (1989): when the speaker‘s intention is to expand the interlocutor‘s information about something, the interlocutor may want, first, to find or create an address to which the comment information can be attached. This is easier when the topic information appears early in the sentence.
It is often the case that the two carriers of syntactic prominence coincide: the subject function is often chosen to encode topic information – and usually precedes the comment information. Bock and Warren (1985) called this ―conceptual accessibility‖ and showed that a highly available concept tends to be encoded in a prominent grammatical function (a lot of support comes from psycholinguistic research on passive structures).
A topic or a highly accessible entity can be encoded early in the sentence without becoming a subject. (This is harder in English than in languages that have freer word order, such as German or Italian.)
11.
Which topic in the topic hypothesis? Sentence topic: example
To describe an event where some girl buys some bread an Italian speaker can topicalise the bread (which is fronted and accented), without it being the subject, by encoding the scene as
(3) il pane lo compra la ragazza the breadMASC-SING itOBJ-MASC-SING buys the girl
where the verb compra (―buys‖) has an object marker lo which carries grammatical agreement with pane (masculine, singular). A parallel situation would occur in German where ―bread‖ would bear the accusative case.
12.
Which topic in the topic hypothesis? (continued) Sentence topic: crosslinguistic conclusion
Bresnan, from an LFG perspective, would then say that this means that the topic, (i.e. the sentence topic) in Italian and in German is grammaticised, i.e. it is grammatically encoded in a regular way.
So in Chinese, the object is topicalised when it appears earlier than in its more usual (canonical) post-verbal position – and in Japanese and Korean the topic is grammatically encoded morphologically (with postnominal markers –wa and –nun
In English it is not so easy to disentangle fronting effects from the assignment of subjecthood. This is more easily done in languages with freer word order. (See Andrews (1985), Lambrecht (1994), Givon (2001) for a fuller crosslinguistic characterisation and discussion of pragmatic functions of NP topics.)
13.
Prominence
So, Levelt (1989) shows in his discourse model that speakers attribute prominence in discourse in at least three ways:
– by mapping an argument to the most prominent syntactic position (i.e. making it the SUBJ)
– by early appearance in the sentence – by prosodic means (e.g. pitch accent)
Languages use and combine these in their own specific ways. 14.
Speaker‘s choices: drawing attention by prosodic means
(4) a. I think Mary likes Peter
b. I think Mary likes PETER (not John)
In (4a-b) the theme, Peter, occupies the unmarked post-verbal position reserved canonically for new information (in English). Attention may be drawn to it by assigning (contrastive) pitch accent, signalling that the information is not only new but also in contrast with some current assumption.
15.
Speaker‘s choices: prominent position
The speaker may choose to place, at the beginning of the sentence, something other than the grammatical subject.
(5) a. Mary kissed Peter yesterday b. When did Mary kiss Peter?
c. Yesterday Mary kissed Peter (finally!) d. Peter, I am sure, Mary kissed
(5a-d) may represent the same eventuality from a propositional viewpoint. But the perspective taken by the speaker is different.
16.
Speaker‘s choices: (syntax/pragmatic interface)
By topicalising the grammatical object in (5d) attention is drawn towards Peter, the participant that is neither the agent nor the grammatical subject, and yet it occupies the most prominent position in linear order.
Other constituents may also occupy a topical (initial) position, as does why in (5b) focalising a question, or Yesterday in (5c), signalling that the information is in some way relevant, or in contrast with some current assumption or state of affairs.
In (5a) the speaker makes the most predictable and computationally economical choice (Pinker, 1984) in English: the topic, i.e. the most available entity in the conceptualiser, happens to be the ‗agent‘ in the event, is encoded as the subject and is placed in initial position (cf. the Unmarked Alignment Hypothesis below).
Speaker‘s choices (Levelt, 1989)
In encoding a message, then, speakers can choose between affirmative and question forms, between active and passive. They may also choose to place constituents in prominent positions by topicalising them, or they may choose not to do so. But why do speakers do this?
Levelt (1989, 260ff) demonstrates that in discourse, speakers use such linguistic devices to guide the listener‘s attention: they contribute to the representation of meaning in the hearer.
This makes for effective communication (at least between mature native speakers). 18.
Discourse functions and their structural correspondence in Lexical Functional Grammar Bresnan and Mchombo (1987) and Bresnan (2001) propose that the phrase appearing in sentence initial position in interrogative clauses in English, and many other languages, bears a grammaticised discourse function in the f-structure, the FOCUS function and that the relativised constituent in a relative clause bears a grammaticised discourse function TOPIC (Dalrymple, 2001, 182ff).
These functions are now incorporated in the PT extension. 19.
PT Extension
Non-canonical choices lead to linguistic non-linearity, that is, they come at a cost in terms of processing.
This means that the production of the structures which are necessary to achieve those discourse-pragmatic choices are constrained by their processability: learners can only acquire what they can process.
So, where do learners start from?
20.
Unmarked Alignment
According to PT, once learners are able to produce strings of more than one word (presumably categorically different ones) in their L2, they will produce Canonical Order structures.
This was predicted in Pienemann‘s 1998 version of PT as ‗direct mapping‘ of agents to S and patients to O, and it is in line with many other (both rationalist and functionalist)