台灣學生英語習得之零代詞現象研究

全文

(1)⊕ 國立中山大學外國語文學系研究所碩士論文 A Thesis Submitted to The Graduate Institute of Foreign Language and Literature National Sun Yat-sen University. 台灣學生英語習得之零代詞現象研究 The Acquisition of Null Pronouns of EFL learners in Taiwan. 研究生：謝雅莉. 撰. By Ya-Li Kerry Hsieh 指導教授：徐淑瑛教授 Advisor：Professor Shu-Ing Shyu. 中華民國九十七年七月 July, 2008.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I would like to thank a great many people, since this thesis couldn’t have been completed without their assistance, encouragement, advice and most importantly, love. First of all, the deepest appreciation goes to my advisor, Prof. Shu-Ing Shyu for her patient guidance and advice. In particular, the constant encouragement she gave me made me more confident and brave till the end. I also feel gratitude to the committee members: Prof. Ai-Li Hsin and Prof. Lan-Hsin Chang for their careful reading and insightful comments. Thanks also go to the teachers who gave me assistance in collecting the data: Prof. Huey-Chen Wen, Prof. Joy Egbert, Prof. Man-Ping Ling, Prof. Ming-Yu Tseng, Prof. Yuh-Huey Lin, and Prof. Yu-San Chang. Without heir support and generosity, the thesis would be impossible. I would like to express my thanks to my classmates: Chia-Hua, Chia-Wen, Hsin-Chin, Meng-Ting, Yi-Ting and Zhi-Jie for their company and friendship, which made my life in school brilliant and joyful. Special thanks to the teachers in Pin-Tung senior high school for their kindness in the past year. I really feel lucky to have them in the process of writing my thesis. Last but not least, I would like to dedicate this work to my dearest family and boyfriend Shih-Chang, without whose unwavering support and love, I would never have much faith in the future. Thank them for everything.. ii.

(3) 摘要. 本論文旨在探討台灣地區以中文為母語的成人英語學習者是否受中文零代詞（null pronouns）或普遍語法（Universal Grammar）的影響，以及是否重設中文的代名詞省略參數（pro-drop parameter）。本研究採取兩種實驗收集語料：1）問卷調查—包含文法測驗題和段落翻譯兩種題型；2）口語錄音測驗—說故事。第一組實驗主要包含 132 位大專學生（其中，56 位為較低程度英語學習者，76 位為較高程度英語學習者），以及 15 位以英語為母語之美國籍人士；第二組實驗則重新分析 Lin & Wu (2005)的說故事語料，受試者包含 40 位大專學生（其中 20 位為低程度英語學習者，20 位為高程度英語學習者）。主要結果如下： 1. 台灣受試者，尤其是較低程度者在學習英語時易受中文句子的主題（topic）結構影響，意味著受試者可能以母語的結構作為學習英文的基礎。 2. 比起主詞省略，台灣受試者較容易出現受詞省略的情形，顯示出受試者在處理英文的主詞和受詞上不同，且英語顯性受詞學習較顯性主詞困難。本研究支持 Kong (2005)的論點，台灣英語學習者在學習英語的過程中雖然套用中文主題結構，但仍接受顯性主詞的英文結構，乃因他們將此主題結構調整為英文句首的主題須為顯性。 3. 台灣受試者在主詞與虛主詞的題型中，主句（matrix clause）的表現優於子句（embedded clause），顯示受試者在本質上並無習得英文主詞的句法，主詞的接受度因不同的句型而有差別，由此推斷受試者無法重設代名詞省略參數。 4. 在說故事的語料中，發現在某些句型結構中代名詞特別容易省略，例如當英文結構有對等關係或有清楚的指涉關係（reference）時。顯示出台灣英語學習者仍易受到中文論述傾向（discourse-oriented）的特色所影響。根據以上的結果，本研究推論普遍語法部份影響理論（Partial Access to UG）最能說明此研究語料中的現象，也就是普遍語法只能經由母語為基礎的參數來習得，而無法將母語的代名詞參數值重設為英語的代名詞參數值。 iii.

(4) ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the null subject phenomenon in the acquisition of English by Taiwan EFL learners to see whether the participants are influenced by their L1 knowledge or UG and whether they can reset their L1 value of null subject parameter. Two experimental tasks in questionnaire, grammaticality judgment task (GJ) and paragraph translation task (PT), and one oral task, storytelling task (ST), were adopted in this study. As for the participants, in the questionnaire part the GJ and PT tasks were given to 132 EFL learners, which were divided into the lower proficiency group (n=56) and the higher proficiency group (n=76), and 15 native speakers of English as a control group. Besides, we reanalyze the data of the ST task in Lin & Wu (2005), which consisted of 20 high English proficiency participants and 20 low English proficiency participants. Overall, the main findings are summarized as follows: 1.. Chinese topic constructions seem to influence profoundly on the L2A of English by EFL learners. This may imply that L2 learners acquire the L2 through L1-based knowledge.. 2.. The asymmetry of null subjects and null objects was found in our data across the three tasks, which suggests EFL learners treated both features differently and have difficulty in unlearning null objects. We support Kong’s (2005) claim that Chinese learners are influenced by L1 topic structure but they adjust this rule to: every sentence must have an overt topic in the sentence-initial position.. 3.. The different judgments between matrix and embedded clauses with null subjects and null expletives may infer EFL learners do not intrinsically reset the parameter of null subjects.. 4.. According to our results in ST task, there seems to be several patterns which. iv.

(5) make null subjects and null objects easier to occur, such as structures with coordinate relationship or clear reference relationship. These sentence patterns prove that the EFL learners are still easier to be influenced by the discourse-oriented feature in Chinese. According to the result, we may infer that the position of Partial Access to UG probably the best answer to our research questions since it is assumed that through Partial Access to UG, L2 learners will not be able to acquire the L2 values of parameters when these differ from the L1; that is, UG is accessible but only via the setting of the L1.. v.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... vi List of Tables...............................................................................................................viii List of Figures .............................................................................................................. ix List of Abbreviations.....................................................................................................x. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION .........................................................................1 1.1 Background and Motivation ..................................................................1 1.2 Significance of the Thesis ......................................................................4 1.3 Organization of the Thesis .....................................................................5 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................6 2.1 Different Syntactic Properties between Chinese and English................6 2.2 Theoretical Framework on Null Pronouns...........................................10 2.2.1 The Null Subject Parameter .........................................................10 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4. Morphological Uniformity Principle (MUP) ...............................14 The Null Argument Parameters ...................................................16 UG and Second Language Acquisition ........................................18 Empirical Studies in L2 Acquisition on Null Subject Parameter.........20. 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3. Child L1 Acquisition....................................................................21 Child L2 Acquisition....................................................................23 Adult L2 Acquisition....................................................................25. 2.3. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY.................................................................33 3.1 Motivation of the Study .......................................................................33 3.2 Method .................................................................................................35 3.2.1 Experimental I: The Questionnaire ..............................................35 3.2.1.1 Participants............................................................................35 3.2.1.2 Tasks .....................................................................................36 3.2.1.3 3.2.1.4 3.2.1.5 3.2.2. Tested Sentence Structures....................................................38 Procedures.............................................................................41 Data Analysis ........................................................................42. Experiment II: Oral Production ...................................................43 3.2.2.1 Participants............................................................................43 3.2.2.2 Task .......................................................................................44 3.2.2.3 Procedure ..............................................................................44 3.2.2.4 Data Analysis ........................................................................44 vi.

(7) CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS...................................................................................46 4.1 Questionnaire .......................................................................................46 4.1.1. Grammaticality Judgment Task ...................................................46 4.1.1.1 Overall View .........................................................................46 4.1.1.2 Null Subjects and Null Objects.............................................50 4.1.1.3 Null Subjects and Null Expletives ........................................51 4.1.1.4 Null Subjects in Matrix and Embedded Clauses...................51 4.1.1.5 Null Expletives in Matrix and Embedded Clauses ...............54 4.1.1.6 Non-Subject Topics and Null Subjects/Expletives in Clause Initial Position......................................................................................58. 4.1.1.7 Null Objects with or without Preposition Phrase following .59 4.1.1.8 Other Syntactic Clustered Properties ....................................60 4.1.1.9 Summary of the Results in the GJ Task ................................61 4.1.2 Paragraph Translation Task..........................................................62 4.1.3 4.2. Summary of the Results in the GJ Task and the PT Task ............66 Storytelling Task ..................................................................................67. CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................73 5.1 Main Findings among the Three Tasks ................................................73 5.2 The Effects of L1 .................................................................................73 5.3 Parameter Resetting? ...........................................................................77 5.4 Conclusion and Limitations .................................................................80 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................82 APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................90 APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................91 APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................95. vii.

(8) LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1Three different types of languages relating to pro-drop phenomenon............2 Table 2.1 Alternative hypotheses regarding access to UG in L2A ..............................19 Table 2.2 Parameter model of acquisition of pro-drop by SLA...................................20 Table 3.1 Background of the Participants ....................................................................36 Table 3.2 Different types of tasks relating to SLA of the pro-drop issues...................36 Table 3.3 The basis of translation task design .............................................................40 Table 3.4 Main Characters in the Story of Cinderella..................................................44 Table 4.1 Pairwise comparison in SCHEFFE tests on each sentence type ..................49 Table 4.2 Pairwise comparison in SCHEFFE tests on null subjects in matrix and embedded clauses.................................................................................................52 Table 4.3 Paired-sample t-tests of null animate and inanimate subjects in matrix and embedded clauses.................................................................................................54 Table 4.4 Pairwise comparison in SCHEFFE tests on null expletives in matrix and embedded clauses.................................................................................................55 Table 4.5 Paired-sample t-tests of null expletives it and there in matrix and embedded clauses ..................................................................................................................57 Table 4.6 Paired-sample t-tests of NST and null subjects/expletives in clause-initial position.................................................................................................................59 Table 4.7 Summary of the results in the GJ task..........................................................62 Table 4.8 The percentage of each null property performed by two groups .................63 Table 4.9 Summary of the results in the GJ task and PT task......................................67 Table 4.10 The frequency of the null and non-null arguments in ST task ...................68 Table 4.11 Summary of the results in the three tasks...................................................72. viii.

(9) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 Mean scores of judgments on each tested sentence by the three groups....47 Figure 4.2 Mean scores of judgments on experimental and control sentences with expletive it as raising predicate............................................................................48 Figure 4.3 Mean scores of judgments on null subjects and null objects......................50 Figure 4.4 Mean scores of judgments on null subjects and null expletives.................51 Figure 4.5 Mean scores of judgments on null subjects of matrix and embedded clauses ..............................................................................................................................52 Figure 4.6 Mean scores of judgments on animate and inanimate pronouns................53 Figure 4.7 Mean scores of judgments on animate and inanimate null subject of matrix and embedded clauses..........................................................................................54 Figure 4.8 Mean scores of judgments on null expletive it and there ...........................55 Figure 4.9 Mean scores of judgments on null expletives of matrix and embedded clauses ..................................................................................................................56 Figure 4.10 Mean scores of judgments on null expletive it and there in matrix and embedded clauses.................................................................................................57 Figure 4.11 Mean scores of judgments on NST and null subjects/expletives in clause-initial position ...........................................................................................59 Figure 4.12 Mean scores of judgments on null objects with and without PP following ..............................................................................................................................60 Figure 4.13 Mean scores of judgments on S-V inversion and that-trace effects by the three groups..........................................................................................................61 Figure 4.14 Mean scores of judgments on experimental and control sentences with S-V inversion and that-trace effects.....................................................................61 Figure 5.1 Topic structures in Chinese and English (Yip, 1995: 90) ...........................74. ix.

(10) LIST OF ABBREVIATION UG: Universal Grammar L1A: first language acquisition L2A (=SLA): second language acquisition L1: first language L2: second language EFL: English as foreign language CIL: Chinese interlanguage AG/AGR: agreement Infl: inflection GCR: Generalized Control Rule MUP: Morphological Uniformity Principle NPP : Null Pronoun Parameter DO: Discourse Oriented Parameter SV/VS: subject verb/ verb subject GJ: grammaticality judgment PT: paragraph translation ST: storytelling. x.

(11) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Background and Motivation The issue of pro-drop phenomenon concerning the availability of UG in SLA has been broadly discussed and debated in many languages, such as [+null subject] and [-null subject] languages, and issues concerning whether L2 learners are able to reset a parameter from the L1 value to the L2 value. If parameter resetting does occur, this can be viewed as the evidence for the UG access. In general, there are three kinds of languages which present different pro-drop parameters. Italian-like languages, such as Italian and Spanish, are considered as the [+null subject] languages. The rich subject-verb agreement systems enable them to drop pronouns, and pro can appear in the specifier position of any finite IP. Chinese-like languages, such as Chinese and Korean, also serve as the [+null subject] languages; however, the distinction between Chinese-like languages and Italian-like languages is the rule of Topic NP Deletion (Tsao, 1977) in Chinese-like languages. The rule operates across discourse to delete the topic of a sentence under the identification with a topic in a topic chain. Example (1) shows a topic chain that explains Tsao’s Topic NP Deletion (1977: 92): (1) Nei ke shui, ei hua xiao, ei yezi da, ei hen nakan, (suoyi) wo mei mai ei. That CL tree flower small leaves big very ugly so I not buy ‘The tree, (its) flowers are small; (its) leaves are big; (it) is very ugly: so I did not buy (it).” Unlike Italian-type and Chinese-type languages, English-type languages, like English and French, are [-null subject] languages. Their pronouns are not permitted to be dropped, but their Infl(ection) requires that its specifier be realized overtly except 1.

(12) for colloquial spoken form or diary context. See the Table 1.1 for the three types of languages: Table 1.1Three different types of languages relating to pro-drop phenomenon Chinese-type language English-type language Italian-type language × × Zero-topic √ × Pro-drop √ √ Due to the different realization of pronouns and syntactic structures between [+null subject] languages and [-null subject] languages, the pro-drop phenomenon has attracted the attention of many SLA researchers. A lot of contribution to pro-drop issue has been ascribed to the second language acquisition of many European languages (Clahsen & Hong, 1995; Hilles, 1986, 1991; Lakshmanan, 1991, 1994; Liceras, 1989; Meisel, 1991; Phinney, 1987; Prévost, 1999; Tsimpli & Roussou, 1991; Vainikka & Young-Schilten, 1994, 1996; White, 1985); however, little attempt has been made to focus on EFL learners of Chinese (Kong, 2005; Lai, 2006; Ou, 1998; Pan, 2008; Wen & Wu, 1997; Yuan, 1997; Zobl, 1992, 1994). As mentioned above, the main interest in the literature about pro-drop phenomenon is about the issue of parameter resetting. It has been claimed that EFL learners of Chinese do encounter some difficulties in unlearning null arguments. The most prominent difficulty is that EFL learners tend to unlearn null subjects but not null objects in English (Chen, 1994a; Kong, 2005; Pan, 2008; Yuan, 1997; Zobl, 1992, 1994). This asymmetry brings about a problem: If EFL learners do acquire the obligatory overt subjects in English, why do they have the long-term learning problem with obligatory overt objects? This problem, first explored by Chen (1994a), is attributed to the markedness factor, in which subject positions are more emphasized than the object positions by instructors in teaching. She assumes that L1 transfer is the. 2.

(13) major factor in second language acquisition (SLA) unless markedness intervenes in learning. Yuan (1997) argues that AGR helps EFL learners abandon null subjects, while the L1 transfer of [+topic-drop] and the lack of positive evidence in the input data leads learners unable to unlearn null objects. He also claims that L1 transfer may first influence L2A and then parameter-resetting occurs. Against Yuan’s argument, Kong (2005), supporting Tsimpli and Roussou’s (1991) argument, suggests parameter resetting is impossible but L1-based properties would be used in L2 data. He claims that Chinese learners do not reset their parameters but adjust the L1 rule of topic chains; that is, every English sentence must have one overt topic in the sentence-initial position. A second issue regarding the pro-drop phenomenon is whether L2 learners reset all the clustered features associated with a parameter. There are three positions on this issue. One argues that the learners would simultaneously acquire a cluster of properties related by a single parameter (Chomsky, 1982; Hilles, 1986; Haegeman & Guéron, 1999; Hyam, 1987). Another argues that there is no obvious evidence of clustering effects, which suggests that learners seem to acquire these properties separately (Banka, 2006; Liceras, 1989). The other supports partial clustering (Hilles, 1986; Hyams, 1986, White, 1985, 1986; Cook & Newson, 1996). White (1985, 1986) indicates that L2 features may cluster together in interlanguage grammars but not entirely as predicted by the Null Subject Parameter, which specifies that syntactic and morphological properties related to a single parameter should cluster together. However, little research has focused on the issue of clustering effects on the EFL learners of Chinese. To sum up, in the SLA literature, the two pro-drop issues of parameter resetting and clustering effects have not been explored in depth for the second language acquisition of English by Chinese learners. Therefore, the current study aims to 3.

(14) investigate EFL learners’ IL in terms of the two issues related to pro-drop phenomenon. Since both L1 transfer and UG effect are considered to interplay L2 learners’ IL to a certain degree, our main interest is to examine if the parameter resetting occurs in L2A of Taiwan EFL learners. Besides, we will also examine whether pro-drop features of English cluster in Chinese interlanguage (CIL) grammars. The research questions are posed as follows for the present study: 1. Whether do EFL learners have an access to UG, like child L1 learners, or transfer their L1 knowledge in their L2 acquisition of English? 2. Do EFL learners reset their L1 value of null subject parameter to the L2 value of null subject parameter? 3. If parameter resetting is possible, do the pro-drop features of English cluster in CIL grammars? 4. If parameter resetting is not possible, what do possible reasons block the parameter resetting?. 1.2 Significance of the Thesis The significance of the current study can be viewed from three aspects. First of all, as we mentioned before, pro-drop phenomenon varies among languages and little research has focused on CIL, so it is worth investigating to see whether Taiwan EFL learners are able to reset the value of the pro-drop parameter in Chinese to that in English. Secondly, in this study we combined the syntactic factors of animacy in Yuan’s study with the clausal structures in Kong’s study to compare more varieties of dimensions in our data. Finally, aside from syntactic factors, it is believed that different tasks may elicit variant results (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). Here we adopted two task which are often used in the pro-drop studies—grammaticality judgment task and translation task. As for translation task, instead of using sentence 4.

(15) translation, we use paragraph translation for the consideration of context factor. Most important of all, in addition to written production, we also examine the oral production data via storytelling task which has rarely been used in the pro-drop studies of Taiwan EFL learners in Taiwan.. 1.3 Organization of the Thesis In addition to the first chapter that introduces the general background of pro-drop phenomenon and some interesting issues related to parameter resetting, the remaining chapters of this thesis are structured as follows. Chapter two is a review of related literature, which includes the theoretical framework on null arguments and empirical studies in L2 acquisition on null subject parameter. Chapter three provides the detailed methodology of the present study. Chapter four describes the results. Finally, Chapter five presents the discussion, conclusion and limitation of this study.. 5.

(16) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW. In this chapter, different syntactic properties related to null subjects between Chinese and English are given first. Then the theoretical framework that forms the basis of the present study and related research will be introduced. Finally, the relevant studies that have been conducted on issues regarding to the parameter resetting and accessibility of UG will be reviewed.. 2.1. Different Syntactic Properties between Chinese and English Three distinctive properties between Chinese and English related to pro-drop. phenomenon are said to correlate with [+] or [-] value of the Null Subject Parameter (Rizzi, 1982): null subjects, subject-verb inversion and that-trace effects. The first difference between Chinese and English is that Chinese allows null subjects and null objects, as noted by Huang (1984). For example, all of Speaker B’s answers are acceptable: (2) Speaker A: Zhangsan kanjian Lisi le ma? Zhangsan see Lisi LE Q ‘Did Zhangsan see Lisi?’ Speaker B: a. ta kanjian ta le he see he PRT ‘He saw him.’ b. e kanjian ta le. ‘[He] saw him.’ c. ta kanjian e le. ‘He saw [him].’ d. e kanjian e le. ‘[He] saw [him].’ 6.

(17) e. wo cai [e kanjian e le]. I guess see PRT ‘I guess [he] saw [him].’ (Huang, 1984: 533) Unlike Chinese, English, a [-null subject] language, prohibits null subjects and null objects neither in matrix nor embedded clauses despite the occurrence of clear reference. See the following example shown in (3): (3) Speaker A: Did John see Bill yesterday? Speaker B: a. Yes, he saw him. b. *Yes, e saw him. c. *Yes, he saw e. d. *Yes, e saw e. e. *Yes, I guess e saw e. (Huang, 1984: 532) Moreover, Chinese and English are different in the realization of expletives. It is still controversial whether Chinese has null expletives or not. On the one hand, Jaeggli and Safir proposed that if a language permits null thematic subjects, it also permits null expletive subjects (1989: 19). According to Li & Thompson (1976), expletive subjects, such as it and there, are non-referential NPs, which have no semantic interpretation but function as fillers in an unoccupied subject position. English, a subject-prominent language, also requires overt expletive subjects, while Chinese lacks overt expletive subjects, as shown in (4): (4) a. Zai xia yu le. PROG fall rain PRT ‘*(It) is raining’ b. Keneng wo hui jaodian wancheng. possible I will earlier finish ‘*(It) is possible that I will finish earlier.’ c. You yi ge xiongmao zai huayuan li. 7.

(18) have one CL panda at garden ‘*(There) is a panda in the garden.’. in (Yip, 1995: 83). On the other hand, Li (1990) hold the ground that Chinese lacks the expletive subjects, assuming that the weather verb in (4a) and the existential verbs in (4c) are ergative, while (4b) may use keneng as an adverb. However, Guo et al. (1994) exemplify that null expletives can serve as the subject of impersonal predicates, like lun in (5). In this study we still treat Chinese as a language with null expletives inclined not to be overtly realized. (5) proexp lun ni. xi. wan.. Turn you wash dish ‘It’s your turn to wash the dishes.” Last, in addition to null subjects and objects, Chinese and English are also different in terms of the two syntactic properties: subject-verb inversion and that-trace effects (Chen, 1994a, 1994b). The first one is that in Chinese subjects can optionally appear in postverbal position and preverbal position (Chen, 1994a; Ou, 1998). For example: (6) a. Sange xueshang zuo. le.. three student walk ASP ‘Three students walked out.’ b. Zuo le sange xueshang. walk ASP three student ‘Three students walked out.’ (Adapted from Chen, 1994a) Although subject inversion is possible in Chinese, it occurs more restrictedly than in Italian-type languages: only the indefinite NP and some directional verbs, like come and go, can undergo inversion. For example, sentences in (7) are ungrammatical in Chinese. 8.

(19) (7) a. *Lai. le nege ren.. come Asp that man ‘?There came that man.’ b. *Xiao le sange ren. laugh Asp three people ‘*There laughed three men.’ Similarly in English, these sentences above are not appropriate; however, unlike Chinese, there is no way for a postverbal subject to receive a case in English.1 There are two ways for this kind of sentence: “Either the argument moves to the specifier position of IP, or the expletive pronoun there is inserted in the specifier position of IP (Hawkins, 2001).” For example, (8a,b) are grammatical but (8c) is not. (8) a. Two visitors have arrived. b. There have arrived two visitors. c. *Have arrived two visitors. (Adapted from Lai, 2006) The second property is that-trace effects. According to the pro-drop parameter (Jaeggli, 1982; Rizzi, 1982), [+null subject] languages do not exhibit that-trace effects, in which the overt complementizer blocks movement. The issue whether complementizer exists in Chinese or not has been debated. For example, Huang (1982) and Chen (1991) argue that Chinese does not have an embedded clause introduced by a complementizer; however, some researchers believe that shuo is a complementizer corresponding to that in English (Cheng, 1994; Yeung, 2006), as shown in (9). In contrast to Chinese, English, as a [-null subject] language, allows extraction if the complementizer that is not present. That-trace effects appear when the overt complementizer blocks the antecedent government of the trace, violating Empty 1. Rizzi (1982, 1990) claims that the VS sentences in Italian-type languages, null subject pro is present, with the overt subjects adjoined to VP. Though the postverbal subject cannot receive Case in this position, it shares Case with pro. 9.

(20) Category Principle (Huang, 1982; Lasnik & Saito, 1984; White, 1988). (9) a. Ni renwei [ ____[shei hui qu]]? You think who will go ‘Whoi do you think[Ø [ti will go]]?’ b. Ni. renwei shuo [shei hui. qu]]?. You think that who will go ‘*Whoi do you think [that [ ti will go]]?’ (Chen & Huang, 2006: 5) To sum up, Chinese and English are different in the value of Null Subject Parameter. Chinese, with the value of [+null subject], allows null subjects, null objects, null expletive pronouns, subject-verb inversion, and does not show that-trace effects. On the contrary, with the value of [-null subject], English only allows overt pronouns, disallows S-V inversion, and forbids the extraction of subjects across an overt complementizer.. 2.2. Theoretical Framework on Null Pronouns. 2.2.1. The Null Subject Parameter. The principles of UG allow parameters of variation between languages. Differences in a single parameter can lead to a number of surface syntactic consequences. It is believed that pro-drop languages display a cluster of syntactic and morphological properties related to a single parameter; that is, missing subjects, subject-verb inversion and that-trace effects. To further account for the cross-linguistic distribution of null subjects, Chomsky (1982), following Perlmutter (1971), Taraldsen (1978), Jaeggli (1982), and Rizzi (1982), proposed the Null Subject Parameter, which specifies the degree to which languages allow the omission of ponominals in the subject position along with a cluster of syntactic properties. The distribution of null subjects, determined by a process called recoverability (Taraldsen, 10.

(21) 1978) or identification (Jaeggli, 1982), connects null subjects with rich verbal agreement paradigm. This generalization captures the difference between [+null subject] languages, such as Italian and Spanish, and [-null subject] languages, such as English and French. According to this theory, Italian contains a rich system of agreement, which can recover the features of person, number, and gender. On the other hand, English doesn’t have a rich agreement system so the AGR is too meager to identify the content of null subject. See the example (10), Italian and Spanish allow subjects to drop from finite clauses, but English and French do not. (10) a. [e] parla. (Italian) b. [e] habla. (Spanish) c. *[e] parle. (French) d. *[e] speaks. (English) However, Rizzi (1986) found that there are contexts where pro appears when identification through rich agreement is not possible. For example, the Italian sentence (11b), in which the object is empty raises the problem of identification. Rizzi argues that Italian, but not English, allows pro to occur in object position after certain types of control verbs, which is interpreted as arbitrary in reference. (11) a. This leads *(people) [PRO to conclude what follows]. b. Questo conduce (la gente) a [PRO concludere quanto segue]. (Rizzi, 1986: 503) In this respect, Rizzi (1986) proposed ‘pro module’, assuming that pro must be both licensed and identified. It is different from the standard assumptions on the theory of pro in which formal licensing and recovery of the content are unified, both being performed through government by ‘strong AGR.’. (12) Rizzi’s ‘pro module’. 11.

(22) a. Formal Licensing schema pro is Cased-marked by X0. b. Recovery convention Let X be the licensing head of an occurrence of pro: then pro has the grammatical specification of the features on X coindexed with it. Licensing of pro involves an appropriate licensing head (Infl), which governs the pro in subject position through specifier-head agreement. For instance, in Italian-type languages, Infl is a licensing head, but not in English-type languages. Therefore, if a head is specified positively for the licensing parameter, pro is formally licensed whenever it is assigned Case by the head. One language may choose Infl as a licenser for pro in the subject position and V for pro in the object position (see (13) for the formulation); another language may prohibit licensing altogether. (13) proi. Infl | Agri. V | θj. proj (Rizzi, 1986:521). Thus, the class of licensing heads may vary cross-linguistically, from permitting every head to be a possible licenser to allowing no licensing heads. The principle of identification is responsible for recovering referential value of pro. The licensing head is able to identify the content of pro so the features associated with the agreement are able to recover the content of pro. To be specific, licensing by Infl and identification by the agreement morphology on the verb are necessary for pro to occur. However, one point should be noticed that licensing involves verbal features, which applies to all types of null subjects, while identification involves nominal features, which is a requirement imposed on referential null subjects only. Following Rizzi’s formulation of pro-drop parameter, Hyams (1986) proposed a version of the pro-drop parameter called AG/PRO parameter. Based on the 12.

(23) Government and Binding Principle presented by Chomksy (1981), she claims that in pro-drop languages AG is equal to PRO and cannot be governed; hence AUX must be lexically empty, for otherwise PRO would be governed (see 14a); in non-pro-drop languages AG is not equal to PRO; therefore, lexical material, such as modals and auxiliaries, can appear in AUX (see 14b). (14). INFL a. X：AG＝PRO；Y：(AUX) X. Y. b. X：AG≠PRO；Y：AUX. Both Rizzi’s and Hyams’ analyses under the null subjects parameter are still based on the relationship between null subjects and rich agreements. However, the claim that pro-drop languages count on overt AGR to recover the null subjects was challenged by Huang (1984, 1989) since languages without agreement features, like Chinese, can also allow null subjects in finite clauses. This shows that rich agreement is not necessary for a language to permit pro-drop. In this respect, Huang (1989) addresses this problem to suggest that other than AGR identification, antecedent identification be also a way to meet the identification requirement in languages without AGR. He posits a generalized control rule, outlined in (15) with the notion of control domain in (16) defined in Manzini (1983) and Nishigauchi (1984), to explain the behaviors of pro in all languages: (15) Generalized Control Rule (GCR) An empty pronominal is controlled in its control domain (if it has one). (16) α is the control domain for β iff it is the minimal category that satisfies both (a) and (b): a. α is the lowest S or NP that contains (i) β, or (ii) the minimal maximal category containing β. b. α contains a SUBJECT accessible to β.. 13.

(24) The rule specifies “the environment in which pro/PRO (he treats both the same) must have a local, unique, non-arbitrary antecedent (Huang, 1989: 194),” eliminating the need for PRO Theorem (Chomsky, 1981) which agued that PRO must be ungoverned according to Binding theory. In this rule, the presence or absence of SUBJECT/AGR determines the control domain for pro. If SUBJECT/AGR is present, pro must be controlled within the minimal S containing it, like Italian and English. However, the two languages are distinguished as to whether AGR can be a controller or not. As mentioned earlier, AGR in Italian is strong enough to determine the content of pro, while in English AGR is too weak to control pro. Huang also proves that languages in which the AGR is absent, such as Chinese, a pro/PRO is allowed if it has no control domain at all (Huang, 1989). Apart from GCR, there is another analysis that tried to account for the occurrence of null subjects in both languages with rich inflectional systems and those without an inflectional system, which will be discussed in the next section.. 2.2.2. Morphological Uniformity Principle (MUP). In order to account for the diversity of inflectional system related to the recoverability of null subjects in different languages, Jaeggli and Safir (1989) argued that the idea of using rich agreement to encompass all null-subject languages is problematic and need to be examined. Therefore, they proposed Morphological Uniformity Principle (MUP) as a universal principle to demonstrate the pro-drop phenomenon. They stated that “null subjects are permitted in all and only languages with morphologically uniform inflectional paradigms (1989: 29).” A morphological paradigm is uniform if all its verb forms are morphologically complex or none of them are. If the paradigm is mixed, that is, some of the forms are morphologically complex while others are bare stem, then it is not uniform. The MUP is stated in (17) 14.

(25) below.. (17) Morphological Uniformity Principle An inflectional paradigm P for a category K in a language L is morphological uniform iff L has either only underived inflectional K-forms or only derived inflectional K-forms. Italian-like languages, for example, have all their verbs inflected for number, person, tense and mood; therefore, they allow null subjects due to the feature of [+uniform +inflected]. Similarly, the inflectional systems in Japanese-type languages are also regarded as [+uniform] despite the fact that they are different from Italian-type languages in that Japanese verbs are inflected for tense, mood, aspect and negation. Chinese-type languages can also allow null subjects since they have no inflection affixation at all and uninflected verb stem is the only possible form. As a result, they are considered to have the feature of [+uniform -inflected]. According to MUP, null subjects are said to be licensed in these [+uniform] languages. On the other hand, English-type languages are non null-subject languages since they have morphologically mixed verb paradigms, which receive the feature of [-uniform]. However, some languages have morphologically uniform paradigms but partially allow null subjects (e.g. German), and still some languages have mixed morphological paradigms but do allow pro-drop (e.g. Bengali). Therefore, Jaeggli and Safir (1989), following the θ-criterion (Chomsky, 1981:36), proposed the identification requirement, which states exactly when null subjects will occur in a language, as defined in (18).. (18) Identification Requirement A thematic null subject must be identified. According to (17) and (18), failure to satisfy either of the two necessary and. 15.

(26) sufficient conditions, namely the licensing condition of morphological uniformity and the identification requirement, will result in the prohibition of null subjects in a language. Jaeggli and Safir (1989) further proposed two types of identification for thematic null subjects. The first type of identification is via AGR, which applies to null subject languages with rich agreement, like Italian and Spanish. The second type of identification obtains in languages such as Chinese and Japanese which uniformly lack person-number agreement2. In these languages, null subjects can be identified not merely by an overt c-commanding nominal but also by a topic or possibly null topic. Their analysis derives from Huang (1984) who has suggested the difference between ‘discourse-oriented’ languages (e.g. Chinese and Japanese) and ‘sentence-oriented’ languages (e.g. English and French). As mentioned earlier, Huang, following Taso (1977), suggested that the discourse-oriented languages have a rule of Topic NP deletion, “which operates across discourse to delete the topic of a sentence under identity with a topic in a preceding sentence. The result of such a deleting process is formally a Topic Chain (1984: 549)”. Based on the generalization, Jaeggli and Safir (1989) proposed three mechanisms for the identification of null arguments:. (19) a. by local AGR, including a tense feature (e.g. Italian) [s proi [infl Agi/Tense]…] b. by a Topic (e.g. Chinese) Discourse Topici [topici [s ti…]] c. by a c-commanding NP (e.g. Chinese) Subjecti verb [s proi VP] 2.2.3. The Null Argument Parameters. Following Huang’s (1984) argument, Lillo-Martin (1991) and Wang et al. (1992) 2. AGR features must include person markers as they are only real identifiers (Borer, 1983; Gilligan, 1987; Jaeggli & Safir, 1989; Rizzi, 1982). 16.

(27) postulated two separate parameters to account for cross-linguistic variation with respect to the occurrence and distribution of null arguments. The first parameter is the Null Pronoun Parameter (NPP), which basically follows Rizzi’s (1986) null pronoun parameter with some modification. This parameter concerns null pronominal arguments (i.e. pro). Just as Rizzi’s ‘pro module’, null arguments may require licensing and identification. The first part of NPP is the Null Pronoun Licensing Parameter which requires the language learner to determine independently for each case-assigning node whether it licenses pro (see Rizzi, 1986). The second part of NPP is the Null Pronoun Identification Parameter, which accounts for cross-linguistic variation in the extent to which the reference of pro is identified by morphological marking on the licenser. The two parts of NPP are given in (20) and (21).. (20) The Null Pronoun Licensing Parameter a. AGR when it Case-marks [is/is not] a licensing head for pro b. V when it Case-marks [is/is not] a licensing head for pro c. P when it Case-marks [is/is not] a licensing head for pro (21) The Null Pronoun Identification Parameter I. Let X be the licensing head of an occurrence of pro: Then pro has the grammatical specification of no features the number features on X coindexed with it. the person and number features II. Null referential pronominal arguments require Identification by morphological marking of no features the number features. on the licensing head.. the person and number features (Lillo-Martin, 1994: 302). 17.

(28) The second parameter, based on Huang (1984), is the Discourse Oriented Parameter (DOP), which states that languages vary according to whether empty topics is coindexed with a preceding discourse topic. Discourse-oriented languages, such as Chinese, allow null arguments without rich agreement system; in these languages, the reference of the null argument is determined by a discourse topic. Besides, it should be noted that the DOP also permits languages with discourse-oriented properties to have both null subjects and null objects. Though the Generalized Control Rule predicts that null arguments in object position are not allowed in Chinese (also in English and Italian), Huang (1984, 1989, 1991) shows the prediction is workable in Chinese. Chinese does allow a null object; however, such a null subject “should be analyzed, not as a pro, but as a variable bound by a null topic, or more generally, by a null operator,” given that “α is a variable if and only if it is locally A’-bound and in an A-position” (Chomsky, 1981: 330).. (22) [TOP ei], [Zhangsan shuo [Lisi bu renshi ti]] Zhangsan say Lisi not know ‘Zhangsan said that Lisi does not know *[him/her/them/you…]’ (Huang, 1984: 542) Huang (1984) further states that while a null object is a variable, a null subject can be either a variable or a pro, depending on where the null subject occurs. To be specific, when the null subject is c-commanded by the matrix antecedent, it can be a pro, while in other contexts, null subjects are variables bound by zero-topics.. 2.2.4. UG and Second Language Acquisition Universal Grammar (UG), proposed by Chomsky (1986), suggests a set of rules. intended to explain language acquisition in L1. UG consists of principles, which are invariant constraints on all human languages, and of parameters, which permits a 18.

(29) limited degree of variations among languages and the various parameters of UG are triggered according to the input data from the L1. In other words, UG constitutes the child’s initial state, the knowledge that the child is equipped with in advance of input. However, whether the adult L2 learners, like the L1 learners, have access to the principles of UG has been a controversial issue. Among the issues of the availability of UG in L2A, there are three theoretical options: (i) ‘Full Access to UG’, (ii) ‘Partial Access to UG’ and (iii) ‘No Access to UG’ (summarized by Cook, 1988, 1993; Epstein et al., 1996; Lakshmanan, 1994; White, 1989), summarized in Table 2.1. The first position is the Full Access to UG, which involves two conditions. On the one hand, UG is available in L2A and works exactly as it does in L1A, rejecting the theory of critical age (Full Access No Transfer). On the other hand, L2 learners initially transfer the setting of the L1, but are still able to tap UG and parameter resetting is possible (Full Access Full Transfer). As for the Partial Access position, parameter resetting is impossible: UG is inaccessible but any aspects of it available in L1 can be used in the L2. The third claim states L2 learners cannot have an access to UG but utilize ‘acquisition strategies’ (Clahsen, 1988); therefore, ‘wild grammars’ (impossible errors) can occur. Table 2.1 Alternative hypotheses regarding access to UG in L2A Hypotheses Full Access. No Transfer Full Transfer. Partial Access. Learning Process L1＝L2. (parameter resetting) L1≠L2. UGL2 grammar L1 grammar. UG. L2 grammar. L2 input L1-based UG IL grammar. (no parameter No Access. Learning strategiesIL grammar. resetting). According to the three hypotheses, Table 2.2 shows the possibility for a 19.

(30) parameter-setting model of pro-drop with two settings [+pro-drop] or [-pro-drop] ([+pd]/[-pd]) (Adapted from Braidi, 1999: 63-64). Table 2.2 Parameter model of acquisition of pro-drop by SLA Full Access No Transfer L2 English input [-pd]. . L1 Chinese UG default [+pd]. . Set to [-pd]. . Reset parameter to [-pd]. Full Access Full Transfer L2 English input [-pd]. . L1 Chinese [+pd] UG. . L1 Chinese [+pd]. L1 transfer [+pd]. Partial access L2 English input [-pd]. L1 transfer [+pd]. Cannot reset without UG. No access L2 English input [-pd]. L1 Chinese & . general learning mechanisms. Variable success due to . reliance on general learning mechanisms. If L2 learners have a full access to UG, two possibilities will arise: Firstly, we would expect L1 and L2 developmental sequences to be identical; secondly, UG is accessible but learners initially transfer the setting of the L1, and the L1 still can be reset to the L2 parameter. If L2 learners have a partial access to UG, UG is accessible but only via the setting of the L1, and the L1 can only be reset to the L2 parameter by L1-based UG. If L2 learners have no access to UG, parameter resetting can not take place.. 2.3. Empirical Studies in L2 Acquisition on Null Subject Parameter The idea of a parameter with a cluster of associated properties has motivated a. lot of researchers to investigate null subjects in a L2A context. Among the studies focused on the resetting of the Null Subject Parameter by EFL learners, this section focuses on three areas of the Null Subject Parameter in child L1 and child and adult L2 acquisitional context. First of all, we will cover the various studies and theoretical 20.

(31) accounts involving the presence of null subjects and the setting of the null subject parameter in child L1A. Second, we will review the studies related to the issue of parameter setting in child L2A, with reference to that in child L1A. Finally, various studies that have been conducted related to the null subject parameter in adult L2A are discussed in turn in the third part.. 2.3.1. Child L1 Acquisition. One of the best known characteristics of early child speech is that young children frequently produce utterances with missing constituents regardless of pro-drop L1 children or non-pro-drop L1 children. For example, English L1 children may produce utterances like (23). (23) Throw it away Want go get it Outside cold Is toys in there. (Mommy throw it away) (I want take this off) (It’s cold outside) (There are toys in there) (Examples adopted from Hyams, 1989). One explanation for this phenomenon is through competence-based account that young children produce different grammar from adults. Some studies consider child use of null subjects as a realization of UG (Hyams, 1986, 1987a, 1989; Hayms & Wexler, 1993). Given that both Chinese and early child English lack agreement but allow subjectless sentences, Hyams (1986, 1987b, 1991) claims that all children start off with Chinese-type [+pro-drop] grammars. There are three characteristics which prove that the speech of early child English resembles Chinese: (1) lexical subjects are optional; (2) lexical expletives are absent; (3) the definite reference is associated with the missing subjects except in the case of null expletives. Assuming the validity of the MUP, Hyams (1992) proposed that children initially treat all languages as [+uniform], which leads to the licensing of null subjects in their early grammar. This 21.

(32) proposal entails several consequences (Lakshmanan, 1991, 1994): (i) (ii) (iii). Null subjects will occur in the initial stages. Either all or none of the verbs will be inflected initially. Once it is apparent that English is not uniform, null subjects will disappear.. Hyams (1986) further claimed that the resetting of their early stage grammar from incorrect [+null subject] value to the correct [-null subject] setting in English is as a result of the triggering data, expletive pronouns it and there, which are not found in null-subject languages. Later, based on the Economy of Projection hypothesis (Speas, 1994), Roeper and Rohrbacher (1995) also claim that the lack of agreement in L1 early grammar results in the lack of subjects. Another explanation for the missing pronouns in child L1 is through performance-based account. Several researchers argue that children’s lack of overt subjects has nothing to do with their knowledge or use of UG but as a result of the processing limitations, such as working memory capacity or a performance deficit (L. Bloom, 1970; P. Bloom, 1990, 1993; Valian, 1991; Valian & Eisenberg, 1996; Aronoff, 2003). While Boe (1996) stated that these potentially relevant role of performance factors ‘arguably fail to adequately consider issues related to the morphological richness of the language in question.’ Since children present such different syntactic patterns from adults in their L1A, a number of studies have investigated the patterns of null arguments in child L1A. It has been reported that children drop both subjects and objects; however, they frequently omit subjects but rarely omit objects. In Hyams and Wexler’s (1993) study, they found that English-speaking children showed more null subjects than null objects in their L1 acquisition (for example, null subject: 55% and null objects: 5% in Adam’s data), which was similar to the study of Wang et al. (1992). Wang et al. investigated both Chinese and English child L1A. They found that English-speaking children 22.

(33) dropped more subjects (25.89%) than objects (8.3%) and Chinese-speaking children showed the same pattern—subject-drop (55.73%) and object-drop (20.2%). They further reported that the use of null subjects between the two groups is not statistically significant, while the use of null objects differ significantly. The finding arouses a problem: if the early grammar of English children is the same with as that of Chinese children, English children should drop both subjects and objects (Wang et al., 1992). Hyams and Wexler (1993) gave an account that the rare use of topicalization in English makes English-speaking children incapable to move the object to the topic position and then drop it. Unlike Hyams and Wexler, Bloom (1990) dealt with this issue via pragmatic way. He claims that ‘since subjects characteristically convey “given” information whereas objects convey “new” information, the best way to cope with processing limitations while communicating successfully is to omit or reduce subjects, not objects’ (1990: 501).. 2.3.2. Child L2 Acquisition Unlike child L1A, child L2 learners are considered cognitively more mature,. which enables researchers to rule out the development of non-linguistic maturation factors such as memory capacity or perception (Gass & Ard, 1980; Lakshmanan, 1994). However, child L2A is similar to child L1A with regard to the learning process since they both ‘acquire the complex properties of grammar of the target language on the basis of input which is not sufficiently rich and precise’ (Lakshmanan, 1994). So whether child L2 learners have access to UG, like child L1 learners, is interesting to investigate. There are three possible answers to this question, which have been discussed earlier: Full Access, Partial Access, and No Access. Examining the three ways of access scenarios with regard to the MUP, Lakshmanan (1994) concludes several consequences in the L2A. Firstly, assuming 23.

(34) that the MUP is a UG principle, we would expect that EFL learners may go through the following stages, as the L1 learners may undergo, regardless of whether their L1 is [+uniform] or [-uniform]: (i). They will assume that English is morphologically uniform.. (ii) (iii) (iv). Inflection will be absent. There will be an initial period of null subjects. When present and past inflections emerge (i.e. when they realize that English is morphologically mixed), null subjects will be abandoned. (Lakshmanan, 1994: 60). Secondly, for the partial access scenario, there would be two conditions: (1) learners with a [+uniform] L1 will be expected to go through all the stages above; (2) learners with a [-uniform] L1 will be expected to transfer the setting of [-uniform] to English though they still need to figure out the specific verb paradigm in English. Compared with (1), learners in (2) will be expected to acquire the morphology of English much easier because they have the same background [-uniform] as English. Finally, if we turn to the no access scenario, we would expect the L2 learners to transfer their L1 setting to L2 regardless of whether their L1 is [+uniform] or [-uniform], and we would not relate the decreases of null subjects to the development of morphology. According to the predictions above, two studies tried to examine the developmental relationship between verbal inflection and the use of null subjects in child L2A, and to test the predictions of MUP version of Null Subject Parameter. Based on Hyams’ (1986, 1987b, 1991) claim for L1A that all children start off with Chinese-type [+pro-drop] grammars, Hilles (1991) has examined longitudinal transcribed production data of Spanish children of English. She found that the development of verbal inflections is highly related to the increase of overt subjects for 24.

(35) younger learners, which suggests that child L2A is guided by the MUP. This finding implies that child L2A follows the same pattern as child L1A. However, Lakshmanan’s (1991) duplication study of Hilles shows the opposite results. On investigating three French, Spanish, and Japanese child L2 learners of English, she found that the three child learners abandoned null subjects in their IL before acquiring verbal inflection. Her finding suggests that the development of verb inflections and the null subject phenomenon are unrelated. Seeing that the two studies presented the completely different results, Hyams and Safir (1991) attribute such variance to methodological inconsistenc since their ways of calculating the percentage of null subjects are different–Lakshmanan did not take the discourse factor into account when she analyzed her data3.. 2.3.3. Adult L2 Acquisition It is generally accepted that L2 adult learners, unlike L2 child learners, are not as. successful with respect to ultimate attainment of the target L2 (Krashen, Long and Scarcells, 1979; Felix, 1985; Johnson and Newport, 1989; Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991). Adults in L2A are also different from children in L1A in that adults’ native languages play a role in subsequent language learning (Flynn, 1996; Lakshmanan, 1994; Uziel, 1991). As a result, in recent L2A research within the framework of Principles and Parameters, the issue of whether adult L2 learners are guided by UG or influenced by L1 value of a parameter is still under debate. Some studies on L2A related to the resetting of the Null Subject Parameter have focused on the EFL learners of Spanish-type languages (Hilles, 1986; 1991; Tsimpli & Roussou, 1991);. 3. The criterion of Hilles’s (1991) calculation of the percentage of null subjects is listed as follows: X / X+Y (where X=number of instances of null subjects, and Y= numbers of cases where null subjects could have occurred in L1 but did not). However, Lakshmanan (1991) treated ‘Y’ in a different way: Y= numbers of cases where null subjects could have occurred but did not. 25.

(36) some studies have compared acquisition of English by speakers of [+pro-drop] languages with [-pro-drop] languages (White, 1985, 1986; Phinney, 1987; Register, 1990); still others have focused on the EFL learners of Chinese-type L1 (Chen, 1994a,b; Kong, 2005; Pan, 2008; Wen & Wu, 1997; Yuan, 1997; Zobl, 1992, 1994); finally, Platt (1989) focused on the [+pro-drop] languages with and without rich inflection. One way to verify parameter resetting is to investigate whether the cluster properties related to pro-drop parameter can be learned (Phinney, 1987; Tsimpli and Roussou, 1991; White, 1985, 1986). Both White (1985, 1986) and Phinney (1987) claim that L1 cluster initially transfers and is later reset to the target language value; however, Tsimpli and Roussou (1991) argue that parameter resetting is impossible but L1-based properties would be used in L2 data. White (1985, 1986) was one of the pioneers to investigate the L2 acquisition of the clustered properties associated with pro-drop by grammatical judgment (GJ) task to test Spanish/Italian ([+null subject]) and French ([-null subject]) learners of English three properties: missing subjects, subject-verb inversion, and that-trace effects (cf. Chomsky’s 1981 and Rizzi’s 1982 Null Subject Parameter). The results show that both groups performed similarly on the sentence testing subject-verb inversion (both correctly rejected) and that-trace effects (both incorrectly accepted), but the French group performed more successfully than the Spanish/Italian group in rejecting the sentences with missing subjects. In her 1985 study, she further indicated that the tendency of accepting null subjects by the Spanish group decreases with proficiency. Though the lower-level learners in both groups performed especially worse at null expletive pronouns than null referential pronouns, their ability of unlearning null expletive pronouns also shows a gradual improvement. In addition to the GJ task, she also administered a 21-item question formation task designed to examine that-trace 26.

(37) effects. Both groups produced ungrammatical that-trace sequences; however, the Spanish/Italian group produced more that-trace errors (71%) than the French group (42%).. White. concluded. that. these. results. serve. as. evidence. for. the. parameter-resetting model of UG and further suggested that the loss of the transferred L1 properties (subject-verb inversion) may not be related to the Null Subject Parameter at all. Later, Phinney (1987) analyzed the free composition data written by both Spanish learners of English and English learners of Spanish. Following Hyams (1983, 1986), she assumed that the [+null subject] parameter value represents the unmarked setting since it is considered as the initial value of children in acquiring their L1. So her hypothesis is that acquiring English overt subject is more difficult for Spanish L2 learners than the reverse situation. In the data of the Spanish learners of English, she found that expletive pronouns (it/there) were omitted more frequently than referential subjects by more advanced learners. Moreover, referential subjects were missing from both conjoined and embedded clauses but not from sentence-initial position. As for English learners of Spanish, they performed in high accordance with the parameter of L2 Spanish. These findings show that resetting the value from unmarked to marked is difficult and may take a long time. However, unlike White (1985, 1986), Phinney only focused on the missing subject property of parameter without revealing the entire cluster of features associated with the Null Subject Parameter. Therefore, both her conclusions of L1 transfer and parameter resetting remain uncertain. Tsimpli and Roussou (1991) assume that “invariant UG principles remain accessible, but that parameter resetting is impossible (borrowed from Sauter, 2002: 31),” which implies the consent to partial access position. Their study, through GJ task and translation task prohibited by six intermediate and seven post-intermediate Greek learners, also investigated the three properties as tested in White’s study. They 27.

(38) found that all learners performed target-like on the referential subject part, but nearly 80% of the learners allowed null expletive subjects. This distinction between referential subjects and expletive pronouns shows a similar pattern to White’s and Phinney’s findings with Spanish learners. Furthermore, 95% of the responses allowed ungrammatical that-trace consequences, but also 95% accepted grammatical null complementizer sentences. It implies that Greek learners assumed that to be optional in English, unlike in Greek, where it is obligatory. However, similar to White’s finding, they found that all the learners rejected VS orders, and correctly translated Greek VS order into SV order as English demands. Tsimpli and Roussou argued that the results do reflect that Greek [+null subject] value is transferred and is not reset to the English [-null subject] value. The success of recognizing referential subjects and SV order results from misanalyzing English subject pronouns as agreement markers4. They claim that “beyond a certain age L2 speakers cannot reset parameters associated with functional categories whose values differ between the L1 and the L2” (Hawkins, 2001: 206). Apart from a great deal of research on the clustered properties of null subject parameter, many studies argue that auxiliary verbs and expletive pronouns can be treated as triggers to reset the parameter of L1 value to L2 value. Hilles (1986) adopted Hyams’ version of pro-drop parameter to investigate the longitudinal data from a 12-year-old Spanish learners of English. She found a developmental correlation between the decrease of missing subjects and target-like use of auxiliary verbs. As a result, she concluded that the L1 transfers initially and then IL resets to the 4. (borrowed from Hawkins, 2001:206) IP NP I’ I VP V’ V PP proi hei-livej. tj. with this mother 28.

(39) target-like parameter. She further discovered that the acquisition of expletive pronouns can act as a trigger for parameter resetting. This evidence shows that there is a similar pattern of language acquisition of null-subject characteristics between L1A and adult L2A. However, the findings in Hilles’ study show inconsistency with those in White’s (1985, 1986) and Phinney’s (1987) for two parts. Firstly, Hilles takes auxiliaries as part of the cluster while White and Phinney don’t. Secondly, in both studies of White and Phinney, the acquisition of expletives falls behind that of referential subjects and thus cannot be the reason of resetting to the parameter to the [-null subject] value. Similar to Hilles’ study, Platt (1993) also focused mainly on the developmental sequences of NP and AUX variables to test the validity of the parameter-resetting model for L2A. She administered a 96-item GJ task to analyze a cross-sectional data from Spanish and Vietnamese learners of English. Vietnamese, like Chinese-type languages, is a [+null subject] language without rich inflection. She found that Vietnamese learners, compared with Spanish learners, had less difficulty in resetting the parameter concerning auxiliaries. Platt further argues that AGR is a factor to hinder the parameter resetting in L2A since Spanish learners of English may initially consider English as a language with rich agreement and once they find that “null pronominals are not identified and expletives are not licensed do Spanish speakers acquire full knowledge of the English obligatory subject” (1993: 130). However, “the Vietnamese learners, without a strong identification requirement in L1, realize early that English requires identification of subjects (Platt, 1993: 128).” Register (1990), comparing Spanish learners of English with Chinese learners of English, also found that Spanish learners had more difficulty in resetting the null subject parameter than did the Chinese learners. Similar to the finding of Platt (1993), she suggests that rich inflection in Spanish-type languages can block the parameter resetting. Later, Yuan (1997) investigated the pro-drop phenomenon in Chinese 29.

(40) learners of English by the GJ task. He also found that Chinese learners abandoned null subjects when they learned that in English the features of the verbal inflection are specified and weak. He suggested that Chinese learners first transferred the value of [+null subject] into English but could reset the parameter based on the positive evidence from English. Against Yuan’s (1997) assumption of parameter resetting in L2A, Kong (2005) examined three groups of EFL learners of Chinese with different levels of proficiency via three tasks: two error detection tasks and one cloze test. He found that all Chinese learners showed no significant difference in detecting S-V agreement errors, and that they were significantly worse at detecting ungrammatical embedded subjects than ungrammatical matrix subjects. The findings overthrew the assumption that S-V agreement features are triggers for the unlearning null subjects by Chinese learners since if all the learners did perform well on agreement features, they could have detected the null subjects equally in matrix and embedded clauses. After reviewing the L2A studies on EFL learners from Spanish-type L1 languages, we come to the EFL learners of Chinese-type L1 languages. Hawkins (2001), following several studies of Chinese learners in the L2A of overt subjects in English, addresses that Chinese learners appear to be aware of the overt subjects in English from the earliest stage of acquisition. In Fuller and Gundel’s (1987) investigation of the EFL learners of Chinese/Japanese/Korean in retelling a silent film in English, they found that the null pronouns occurred only in the object but not in the subject positions. Zobl (1994), adopting GJ task to investigate non-Chinese and Chinese learners of English, found that null subjects were easier to be discovered than null objects by Chinese learners but not in non-Chinese learners. Later, Yuan (1997) examined the unlearning of null subjects and null objects by Chinese speakers of L2 English. He used the GJ task to see if subjects accept the ungrammaticality of sentences with null arguments. Surprisingly, he also found that Chinese learners had 30.

(41) difficulty in detecting the ungrammaticality of the English sentences with null objects but not with null subjects, consistent with the findings of Zobl’s (1994). This asymmetry proved that there is no parallelism between L1 and L2 development as claimed by Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994), which suggests the L1 transfer in SLA. Yuan assumed that the high acceptability of null objects by Chinese learners results from the absence of necessary positive evidence. Since Chinese is a [+topic-drop] language, the learners transferred this property by moving the objects to the topic position and then deleted them by Topic NP Deletion Rule (Huang, 1984). This shows that L1 transfer still plays an important role in L2A. Kong (2005) also found that “there is a clear difference in ability to detect both matrix null subjects and objects with proficiency (2005: 242).” His account for this result disapproves of Yuan’s (1997) assumption that parameter resetting is triggered by agreement features, as shown in the words by Kong: …the development of those properties in which the advanced speakers are successful appears typically to be gradual, making it more likely that speakers develop “strategies” for English; e.g. they notice that matrix objects are typically overt and that verbs typically carry agreement and tense inflections. But their use of these is not derived from knowledge of the functional properties of agreement and tensed features in English (Kong, 2005: 256). Arguing against Yuan’s (1997) assumption of full transfer and full access to UG in L2A, Kong (2005) assumed that UG is only partially accessible and hence the parameter resetting is impossible, in conformity with the view of Tsimpli and Roussou (1991).. In addition to subject-object asymmetry, Ou (1998), investigating the pro-drop parameter with the GJ task and the guided translation task on both adult English learners of Chinese and Chinese learners of English, found Chinese-speaking learners. 31.

(42) performed better on non-referential pronouns than on referential pronouns in both tasks. This is similar to the Yuan’s (1997) finding, in which his subjects have realized the function of expletive pronoun it in English, namely English requires the use of the expletive it in the types of sentences being tested. However, against Hyam’s (1986) assumption that expletives trigger the resetting of the pro-drop parameter from [+pro-drop] to [-pro-drop] in L1A of English, he claimed expletives have very limited triggering effects for two reasons: firstly, no identification requirement is assumed for null expletives; secondly, expletives as whether predicates in Chinese can optionally have thematic subjects. Moreover, Wen & Wu (1997), investigating Taiwanese junior high students in their L2 acquisition of English with the GJ task and the translation task, found that different clausal structures of the tasks might bring about different error percentages. For example, Chinese learners had more difficulty in judging the null pronouns in the embedded clauses than mono-clauses and than subordinate clauses (if, when, and because). They also found that Chinese learners performed better on expletive pronouns than on referential pronouns, which they attribute this phenomenon to the repeated emphasis and practice on the pattern of expletive sentences in structured classroom environments. Finally, the learners show higher error percentage on translation task than on GJ task.. 32.

(43) CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY. 3.1. Motivation of the Study Several issues are left unanswered in the literature. The first issue concerns the. degrees of null subjects and null objects in different positions. It has been largely reported that null objects are more difficult to be detected than null subjects in L2 acquisition of English. In Yuan’s (1997) study, he tested null arguments in both matrix and embedded sentences but the results show little distinction of the difficulty of judgment between the matrix and embedded clauses. However, according to Wen and Wu (1997), the detecting difficulty of null arguments may be varied by different clausal structures. For example, null pronouns in embedded clauses are more difficult to be judged in matrix clauses. Furthermore, Kimura (1991), adopting the GJ task to investigate the extend to which null subjects were transferred to English by the speakers of Japanese, also found that the learners had more difficulty with missing subjects in subordinate clauses, though no explanation is given for this finding. Since the positions where the null arguments occur may affect the judgment, this study adopted two sentence structures with null arguments as in Yuan’s study: matrix and embedded clauses. Moreover, we also adopted the factor (animate/inanimate) as in Yuan’s study to test the two sentence structures. Although Yuan found that this factor did not seem to affect the learners’ judgments, we still add this factor in our study to be compared with that in his study. Secondly, non-referential pronouns are performed better than referential pronouns by EFL Chinese learners (Ou, 1998; Wen & Wu, 1997; Yuan, 1997). But few studies have discussed if different types of expletive pronouns will influence the 33.