4-557 Lecture 5

The Nominal Phrase

Hawkins (2001), Ch. 6

English articles: the, a

and
Why assume a article?
(1)
a. Ive had enough sardines.
b. Ive had enough ouzo.
c. *Ive had enough sardine.
(2)
a. I love sardines.
b. I love ouzo.
c. *I love sardine.

Like the determinerenough, can select as its

complement a plural count noun and a mass
noun but not a singular count noun.

Features relevant for the

distribution of articles: count,
singular , mass

The distribution and

interpretation of English
articles

Features relevant for the distribution of articles:

count, singular , mass (see p. 233, Table 6.1)
Bickerton (1981) suggests that these differences
can be captured in terms of two binary features:
Whether the article and associated NP:
refer to a specific entity
[+/- specific referent]
are already known, from the previous discourse
or from context, to the hearer/reader
[+/- hearer knowledge]

[ Specific Referent], [ Hearer

Knowledge]
1.
2.

I met an interesting man

I have contacts

[+SR HK]

[-SR HK]

4.

I should buy a new car

She wants to write books.

5.
6.
7.

A paper clip comes in handy .

The lion is a fierce animal.
Cockroaches are disgusting.

[-SR +HK]

8.

The moon will be full tomorrow.

John bought the apples.

[+SR +HK]

3.

9.

To sum up
+ SR

-SR

- HK

a/

a/

+ HK

the

the/a/
(generic)

L2A of English articles

Study 1: Parrish (1987)

a 19 year-old Japanese in US for 3 weeks

when data collection began
6 yrs classroom instruction in Japan,
beginning level
data collection every 10 days for 4
months
structured interactions (storytelling &
description of a place)
Japanese has no articles

Parrishs (1987) results

(see Table 6.3, p. 237 in
Hawkins)

Use of : 52.3%
*THE in [+SR -HK] contexts: 9.4%
* in [+SR, +HK] contexts : 32.1%
Accurate use in obligatory contexts:

A 19% (6/32), THE 74% (37/50), 92 (12/13)

was used mostly incorrectly. A was never

used in contexts where THE or is required
by NSs

Study 2: Huebner (1985)

L1 Hmong speaker living in US.

Method: free conversations every
3 weeks for the first year. A
follow-up study was conducted 20
months later.
Hmong has no articles.

Huebners (1985) results

(for total results, see Table 6.4, pp.

239)

Contrast between da (a phonological

approximation to native the) and
no contrast between da and a.
After 6 weeks, da flooded all
contexts.
Week 21, drop da from [-SR -HK]
Week 27, drop da from [+SR -HK]
20 months later, a began to appear in
the [+SR -HK]

Study 3:
Klein & Perdu (1992)
Two Punjabi speakers in the UK, one for 13 and
the other for 20 months.
Little instruction in English prior to that period.
Punjabi has no articles.

Results:
one of the participants: no definite article
the other: used bare N most frequently

The Punjabi speakers had less exposure to English

than Huebners and Parishs participants and
demonstrated an articless stage more clearly.

More studies

Studies in L2 English articles involving

Japanese and Chinese learners (Hakuta
1976, Chaudron & Parker 1990,
Robertson 2000) yielded similar results.
So did Andersens (1978) cross-sectional
study with Spanish learners. Andersen
also found that learners were the least
accurate in possessive s
These studies indicate that the properties
of articles are acquired incrementally.

Andersen (1978), Parrish (1987), &

Huebner (1985)
(bare NP)
Specificity in the NP (the/da)
Hearer knowledge in the NP (a/)
Possessive s

Does this pattern of

development
reflect incremental
building of a
mental grammar?

Theoretical background

Traditionally, a phrase like the students is

called a noun phrase and written as NP.
In more recent analyses, it is held that the
most important element in the NP is not the
noun, but the determiner.
Thus it is postulated that the topmost
category of the noun phrase is the maximal
projection of the determiner (D), the
Determiner Phrase (DP), and that the NP is
the complement of D.

The Determiner Phrase (DP)

Hypothesis (Abney
1987)
(
DP
All

N extends to DP as
V extends to IP.
D

DNP

The DP layer is
assumed to project also
in languages without
overt articles. (although
not by everyone)

cleve
r
N
girls

Now, consider the 2

possessive structures
(1) the doctors house
(2) the house of the doctor
Both in (1) and (2) doctor has the
thematic role of the Possessor, so it is
assumed to originate in the same
syntactic position in both structures.
How does the possessor doctor get
case?

Of-possessive
DP
D
DNP
The
NP
hous
e

N
PP
P
of

case assignment

DP
the doctor

s-possessive
DP

D
the

D
P

D
NP
doctor

Raises to Spec, DP,

where it gets
genitive case
from /-'s/

NP

N
N
hous
e

DP
tK

Hawkins (p. 241): Clauses are

headed by a D operator which binds
the D morphemes in the clause.

[DOI [IP I saw DI / DK spider(s) on the wall]]

If a determiner is not co-indexed with the DOperator its interpretation will be unknown
referent, and a/ will be selected.

If a determiner is co-indexed with the DOperator its interpretation will be known

referent, and a number of determiners will
be possible: the; a/ in their generic use;
this/that; and others.

Back to the L2 data

based on Andersen (1978), Parrish (1987) & Huebner

(1985)

(bare NP)

Specificity in the NP
(marked by the/da)
Hearer knowledge in
the NP (marked by
a/ )

Possessive s

b)

a)

What assumptions
can be made about
the building of mental
grammars regarding
L2 English NPs?
Think of the following:
specification
restrictions regarding
complement selection
local vs. non-local
relations

Grammar-building in L2 English
DPs based on Andersen (1978), Parrish (1987) &
Huebner (1985)
(bare NP)

NP (lexical projection)

Specificity in the NP
(marked by the/da)

D (head-complement
local selection)

Hearer knowledge in the

NP (marked by a / )
Possessive s

non-local D-Op
relation
Spec-Head relation

L1 Influence in L2 English
DPs
(Hawkins
6.4.2)
Wakabayashi (1997)

Plural marking and the indefinite article in L2

English cluster together. D (and plural number
marking) are obligatory in Spanish, optional in
Japanese.
Spanish speakers performed better judging
sentences involving these properties than
Japanese speakers.
Makino (1980), Shirahata (1988)
Japanese speakers were more accurate than
Spanish speakers on possessive s. Japanese has
a similar construction, Spanish does not.

L1 Influence and the functional

category Num(ber) (6.4.2)

A further
functional
projection has
been suggested
between D and N,
that of Num(ber),
to which number
morphemes (i.e.
[singular])
belong.
Num projects into
Num and NumP

An argument in favor of the functional

category Num is cross-linguistic
differences with respect to NounAdjective order

1.
2.

In e.g. French, where adjectives may

occur after the noun, it is assumed that
Num is [+strong] and that the Noun raises
to Num to get the number morpheme.
In e.g. English, where Num is weak,
number morphemes lower from Num to N.
Example:
The round tables
Les tables rondes

A-N order in French and English

English: [
[ strong] Num
French: [+strong] Num

Parodi et al. (1997)

(Hawkins, 6.5).

Participants: Korean, Turkish and

Spanish learners of German
Method: cross-sectional and longitudinal
data from informal interviews
German DPs
(1) Das interessant-e Buch
The interesting book
(2) Die interessant-en Buch-er
The interesting books

Comparison between learners

L1 and L2 German in DP
properties
Korean Turkish
Articles
No
No
Obligator No
Yes if
y
there is
Number
no
inflection
numeral

Spanish German
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Adjective Yes
s
(usually)
before N

No

Yes

Yes

Main observations from results

(cf. Table 6.5 in Hawkins, p.
251)

The 2 Spanish omit fewer Ds than Koreans.

Even advanced Koreans supply only about
50% of required Ds.
The Spanish the best at plural marking
Koreans the worst.
Of the 3 Turkish, only the one with the lowest
exposure to German has problems with plural
marking.
Only 1 of the 2 Spanish (the one with the
lowest exposure to German) produced N-A
order.

What about advanced

learners?

L1 effects on fossilization/ultimate
attainment regarding L2 determiners.
Research Question: Does variability in
suppliance of plural marking and
determiners indicate a grammatical
deficit? Are learners restricted to L1
categories and features?

Robertson (2000): Advanced

Taiwanese and Mandarin learners of

English
Production data from a problem-solving

task
Results
Suppliance of articles round 80% (range:
67.5% to 97%)
Mostly omission rather misuse of articles
Suppliance of articles in obligatory
contexts: Definite 83.2%, Indefinite 77.9%
Echo contexts (speaker repeating previous
utterance) resulted in a much higher
omission of articles.

White (2003): L1 Turkish speaker, in

Canada for 10 years. Proficient
speaker of L2 English

Interviewed 5 times, with an 18 month gap

between interviews 4 and 5. Production data
& various other tasks.
Results

Whites (2003) results

No evidence that the was used to encode
specificity rather than definiteness.
More problems in production than in the other
tasks
According to White, her study and Robertsons
indicate that learners whose L1 lacks articles
eventually acquire L2 articles, implicating the
functional category D, together with the
associated feature definite. Variability in
suppliance of plural marking and determiners
does not indicate a grammatical deficit.
Not everybody agrees with Whites view.

Tsimpli (2003): L2 Greek

articles

6 Russian/Turkish adult bilinguals with 8-9

years of natural exposure to Greek. First
exposure to Greek at adult age. Turkish &
Russian lack article system.
Method: Oral interviews
Results

Tsimpli 2003
Examples:
1.
*() *()
*()
2.
*()
.
In Greek, the definite article is harder to
acquire than the indefinite article. We
saw that the opposite holds in English.
Why?

First, some background about

the language faculty in

minimalism

In the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), there are

[+interpretable] and [interpretable] features.
The former have semantic content, e.g. [+/-animate],
while the latter do not, but are used for grammatical
operations, e.g. [+/-accusative].

Also, a feature such as, e.g. [number] is

[+interpretable] on nouns, while the same feature
marked on verbs through inflection is [
interpretable], since it merely indicates an
agreement relation. Also, [gender] is [+interpretable]
for nouns, but [interpretable] for adjectives.

And some more

LEXICO
N
Computation
al
System (CS)
PHONETIC
FORM

SPELL-OUT

LOGICAL
FORM

CS links the lexicon

with the Logical Form
(LF), and with the
Phonetic Form (PF).
[interpretable]
features must be
checked and
deleted before SpellOut. They should not
reach LF.
[interpretable]
features are not
legitimate at LF.

Another illustration

pronounce
Lexicon

Merge
Computational
System

interpret

Tsimplis account:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

In Greek, unlike in English, the definite (but not the

indefinite) is semantically empty; it carries out
purely grammatical operations - does not convey
definiteness or specificity to its complement.

.
.
.
.
.
In Greek, a demonstrative may precede the article.
(cf. *This the man)

Tsimpli & Stavrakaki

(1999):

In Greek the [+/-definiteness] feature is

carried by a Def(inite) node dominating D.
Def hosts demonstrative pronouns and the
indefinite article.
The D node hosts the definite article whose
role is to carry case and phi- (number and
gender) agreement features.
These features on determiners are
considered [-interpretable] at LF (=Logical
Form). Number and gender are assumed to
be [+interpretable] at LF only on nouns.
Case is generally [-interpretable].

Tsimpli & Stavrakaki (1999):

DefP

phi- : number and

gender agreement
features

DP

Def [+/-def]
/

D [case]/[phi-]

N(P)

Tsimplis
Interpretability
Hypothesis

Parameter resetting is impossible in

adult L2A if it concerns features of
functional categories, which are [interpretable] at LF.
Hence the difference between the
definite and the indefinite article in the
L2A of Greek.

References (not found in Hawkins)

Robertson, D. (2000). Variability in the use of the English

article system by Chinese learners of English. Second
Language Research, 16(2): 135-172.
Tsimpli, I. M. (2003). Clitics and Determiners in L2 Greek
2003). In J. M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (eds.)
Proceedings of the 2002 Generative Approaches to Second
Language Acquisition (GASLA) Conference , 331-339.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Downloadable from
http://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/6/paper1057.pdf
Tsimpli, I.M. & S. Stavrakaki (1999). The effects of a
morphosyntactic deficit in the determiner system: the case
of a Greek SLI child. Lingua 108: 31-85.
White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars:
Persistent problems with inflectional morphology.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , 6(2): 129-141.