1. Introduction. 2. C in Spanish. In Spanish, unlike English, omission of the complementizer que is not possible.

Transcription

1 Complementizer asymmetry in Spanish-English code-switching * Brad Hoot, University of Illinois at Chicago bhoot1@uic.edu UIC Bilingualism Forum 2011 University of Illinois at Chicago April 14-15, Introduction In embedded declaratives, English displays an asymmetry in the realization of the complementizer (C) known as the that-trace effect, which has received much study since being pointed out by Perlmutter (1971). (1) The that-trace effect a. Who do you think Sue met? b. Who do you think that Sue met? c. Who do you think met Sue? d. *Who do you think that met Sue? Numerous explanations of this phenomenon have been offered under Government and Binding theory (Kayne 1984, Rizzi 1990, Pesetsky 1982, inter alia) and, more recently, in the Minimalist program (Bošković 2011, Ishii 2004, Lohndal 2009, Mizuguchi 2008, Pestsky & Torrego 2001, Roussou 2002, inter alia). The purpose of this presentation is to test one of these more recent proposals (Pesetsky & Torrego 2001) using data from Spanish-English code-switching. 2. C in Spanish In Spanish, unlike English, omission of the complementizer que is not possible. (2) Spanish embedded declaratives a. Qué crees que compró Sue? what believe.2 nd C bought Sue What do you think (that) Sue bought? b. * Qué crees compró Sue? what believe.2 nd bought Sue c. Quién crees que compró el libro? who believe.2 nd C bought the book Who do you think bought the book? d. * Quién crees compró el libro? who believe.2 nd bought the book * Special thanks to the members of UIC s Bilingualism Research Laboratory for valuable feedback on this work. In particular, thanks to Shane Ebert and Bryan Koronkiewicz for their help collecting this data. 1

2 Because clausal complementation behaves differently in Spanish and English, we may be able to gain insight into this phenomenon by considering data from code-switching. 3. Code-switching Assumptions: The behavior of code-switched utterances will be due to the feature specifications of the lexical items in the derivation (MacSwan 1999, 2000, 2005; González-Vilbazo & López 2011). No switch sites are disallowed a priori; there are no code-switching-specific rules. Code-switchers have access to both lexicons; i.e., they have both English C (C Eng ) and Spanish C (C Sp ). Because Pesetsky & Torrego make claims about the feature specification of C, we can test these claims in a way that is unavailable in monolingual speech by observing the behavior of C in code-switching. 4. Pesetsky & Torrego (2001) The difference between questions with embedded declaratives that extract a wh-object (optional that) and those that extract a wh-subject (*that) is due to economy considerations and due to how C values its unvalued features. C needs two features valued: ut and uwh. 2

3 With wh-objects, there are two options, both of which involve two movements, one to value ut and one to value uwh. Option 1: To value ut, the subject (which has nominative Case, which is a T feature), moves to Spec,C, and then the wh-object moves to value uwh. (3) Wh-object, no that This yields (1a): Who do you think Sue met? Option 2: To value ut, an instance of T itself adjoins to C, and then the wh-object moves to value uwh. The instance of T in C is phonetically realized as that. (4) Wh-object, C realized as that This yields (1b): Who do you think that Sue met? 3

4 With wh-subjects, though, the same two options are not available. Since both ut and uwh on C can be valued with a single movement of the wh-subject, the alternative is ruled out by economy considerations. Option 1: The wh-subject moves to Spec,C, simultaneously valuing both ut and uwh. (5) Wh-subject This yields (1c): Who do you think met Sue? Option 2 (ruled out by economy): T adjoins to C to value ut, then the wh-subject moves to Spec,C to value uwh. In this case, T in C would be realized as that, but, since this option requires two movements compared to one, it is not available. (6) Wh-subject, ruled out by economy This would yield (1d): *Who do you think that met Sue? 4

5 To sum up: English that is not a true complementizer at all, but an instance of T raised to C. It can optionally appear in wh-object questions because in these questions there are two equally economic ways of valuing the features of C. That cannot appear in wh-subject questions because raising T to C is unnecessary when simply raising the subject can value both of C's features. What about Spanish? Pesetsky and Torrego argue that Spanish que is in fact a true complementizer, not an instance of T in C. Further, because of the subject-verb inversion they observe in embedded declaratives (2a), they argue that in Spanish, T adjoins to C, bringing the finite verb along. (7) Spanish derivation This yields (2a) or (2c): (2) Spanish embedded declaratives a. Qué crees que compró Sue? what believe.2 nd C bought Sue What do you think (that) Sue bought? c. Quién crees que compró el libro? who believe.2 nd C bought the book Who do you think bought the book? López (p.c.) notes that (2a) and (2c) have alternative realizations in which the subject and verb in the embedded clause are not inverted, i.e. Qué crees que Sue compró? Nonetheless, since the purpose of this presentation is to test the specific claims of Pesetsky and Torrego, I limit myself to their data for the moment. Spanish que, then, has the same feature specification as English C (ut, uwh). It differs from English C, though, in that (i) it is always realized as que, (ii) its features are always valued by right-adjunction of T, and, because of this, (iii) there is no asymmetry between subject and object extraction. 5

6 5. Predictions Because this entire approach hinges on the way that C gets its features valued, the general prediction is that the behavior of the embedded clause will be determined by C. The language of the matrix clause should play no role. Thus, when C Eng is present in the derivation, for wh-objects, either null C or that will be possible. For wh-subjects, only null C Eng will be possible. When C Sp is present in the derivation, it will always be realized as que for both wh-objects and whsubjects. Table 1. Predictions: Wh-object, null C Eng Object Eng Eng Null Span SV What did John say el jefe compró? Object Eng Eng Null Span VS What did John say compró el jefe? Object Span Eng Null Eng SV Qué dijo Juan the boss bought? Table 2. Predictions: Wh-object, overt C Eng (that) Object Eng Eng That Span SV What did John say that el jefe compró? Object Eng Eng That Span VS What did John say that compró el jefe? Object Span Eng That Eng SV Qué dijo Juan that the boss bought? Table 3. Predictions: Wh-object, C Sp (que) Object Eng Span Que Span SV What did John say que el jefe compró? Object Eng Span Que Span VS What did John say que compró el jefe? Object Span Span Que Eng SV Qué dijo Juan que the boss bought? 6

7 Table 4. Predictions: Wh-subject, null C Eng Subject Eng Eng Null Span VO Who did John say compró el libro? Subject Span Eng Null Eng VO Quién dijo Juan bought the book? Table 5. Predictions: Wh-subject, overt C Eng (that) Subject Eng Eng That Span VO Who did John say that compró el libro? Subject Span Eng That Eng VO Quién dijo Juan that bought the book? Table 6. Predictions: Wh-subject, C Sp (que) Subject Eng Span Que Span VO Who did John say que compró el libro? Subject Span Span Que Eng VO Quién dijo Juan que bought the book? 6. Methods 6.1. Participants Nine highly proficient Spanish/English bilinguals Age (mean: 21.8) 8 female, 1 male No significant cognitive or linguistic impairments University education 6.2. Materials Grammaticality judgment task 15 structures 4 lexicalizations = 60 stimuli (Plus an additional 6 structures 4 lexicalizations = 24 stimuli which tested clausal complementation in declarative sentences, not reported on here.) 362 distracters (part of a larger code-switching experiment) 7

8 6.3. Procedure Monolingual GJT-training task Written GJT Five-point Likert scale Carried out in the Bilingualism Research Lab at UIC Each participant gave 4 judgments for each structure, thus each structure got 36 judgments, for a total of 540 judgments. 7. Results First, a note on the data. There is significant variability in the data, both within and across participants, as you'll note from the large standard deviation for every item. This may be an artifact of the task, or it may be that these judgments are subtle and difficult for the linguistically naïve. In order to draw conservative conclusions, I consider only the extremes of the range of responses, reserving judgment on the middle ground. I identified the extremes using a one-way ANOVA with the independent variable of item type and the dependent variable of rating, along with a Tukey post-hoc test. I take the highest-rated homogeneous subset identified by the Tukey test to be "good" and the lowest-rated homogeneous subset to be "bad." In practical terms, that means that a mean rating of greater than 3.72 counts as "good" and a mean rating of less than 3 counts as "bad." Table 7. Example sentences by classification and rating Classification Mean Rating Example 4.28 What did John say que el jefe compró? 4.08 Qué dijo Juan that the boss bought? 4.06 What did John say que compró el jefe? "Good" 4.03 Who did John say compró el libro? 3.83 What did John say el jefe compró? 3.78 Who did John say que compró el libro? 3.72 Qué dijo Juan que the boss bought? 3.33 What did John say that el jefe compró? Unclear 3.31 Who did John say that compró el libro? 3.25 What did John say compró el jefe? 2.97 Quién dijo Juan bought the book? 2.86 Qué dijo Juan the boss bought? "Bad" 2.44 Quién dijo Juan que bought the book? 2.17 Quién dijo Juan that bought the book? 2.11 What did John say that compró el jefe? 8

9 Summary: Of 15 predictions 8 borne out. 3 unclear. 4 not confirmed. Table 8. Results: Wh-object, null C Eng Object Eng Eng Null Span SV What did John say el jefe compró? Object Eng Eng Null Span VS? What did John say compró el jefe? Object Span Eng Null Eng SV Qué dijo Juan the boss bought? Table 9. Results: Wh-object, overt C Eng (that) Object Eng Eng That Span SV? What did John say that el jefe compró? Object Eng Eng That Span VS What did John say that compró el jefe? Object Span Eng That Eng SV Qué dijo Juan that the boss bought? Table 10. Results: Wh-object, C Sp (que) Object Eng Span Que Span SV What did John say que el jefe compró? Object Eng Span Que Span VS What did John say que compró el jefe? Object Span Span Que Eng SV Qué dijo Juan que the boss bought? 9

10 Table 11. Results: Wh-subject, null C Eng Subject Eng Eng Null Span VO Who did John say compró el libro? Subject Span Eng Null Eng VO Quién dijo Juan bought the book? Table 12. Results: Wh-subject, overt C Eng (that) Subject Eng Eng That Span VO? Who did John say that compró el libro? Subject Span Eng That Eng VO Quién dijo Juan that bought the book? Table 13. Results: Wh-subject, C Sp (que) Subject Eng Span Que Span VO Who did John say que compró el libro? Subject Span Span Que Eng VO Quién dijo Juan que bought the book? Table 14. Curious Cases Object Eng Span Que Span SV What did John say que el jefe compró? Object Span Eng Null Eng SV Qué dijo Juan the boss bought? Subject Span Eng Null Eng VO Quién dijo Juan bought the book? Subject Span Span Que Eng VO Quién dijo Juan que bought the book? 10

11 8. Discussion The majority of predictions were borne out. Of the curious cases which go against the predictions, three were predicted to be good and received low ratings, while one was predicted to be bad and received a high rating. The high rating of first case in Table 14 could be explained if subject-verb inversion is not actually required by Spanish C. The low rating of the third case in Table 14 may be due to independent factors, in that it is possible that the participants understood this sentence as Who said that Juan bought the book? rather than its intended reading of Who did Juan say bought the book? It may be worth noting that all of the wh-subject examples with a Spanish matrix clause and English lower clause, regardless of C, were rated low. This may indicate that some features of the matrix clause play a role, contrary to our predictions. It is further worth noting that several examples of switching between C and T are clearly accepted by these speakers, contrary to the idea that switches between C and T are impossible. Though this data provides tentative support for Pesetsky and Torrego (2001), in that most of the predictions were confirmed, more research is clearly needed, and efforts to expand the database are currently underway. References Bošković, Željko Rescure by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the that-trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry 42(1): González-Vilbazo, Kay, and López, Luis Some properties of light verbs in code-switching. Lingua 121(5): Ishii, Toru The Phase Impenetrability Condition, the vacuous movement hypothesis, and that-t effects. Lingua 114: Kayne, Richard Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Lohndal, Terje Comp-t effects: Variation in the position and features of C. Studia Linguistica 63: MacSwan, Jeff A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Code Switching. New York: Garland. MacSwan, Jeff The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from intrasentential code switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(1): MacSwan, Jeff Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on modified minimalism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8(1): Mizuguchi, Manabu Derivation, minimalism and that-trace effects. English Linguistics 25: Pesetsky, David Complementizer-trace phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition. The Linguistic Review 1(3): Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Perlmutter, David Deep and surface constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Rizzi, Luigi Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Roussou, Anna C, T, and the subject: That-t phenomena revisited. Lingua 112: