THE ACQUISITION OF PREPOSITIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED CASE-MARKING PROPERTIES IN THE L2 GERMAN OF L1 ENGLISH SPEAKERS

Transcription

1 THE ACQUISITION OF PREPOSITIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED CASE-MARKING PROPERTIES IN THE L2 GERMAN OF L1 ENGLISH SPEAKERS JAMES HAWTHORNE Abstract Native speakers of English learning L2 German face a complex learning problem in acquiring locational and directional prepositional constructions such as Das Buch liegt auf dem Tisch /The book is on the table, Er legte das Buch auf den Tisch /He put the book on the table, Das Bild hängt an der Wand /The picture is hanging on the wall, Er hängte das Bild an die Wand /He hung the picture on the wall. In this paper the author argues that this is because the two languages differ lexically in the way they represent spatial orientation and functionally in the way they represent direction: through the preposition (English) or through case-marking (German). Within the generative grammar framework, lexical and functional properties have been central to much research into second language acquisition (see, among others, Eubank (1994), Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996), Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994, 1996a, 1996b) and Hawkins (2001)). The present study tested the knowledge of the prepositional and associated casemarking properties in 30 native English speaking learners of second language German at 3 proficiency levels, compared to 10 native controls, using a forced elicitation task and a quasiproduction task. Results show that, although learners follow an incremental development path in their acquisition of both preposition and case, lexical properties emerge before functional properties and hence locational expressions are acquired before directional expressions. However, use of case becomes largely native-like with proficiency, but problems correctly selecting the German prepositions auf and an persist into advanced proficiency. These appear to be connected with the processing complexity of these items for L2 speakers rather than the acquisition of the features they encode. 1. Introduction and Rationale for the Study This study focuses on the developmental acquisition of locational and directional prepositional constructions in second language German by native speakers of English. It specifically concentrates on a subset of spatial meaning relationships, namely those prepositions that express a contrast between a positional/locative meaning and a directional meaning. In English this distinction is mainly expressed in the contrasting pairs on/onto, in/into and at/to, but also by under, above in front of (before) and behind. Within the English prepositional phrase (PP), the preposition appears to be solely responsible for distinguishing location and direction, but ambiguities can arise. Consider the following. 123

2 (1) a. The log floated on the lake [locational] b. The log floated onto the lake (from an adjoining river) [directional] c. The log floated under the bridge [ambiguous locational/directional] From (1) we can see that grammatical case, i.e. nominative, accusative, dative etc, does not play any role in the interpretation of these sentences. This is because, apart from pronominals, there is no overt morphological case marking in English to disambiguate sentences such as (1c). Prepositions, however, do assign Case inherently, i.e. Case assigned by some inherent property rather than as a result of their position in the structure, and this is usually assumed to be Dative (see, among others, Roberts (1997)). 1 In (1), therefore, the lake in (1a, b) and the bridge in (1c) carry no surface reflexes of their inherent dative Case which, as we see in (1c), can lead to ambiguity. By contrast, in German, locational and directional meaning can be distinguished by morphological case marking on the determiner within the PP, while the preposition remains constant. 2 In locational expressions the determiner carries morphological dative case marking, e.g. dem ( the, for masculine and neuter gender nouns) or der ( the, for feminine nouns). In directional expressions, however, the determiner carries the accusative case, e.g. den ( the, for masculine nouns), das ( the, for neuter nouns) and die ( the, for feminine nouns). This locational/directional distinction is illustrated in (2). (2) a. Das Buch liegt auf dem (Dative/Masculine) Tisch [locational meaning] The book is lying on the table The book is on the table b. Er legte das Buch auf den (Accusative/Masculine) Tisch [directional meaning] He put the book on the table He put the book on the table Ambiguities when using under, such as that shown in (1c), can, therefore, be avoided when using its German equivalent unter, as illustrated in the following (examples from Olsen 1999). (3) a. Unter dem (Dative) Tisch lief die Maus (im Kreis) [locational] under the table ran the mouse (in a circle) The mouse ran under the table (around in a circle) b. Unter den (Accusative) Tisch lief die Maus [directional] under the table ran the mouse The mouse ran under the table (and stayed there) 1 Kayne (1984), however, has suggested that, due to the lack of any manifestations of morphological dative case even in the pronominal system, English entirely lacks inherent dative: verbs and prepositions always assign accusative to their complements. 2 There is a distinct group of prepositions in German that allow a dative/accusative case alternation for expressing locational/directional readings. Those used in the study being presented here are auf ( on, onto, at, to ), an ( on, onto, at, to ), in ( in, into, to, on ), unter ( under ) and vor ( in front of (before) ). 124

3 In (3a) the dative case marking (dem) signifies that this can only be a locational reading, i.e. the mouse was running around under the table. In (3b), however, the use of the accusative case on the determiner (den) unambiguously indicates this to be a directional reading, i.e. the mouse has run under the table from outside. If we compare this to (2), we can see that this pattern is not preposition sensitive but applies to all prepositions that allow the dative/accusative alternation. A further difficulty for the English-speaking learner of L2 German is that a single preposition in English can often be realised by a range of lexical choices in German. For example, whereas on in English can be used to represent both horizontal and vertical surfaces, as shown in (4a, b), German distinguishes these two orientations through the prepositions auf (horizontal surface) and an (vertical surface), as shown in (4c) and (4d). (4) a. The book is on the table [horizontal surface] b. The picture is hanging on the wall [vertical surface] c. Das Buch liegt auf dem (Dative/Masculine) Tisch [horizontal surface] the book lies on the table The book is on the table d. Das Bild hängt an der (Dative/Feminine) Wand [vertical surface] the picture is hanging on the wall The picture is hanging on the wall From (4c) we can see that if an object, a book, is resting on top of a horizontal surface such as a table, the preposition auf must be used in the PP, whereas if something is resting on the side of a vertical surface such as a wall, as in (4d), then an is the native speaker requirement. Note that this does not alter the requirement for the determiner to carry the dative case marking to signify the locational readings, (dem in (4c) and der in (4d)). This is reinforced in (5) where directionality has been introduced into the events shown in (4c, d). (5) a. Er legte das Buch auf den (Accusative) Tisch [horizontal surface] He put the book on the table He put the book on the table b. Er hängte das Bild an die (Accusative) Tisch [vertical surface] He hung the picture on the wall He hung the picture on the wall Putting the book on the table in (5a) and hanging the picture on the wall in (5b), are both expressions that require the determiner to be case-marked with the accusative case, (den (masculine gender) in (5a) and die (feminine gender) in (5b)), to obtain the desired directional readings. We can see, however, that this does not alter the orientation requirements of the expressions which are the same as in examples (4c, d), i.e. distinguished by the use of the preposition auf (horizontal surface) in (5a) and an (vertical surface) in (5b). Overall, therefore, here we have an interaction between the underlying lexical conceptual structure of the event in question, the morphological form of the preposition and the overt casemarking requirements of German, which represents a complex learning problem for a an L2 125

4 German learner with English as a first language (L1). This is because the English-speaking learner of German has to decipher and encode the lexical elements as well as the grammatical ones in a way s/he does not have to in the L1. The basic research question to answer, therefore, is how might English-speaking learners of L2 German go about distinguishing these properties and acquiring these differences? The sorts of things we need to look at are: do they acquire them immediately or go along an incremental development path? Is it equally easy for learners to acquire the case marking properties as the actual preposition to use in any given context? Will lexical properties emerge before functional properties or will they emerge together? How much does the L1 influence development? Are there any properties of prepositions and/or case which remain persistently difficult for learners to acquire? The rest of the paper will take the following format. Section 2 outlines some theoretical assumptions that have been made in conducting the study and assessing its results. This is followed, in section 3, by a description of the study itself, the design and methodology of the data collection. In section 4, the results of the study are presented and the implications of these are discussed in section 5. The paper concludes, in section 6, with a few thoughts on future research possibilities within this domain. 2. Theoretical Assumptions of the Study Two high level assumptions about the nature of second language acquisition (SLA) underpin the research study being reported here. Firstly, that the L2 learner has full access (FA) to all the resources of Universal Grammar (UG), both at the initial stage and throughout the transitional stages of L2 development and secondly that the L1 also plays an influential role in SLA in some form or another (see, among others, Vainikka & Young-Scholten (1994, 1996a, 1996b) and Schwartz & Sprouse (1994, 1996)). 3 Following, among others, Chomsky (1992) and Ura (2001), it is further assumed that Case, as a core module of UG, is a dependency between a functional and a lexical category. More specifically, and on the basis that PPs contain both a lexical and a functional component and that the locational/directional contrast is functionally determined, the present study follows Thomas (2004), who herself drew on the work of, among others, Talmy (1985, 1991), Rooryck (1996) and Van Hout (2000), in positing a unified analysis of the PP in English and German and their locational/directional interpretations. The key proposals are outlined below (Thomas 2004). Following Talmy (1985, 1991), English and German can both be described as satellite framed languages where directionality or non-directionality (teliciy/atelicity) is controlled and motivated entirely by the preposition and not by the verb. 4 Following Rooryck (1996), the telicity/atelicity distinction is expressed through a separate functional projection in the P domain 3 The fact that these researchers adopt different stances as to the exact influence that L1 lexical and functional categories exerts in SLA is not relevant to the results being presented here and the conclusions drawn from them. 4 This contrasts with Romance languages such as French and Spanish and also Japanese where prepositions control only locational expressions and cannot be interpreted as signalling the goal of an expression, i.e. carry a directional reading (Thomas 2004). 126

5 which is absent from Romance languages. 5 Following Van Hout (2000), this expression of telicity/atelicity is associated with the strong (Accusative)/weak (Dative) Case distinction. Based on the aforementioned works, Thomas (2004) posits that directional expressions in both English and German have an interpretable syntactic feature [telic], indicating motion to a goal, in the P domain and that the licensing of either strong/accusative or weak/dative Case is directly related to the presence or absence of this feature where [+telic] licenses strong/accusative Case and [-telic] licenses weak/dative Case. She also assumes that this strong/weak Case distinction holds beyond those languages that express it morphologically, e.g. English. Thomas (2004) also postulates that, in addition to the checking of [±telic], locational/directional distinctions can be made in the P domain of both English and German by reference to a set of lexical features. These include [location], a feature which defines an endpoint where the undergoer of an action ends up in a fixed spatial relationship with regard to a reference object, and [orientation] which defines the type of spatial relationship and involves something being in or on something. Thomas proposes that this latter is a multi-valued feature that expresses the central semantic content of the preposition and as such has several reflexes including [container] and [surface]. Table 1 illustrates Thomas s assumed feature inventory for the English prepositions on/onto and their German equivalents auf and an. Table 1: Relevant feature inventory of the English prepositions on/onto and their German equivalents, auf and an P Case Features on weak [location] [orientation: surface] [-telic] onto strong [location] [orientation: surface] [+telic] auf weak (Dat) [location] [orientation: surface: horizontal] [-telic] an weak (Dat) [location] [orientation: surface: vertical] [-telic] auf strong (Acc) [location] [orientation: surface: horizontal] [+telic] an strong (Acc) [location] [orientation: surface: vertical] [+telic] The assumption that prepositions contain both a lexical and functional element is represented syntactically and structurally by a lexical projection big P embedded within a functional projection little p, which is itself the home of the formal features relevant to the prepositional domain. 6 In English and German p can be directional. In other words, the feature [telic] can be linked to p in both languages as illustrated in Figure 1 below (based on Thomas (2004)). This figure illustrates that the case licensing property of p is related to the presence of a [telic] feature. For German prepositions such as auf or an, which can be used in both locative and directional expressions depending on case marking, for directional expressions there is a 5 This explains the Germanic-Romance differences in the expression of directional movement identified by Talmy (1985, 1991). 6 This, therefore, mirrors the structure for nominative and accusative structural Case assignment where big P is the equivalent of little v (accusative) and little p is the equivalent of T (nominative); (see, among others, Adger (2003)). 127

6 functional feature [+telic] present in p and this feature alters p s licensing property from weak/dative, its initial value and the default form found in all languages, to strong/accusative. 7 Figure 1: Assignment of Case in English and German prepositional structures pp on/onto p auf p 3. The Study 3.1. Subjects [±telic] PP (on/onto) P (auf) P [location] DP [orientation] D N the dem/den [ucase] The study tested 30 L1 English speaking learners of L2 German, learning in a variety of classroom environments. The subjects were divided into 3 proficiency levels using the University of Wisconsin placement test, as follows: (6) Level 1 lower intermediate [10] Level 2 intermediate [10] Level 3 advanced [10] In addition, there was a group of 10 native speaking control subjects. There were no specific controls employed for the age or sex of the subjects Design of Materials for Data Collection Data was collected in two tasks designed specifically to separate the testing of the subjects knowledge of German PPs in familiar and straightforward contexts. The first task was lake See 7 In English there is no surface realisation of Case so [p+p] gives, for example, either on or onto but, as examples (2) and (5) show, [p+p] in German gives a number of realisations. 8 As the study assumes the full access to UG of both pre-and post-puberty learners neither was it considered necessary to record, and hence control for, the subjects age of first exposure to German. 128

7 intended to give a firm base on which to analyse the data and produce dependable results. The second task created a more demanding environment, where the task itself was more open to the subjects interpretation, and also included non-standard and unfamiliar vocabulary and contexts. 9 In general both parts focus on prepositions with different and/or multiple English equivalent meanings, together with their associated case-marking requirements in German, specifically where the result of the verbal action requires a choice of dative or accusative case to be made, the so-called two-way prepositions which distinguish a movement/ non-movement semantic representation. These were, auf ( on, onto, at, to ), an ( on, onto, at, to ), in ( in, into, to on ), unter ( under ) and vor ( in front of (before) ) Task 1: The Petra Test This test is a multiple choice forced elicitation task in the form of a short story entitled Petra und der Igel ( Petra and the hedgehog ), in which a young girl finds a hedgehog on the terrace outside her home in winter when normally hedgehogs should be hibernating. She catches it, takes it indoors, investigates what is wrong with it and takes it to a veterinary surgeon who gives it an injection. Petra then takes the hedgehog back home, cares for it and eventually releases it back into the garden when it is well. The narrative provides plenty of opportunities in which to introduce a number of locational and directional structures in a variety of familiar contexts. Any non-standard vocabulary is glossed at the end of each paragraph of the text. The text contains 36 tokens of prototypical usage of prepositional constructions, i.e. preposition plus case-marked determiner (plus nominal), using familiar and standard forms. In each of the 36 tokens the subjects were asked to supply what they considered to be the correct preposition and case-marked determiner by ticking one of 3 given options. For example, a tick against the third option, [an den] ( to the (Accusative - masculine)), in the following extract from the test would be the correct native speaker choice. (7) So, Petra geht [am] [auf den] [an den] Spültisch. So Petra goes [to the (Dat/Masc)] [to the (Acc/Masc)] [to the (Acc/Masc)] sink So, Petra goes to the sink Most of the tokens related to specific usage of the 5 core prepositions under investigation, i.e. auf ( on, onto, at, to ), an ( on, onto, at, to ), in ( in, into, to, on ), unter ( under ) and vor ( in front of (before) ), whose usage is governed by distinctions of directionality and/or orientation. There were also tokens, however, relating to those prepositions which, although they are sometimes used in contexts that have elements of directionality, govern a mandatory case on the NP determiner, e.g. zu ( to ), bei ( at ) and mit ( at, on ), which all take fixed dative case, and für ( in ) which takes a fixed accusative case. Finally, a few general distracters such as für ( for ) and aus ( (made out) of ) were included. 9 Two tests of the subjects knowledge of the German gender system, in isolation and contextually, were also designed and administered at the end of the two main testing tasks. 129

8 Task 2: The Cards Test The design of the second data collection task was grounded on the same rationale concerning the selection, type and range of test tokens that was used for the Petra Test, described above. The Cards test was designed as a quasi-production task in which subjects were asked to create two grammatically and semantically well-formed sentences from a set of 8 word-cards presented randomly to them. Each word-card set consisted of 2 verbs, 2 prepositions and 4 nouns whose determiners were variously case-marked for nominative, accusative and dative. There were 20 word-card sets in total giving 40 prepositional tokens covering a variety of locational and directional contexts. The early sets contained straightforward and familiar situations and lexis but, as the task progressed, more unfamiliar vocabulary and situations were introduced to counteract the possibility of rote learning effects which may have been displayed in the Petra test. 10 For example, if the learner was given the 8 tiles, die Universität [the university]; auf [at]; waren [were]; die Studentin [the (female) student] an [to]; die Minister [the ministers]; einer Tagung [a conference]; geht [goes]; s/he must then work out that the only 2 valid sentences that can be sensibly formed from these words are as shown in (8). (8) a. die Studentin/geht/an/die Universität [directional/an + Accusative case] (the student /goes/to/ the university) b. die Minister/waren/auf/einer Tagung [locational/auf + Dative case] (the ministers/were /at /a conference) 4. Results The results presented here concentrate on the L2 learners accuracy of use of the key alternating prepositions auf and an where they relate to the English equivalent locative/directional pairings of on/onto and at/to, as this was the area where the L2 learners encountered the most difficulty, even at advanced levels of proficiency, and consequently from which the most insightful conclusions can be drawn Prepositional Usage Table 2 below shows the percentage accuracy of use of auf and an for both the Petra and Cards tests. The incorrect selections are shaded. This table shows that, in locational contexts, auf is used more accurately than an at nearly all levels; a MANOVA produced strong non- 10 As some of the novel lexical items were not considered to be part of the standard vocabulary taught in the classroom at any level of competence and were hence considered to be quite unfamiliar to the subjects, they had to be taught to the subjects first in order to be sure that they knew the words before undertaking the task. This was done via a picture recognition exercise and their knowledge of the new words reinforced, tested and confirmed through the playing of a short board game before undertaking the task itself. 11 The learners appeared to have no problems either with the use of in plus dative/accusative, or with the prepositions that take a fixed dative or accusative case, as native-like levels of accuracy were achieved on both these prepositional groups by the intermediate level

9 significant differences between the percentage correct scores of all three learner groups and the native speakers for auf Petra (p =.668 (1), p =.398 (2) and p = (3)) and also (although less strongly) for auf Cards (p=.073 (1, 2 and 3)), but only at the advanced level 3, and that only marginally, for an (p =.048 for Petra and p =.063 for Cards). It also shows, however, that auf is strongly supplied in contexts that require an as evidenced by the high suppliance of incorrect auf in such contexts, i.e. 30% (1), 22% (2) and 20% (3) for Petra and 22% (1), 12% (2) and 14% (3) for Cards. Table 2: Percentage accuracy of use of auf and an for both the Petra and Cards tests, split between locational and directional contexts for each proficiency level test type Locational Directional (correct/ ns ns incorrect) auf an auf an auf an auf an auf an auf an auf an auf an Petra auf an Cards auf an In directional contexts, however, Table 2 shows that the reverse is true in that an is used more accurately than auf with significant differences being revealed between all three learner groups and the natives both for auf Petra (p =.019 (1), p =.019 (2) and p =.006 (3)) and Cards (p <.001 (1), p =.051 (2 - marginal) and p <.001 (3)). By contrast, native-like competence is achieved from level 2 with an on both tests (p =.239 for Petra and p =.068 for Cards). There is also a high incorrect suppliance of an in contexts where the native-speaker norm is auf, i.e. 37% (1), 27% (2) and 33% (3) for Petra and 25% (1), 18% (2) and 18% (3) for Cards. However, the high rate of incorrect auf in contexts that require an, persists, i.e. 40% (1), 17% (2) and 22% (3) for Petra and 18% (1), 22% (2) and 18% (3) for Cards. From the above, it would appear that locational contexts prompt use of auf while directional contexts seem to prompt more accurate use of an Case Usage Table 3 shows that, in the Petra test, dative (locational) case is used more accurately and hence more productively, than accusative (directional) case at all 3 proficiency levels in both prepositional contexts. Unlike with selection of preposition, learners become native-like in case selection at levels 2 and 3 when using both auf and an in locational/dative contexts, with nonsignificant differences being produced between these two learning levels and the native-speakers with auf (p = (2) and p =.920 (3)) and between all 3 learner levels and the natives with an (p =.313 (1), p =.920 (2) and p =.959 (3)). 131

10 This table additionally shows that the level of accuracy of suppliance of the correct form in directional/accusative contexts is lower than for locational/dative contexts. The striking result of this analysis, however, especially when comparing it to Table 2 (prepositional use), is the low rate of accuracy at all 3 levels in selecting the correct accusative case in directional contexts when an is the native-speaker requirement, with strong significant differences in percentage scores being revealed between all 3 learner groups and the natives (p <.001 for all 3 levels). In addition a paired samples t-test produced a strong significant difference between use of accusative case with auf over that with an (p <.001). Accuracy of accusative case with auf does become native-like at levels 2 and 3 (p =.135 and p =.482 respectively). Table 3: Percentage accuracy of dative and accusative case usage for the Petra test in locational/directional contexts using auf and an, by proficiency level proficiency Dative (Locational) Accusative (Directional) level auf an auf an ns For the Cards test, however, Table 4 illustrates not only the high level of accuracy of use of dative case in both auf and an contexts, where native-like levels of competences are demonstrated from the intermediate level 2 for auf (p =.086 (2) and p =.668 (3)) and from level 1 for an (p =.398 (1), p =.920 (2) and p = (3)) but also that this is replicated in accusative contexts where native-like levels of proficiency are demonstrated from the earliest learning level with auf (p =.725 (1) with both the level 2 and 3 learners scoring a native-like 100%). With accusative case with an, however, it is only the level 3 advanced learners that become strongly native-like (p =.668) thus confirming a little of the asymmetry between accuracy of accusative and dative case with an identified in the Petra test results described above. Table 4: Percentage accuracy of dative and accusative case usage for the Cards test in locational/directional contexts using auf and an, by proficiency level proficiency Dative (Locational) Accusative (Directional) level auf an auf an ns The starting point for the L2 learners, therefore, appears to be a single case form that covers both locational and directional contexts. In acquiring L2 German, learners initially appear 132

11 to associate dative case with both locational and directional expressions in both auf and an contexts but eventually they successfully extend this to assign both accusative case in directional contexts but only with auf. Learners even at quite advanced levels of learning are having problems with assigning the correct accusative case in contexts involving an. 5. Discussion The results of the study support the general claims, outlined in section 2, that a) L2 learners have full access to UG throughout the developmental stages of acquisition, and b) the L1 is influential in the acquisition process. The results also support the claim that the relationship between the properties of lexical and functional categories is relevant and indeed crucial to the acquisition of L2 German PPs by L1 English speakers and that this relationship is, in some instances, problematic for the learners. This will now be discussed in more detail. From the results we can see that the learners in the initial stages appear to be using a single preposition, i.e. auf, for locational contexts and a separate preposition, an, for directional contexts whatever the orientation. In addition, they also seem to be using a single case form, i.e. dative, to represent both locative and directional constructions. In other words, they are replicating what they do in their L1 English where these distinctions are represented prototypically by the use of on and onto together with the default dative case which has no surface reflexes. This is clear evidence of initial L1 transfer. With time and exposure, learners gradually restructure their interlanguage grammars with the consequence that the acquisition of L2 German PPs appears to be incremental. Learners are more accurate on locational than directional expressions, however, which suggest that lexical properties are acquired before functional properties. Locational/directional distinctions are not fully acquired, however, as problems persist with appropriate case usage even at advanced levels of learning. As we have seen, these specifically relate to the use of accusative case in directional onto contexts with the preposition an. This lack of success, however, disappears when being used in the quasi-production Cards test and becomes native-like by advanced proficiency. This would suggest that the more productive nature of the Cards test enabled learners to be more accurate in their use of L2 German prepositional constructions. 12 The specific persistent problem which the L2 learners exhibit and which is clearly illustrated in the results of both tests is the asymmetry shown between accuracy of use of auf and an in locational and directional contexts. This shows that learners are actually treating auf differently to an. Two interesting points emerge. The first is that the correct use of auf, which is native-like in locational contexts from proficiency level 1 (lower intermediate) onwards, falls significantly when used in directional contexts and never approaches native-like competence even at the advanced level 3. Here, learners appear to be making a link between the orientation of English on/onto and the form auf. 12 On the interpretation that the Cards test could be regarded as a two-way multiple choice task with the consequent potential for randomly constructing correct sentences, it is acknowledged that this may have led to the high levels of accuracy of use of both preposition and case demonstrated by the L2 learners in this test. 133

12 Recall, however, that auf and an can also be used to represent the locational/directional pairing at/to. Further analysis, shown in Table 5, disclosed that, where the learners should be choosing auf with the directional meaning to, they become less and less accurate as they become generally more proficient, e.g. 60% (1) / 40% (2) / 20% (3) for Petra, but they become progressively more accurate with an, e.g. 80% (1) / 90% (2) / 100% (3) for Petra. It would appear that as auf extends its domain to include both on and onto for learners, its ability to mark to contracts with an filling the space. As Table 5 shows, this pattern is also mirrored in Cards but not so strongly. Table 5: Percentage correct selection of auf and an meaning to, by proficiency level Test Type auf an auf an auf an Petra Cards The second interesting point to emerge from the results is that the correct use of an, although similar in both contexts, is generally more accurate in directional than locational expressions. Further analysis, shown in Table 6, revealed this to be related to the lower accuracy of use of an when on (locational) is the intended representation, e.g. 65% (1) / 75% (2) / 70% (3) for Petra. The use of auf in these contexts is strongly accurate, e.g. 90% (1) / 85% (2) / 100% (3). These patterns are replicated in the results from the Cards test. Table 6: Percentage correct selection of auf and an meaning on, by proficiency level Test Type auf an auf an auf an Petra Cards We can safely conclude, therefore, that specific problems persist into advanced learning with regard to the use of auf when to is the intended representation and an when on is the intended representation. Recall that these prepositions divide the orientations space of English on and onto in horizontal and vertical contexts and can be extended to include the surface-less orientation contexts of at and to. Given that learners are generally performing quite well by the advanced level 3 in all other areas of PP use, the problems here appear to be the result of some form of integrations problem. In other words, learners can acquire the grammatical properties of PPs not present in their L1 case, gender, 13 number but they are unable to integrate them fully. It is not knowledge of the properties that is the problem but putting them 13 The results from the 2 tests of the German gender system indicate that knowledge of gender per se is not a problem for the L2 learners. 134

13 together, a form of mapping problem which appears to be connected with the processing complexity of these items for the L2 German speakers rather than the acquisition of the features they encode. 6. Future Research Possibilities The results and findings presented in this paper could be expanded and refined by the addition of data from other population groups, such as native English-speaking child (i.e. prepuberty) learners of German which could potentially provide more of a yardstick for measuring the incremental development of L2 learners than simply ascertaining whether they attain nativelike competence by advanced proficiency. A second group could be learners in a naturalistic environment, to ascertain whether these data revealed any differences in pattern and/or levels of acquisition to those demonstrated by the classroom learners of the present study. A third group could be L1 Romance speakers learning L2 German, where further insights might be provided into the acquisition of the location/direction distinctions in German given the verb framed nature of L1 French (see Talmy 1985, 1991) where locational and directional expressions are treated in totally different ways. This in turn could shed further light on the integration problems that the L2 German learners had with certain aspects of prepositional use in the present study. Given the limitations of the Cards test acknowledged above, it would also be desirable to undertake further research by testing the same properties as in the present study but with data obtained from a different and more bona fide production task. This would enable a more principled account to be made concerning the results drawn from both comprehension and production tasks which could in turn provide further evidence as to whether the L2 learners ability to use PPs in German fully reflects their knowledge of them. References Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: a minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, N. (1992). Explaining language use. Philosophical Topics Eubank, L. (1994). Optionality and the initial state in L2 development. In Hoekstra & Schwartz (eds), Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: a generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (eds) (1994). Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kayne, R. (1984). Correctedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Olsen, S. (1999). Komplexe präpositionalphrasen mit postponiertem direktionalem Kopf. Linguistische Berichte Roberts, I. (1997). Comparative Syntax. London: Arnold. Rooryck, J. (1996). Prepositions and minimalist case marking. In Thráinsson, H., Epstein, S. & Peter, S. (eds), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, volume II. Dordrecht: Kluwer

14 Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra & Schwartz (eds), Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (ed), Language typology and syntactic description: Volume III: grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realisation: a typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society Thomas, E. (2004). Second language acquisition of prepositions: functional and substantive features. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex. Ura, H. (2001). Case. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct access to X -Theory: evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In Hoekstra & Schwartz (eds), Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1996a). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1996b). The early stages of adult L2 syntax: additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research Van Hout, A. (2000). Event semantics in the lexicon-syntax interface: verb frame alternations in Dutch and their acquisition. In Tenny, C. & Pustejovsky, J. (eds), Events as grammatical objects. CSLI Publications James Hawthorne Fishers Cottage Church Lane, Great Holland Frinton-on-Sea CO13 0JS United Kingdom jimhawt@btopenworld.com 136