ICGL 14, 5-8/9/2019 University of Patras

The learnability of uninterpretable features in

adult L2 Greek:
Developmental and L1 effects

Terpsi Danavassi & Eleni

Agathopoulou
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
 Aim of the research
• To investigate whether adult L2 learners can
acquire uninterpretable features not
instantiated in their L1
• Focus:
– Greek articles
– Gender agreement in Greek

2
 Overview
I. Theoretical background
II. Articles and gender agreement in Greek DPs
III. Previous research
IV. The present study
V. Discussion & Concluding remarks

3
 I. The lexicon and features

• Lexical items are bundles of features (phonological,

semantic, formal)
• A crucial distinction: LF [±interpretable] features
 interpretable features: definiteness, number (marked
on nouns), specificity…
 uninterpretable features: agreement, grammatical
gender… (interpretable only at PF)
Chomsky (1995)

4
I. The role of feature interpretability in adult L2A

• Access to interpretable but not to uninterpretable features if

these are not instantiated in the L1. Syntactic deficit.
 Interpretability Hypothesis1
 Failed Functional Feature Hypothesis2

• Adult learners have access to ± interpretable features

regardless of whether these are instantiated in their L1. Non-
native like performance may be due to insufficient L2 input /
morphological deficit
 Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis3
 Missing surface inflection Hypothesis4

1Tsimpli and Roussou (1991),Tsimpli (2003), Tsimpli & Dimitrakopoulou (2007); 2 Hawkins and Chan (1997),
Hawkins & Hattori (2006); 3 Schwartz & Sprouse (1994/96), 4 Prévost & White (2000)
5
II. Greek articles

6
 II. Greek Articles

definite indefinite Ø

(1) To pedhi efaghe ena sandwich kai biskota

the child ate-he a sandwich and biscuits.
Ø

(2) Kathe proi diavazo efimerida

every morning read-I newspaper

7
 II. Greek articles
• Unlike the indefinite article, the definite one may
serve purely grammatical operations (case, number
& gender agreement features) without conveying
definiteness or specificity to its complement.

• In other words, it may carry only uninterpretable

features (Tsimpli & Stavrakaki 1999).

8
 II. Examples of expletive uses of the Greek
definite article
(3)*(i) Maria efije
the Maria left With proper names
‘Maria left.’
(4) aftos *(o) andras
this the man With demonstrative pronouns
‘This man’
(5)*(i) falenes ine θilastika In generic reference
the whales are mammals
‘Whales are mammals.’
Before a
(6) δen ipe tipota ja *(to) pu θa pame.
full clause
not said-he nothing for the where will go-we
‘He didn’t say anything about where we will go.’

9
 II Agreement in Greek DPs
(7) o andras (the man)
the-NOM-MASC-SG man-NOM-MASC-SG
(8) ton andra
the-ACC-MASC-SG man-ACC-MASC-SG
(9) i andres (the men)
the-NOM-MASC-PL men-NOM-MASC-PL
(10) To dasos (the forest)
the-NOM-NEUT-SG forest-NOM-NEUT-SG
(11) Ta dasi (the forests)
the-NOM-NEUT-PL forest-NOM-NEUT-PL
(12) I karekla (the chair)
the-NOM-FEM-SG chair-NOM-FEM-SG

10
 II. Gender agreement (in DP)
Syntactic or morphophonological deficit?
Syntactic deficit
Gender agreement involves an uninterpetable gender
feature on D. If not activated in L1, postpubertal L2
acquisition of gender agreement will be based on
(morpho)phonology (Hawkins & Franceschina 2004,
Franceschina 2005) .

Morphophonological deficit
As an operation of narrow syntax, AGREE expresses a
relation between sets of Features and is universally
available. L2 errors are due to cross-linguistic differences in
terms of spell-out properties of agreement features. (e.g.
Tsimpli 2003, Tsimpli et al. 2011)

11
III. Previous studies investigating the Interpretability
Hypothesis in adult L2 Greek articles
L1 Years of Greek Support for
exposure to proficiency test the IH
Greek
Tsimpli (2003), Slavic (-articles) 7-11 No Yes
Tsimpli &
Mastropavlou
(2007), Tsimpli
et al. (2009)
Chondrogianni Turkish (-articles) 12-30 Yes No
(2008) (various levels)
Agathopoulou, Slavic (-articles) 18-40 No Partial
Papadopoulou German, Romance
& Sismanidou
(2012)
Agathopoulou Georgian (-articles), 12-35 Yes (advanced) Partial
& Danavassi Albanian, English
(2017)
12
III. Previous studies in adult L2 gender agreement
(indicatively)
Tsimpli et al. 2011
•39 adult Slavic (Russian & Serbian) speakers of Greek, mean of
maximum exposure to Greek: 13,6 yrs
•11% errors in gender agreement (fewer in case & number agreement)
•Developmental & locality effects
•Suggestion: morphophonological deficit

 Franceschina 2001, 2002

After massive exposure to the L2, learners of a [–] gender L1 had high
performance in gender agreement but differed significantly from
learners of a [+] gender language in a production task
•More gender agreement than case/number agreement errors produced
by learners of a [-] gender L1.
•Suggestion: Syntactic deficit

13
IV. The present study

14
 Research questions
 Native-like proficiency in Greek articles & gender
agreement in DP attainable by adult L2 learners?

 Definite/indefinite article performance asymmetry (given

that only the former carries uninterpretable features)?

 L1 effect between L1s [±definite/indefinite article,

[±expletive definite article, [±gender agreement?

 More gender than case & number agreement errors?

 Developmental effects?

15
 Hypotheses regarding L2 Greek
articles
If the Interpretability Hypothesis is correct:

 INDEF > DEF

 L1 effect (Speakers of L1 with expletive DEF >

speakers of L1 without expletive DEF >
speakers of L1 without articles)

16
 Hypotheses regarding gender
agreement in L2 Greek

 Lack of L1 effect →morphophonological

deficit (surface problem)

 L1 effect → syntac c deficit

17
 The participants
L1 group N Proficiency Age at test AoO LoS

Albanian ADV 13 7.69 (SD: .78) 45.00 (SD: 8.13) 23.38 (SD: 5.81) 21.62 (SD: 4.93)

12 5.13 (SD: .71) 44.08 (SD: 7.48) 25.08 (SD: 6.89) 19.00 (SD: 5.41)
Albanian INT
English ADV 10 7.60 (SD: .66) 48.20 (SD: 7.58) 23.50 (SD: 4.50) 24.70 (SD: 8.08)

9 5.50 (SD: .79) 47.44 (SD: 10.96) 28.11 (SD: 4.70) 19.33 (SD: 9.82)
English INT
10 7.65 (SD: .85) 42.10 (SD: 8.17) 22.30 (SD: 5.91) 19.80 (SD: 4.52)
Georgian ADV
9 5.44 (SD: .53) 48.33 (SD: 8.92) 28.78 (SD: 6.44) 19.56 (SD: 5.39)
Georgian INT
12 __ 43.58 (SD: 10.79) __ __
Greek NS

18
 The Greek proficiency test
 Interviewer - L2 speaking examiner
 Natural conversation about everyday life topics
 Band descriptors adapted from IELTS test. Categories:
 Fluency and coherence
 Lexical resource
 Grammatical range & accuracy
 Pronunciation
 A band score was assigned for each category & then a
global score was calculated
 Band scores range 0 - 9
19
Band Fluency & coherence
9 Fluent, rare repetition /self-correction,
content-related hesitation , coherence
with cohesive features, develops topics
fully & appropriately
8 Fluent, occasional repetition/ self-
correction; content-related hesitation,
develops topics coherently &
appropriately
7 speaks at length without effort/loss of
coherence, language-related hesitation at
times, some repetition/self-correction, a
range of connectives
6 speaks at length, occasional repetition,
self-correction or hesitation , a range of
connectives
5 flow of simple speech with repetition,
over-uses connectives
4 noticeable pauses, may speak slowly,
frequent repetition simple connectives
3 long pauses, simple responses, frequently
unable to convey basic message
2 little communication
1 no communication possible
0 no communication possible
Lexical resource
Uses vocabulary with full flexibility
& precision in all topics, idiomatic
language naturally and accurately
wide vocabulary resource readily
and flexibly ,precise meaning ,less
common and idiomatic vocabulary
skillfully, paraphrases effectively
Flexible use of vocabulary resource
for a variety of topics , some less
common/idiomatic vocabulary,
some awareness of style and
collocation, paraphrases effectively
wide enough vocabulary to discuss
topics at length and make meaning
clear, some inappropriacies ,
paraphrases successfully
familiar & unfamiliar topics,
vocabulary of limited flexibility,
attempts to paraphrase but with
mixed success
talks about familiar topics but only
basic meaning on unfamiliar topics,
frequent errors in word choice, no
paraphrase
simple vocabulary for personal
information , insufficient for less
familiar topics
only isolated words/ memorised
utterances
Grammatical range &accuracy
full range of structures,
consistently accurate structures ,
‘slips’ characteristic of native
speaker speech
wide range of structures flexibly
mostly error-free sentences, only
very occasional inappropriacies/
basic/non-systematic errors
a range of complex structures
with some flexibility, frequent
error-free sentences, some
grammatical mistakes persist
simple & complex structures,
limited flexibility, frequent
mistakes with complex structures
, rare comprehension problems
basic sentence forms with
reasonable accuracy , limited
range of more complex structures,
usual errors , some
comprehension problems
basic sentence forms, some
correct simple sentences,
subordinate structures are rare ,
frequent errors, may lead to
misunderstanding
basic sentence forms with limited
success, memorised utterances ,
numerous errors
cannot produce basic sentence
forms
Pronunciation
full range of pronunciation
features, precision , flexible use
of features throughout,
effortless to understand
a wide range of pronunciation
features , flexible use of
features,, only occasional
lapses, easy to understand
throughout
all the positive features of Band
6 and some of the positive
features of Band 8
a range of pronunciation
features , mixed control , some
effective use of features,
understood throughout
all the positive features of
Band 4 and some of the
positive features of Band 6
limited range of pronunciation
features, frequent lapses,
frequent mispronunciations,
some difficulty for the listener
some of the features of Band 2
& some of the positive features
of Band 4
Speech is often unintelligble
20
Cross-linguistic comparison
Articles Expletive
definite
article
Albanian + +

English + _

Georgian _ _

Greek + +

21
Morphologically marked agreement
between N and D
Case Number Gender

Albanian + + +

English _ _ _

Georgian _ _ _

Greek + + +

22
 Data elicitation tasks
• Unstructured interviews
• Picture-based story telling
• Giving instructions task

23
 Story Telling Task
(Dimitrakopoulou, Kalaitzidou, Roussou & Tsimpli 2004)

3 sets of pictures
The pictures from each set were cut and presented to them
one at a time. Example:

24
 Giving instructions task
A set of 9 flashcards depicting ingredients
Researcher: Εδώ έχουμε το τυρί, το ζαμπόν…(Here we have the
cheese, the ham…) Now use all the ingredients/pictures to describe
how you can make a sandwich.
While describing, participants were told not to touch the flashcards
to deter the use of demonstratives.

25
Results
 Correct suppliance of article
Definite vs. Indefinite
Definite Indefinite
99,2% 100% 97,5% 98% 98,7% 99,1% 100% 96,2%
94,7%
87,4%
77,2% 77,2%

Alb ADV Alb INT Eng ADV Eng INT Geo ADV Geo INT

x2(1, n=785) =6,676

p= .004
 Definite article
Suppliance Omission
0,8% 2,5% 1,3% 5,3%
12,6%
22,8%

99,2% 97,5% 98,7% 94,7% 87,4%

77,2%

Alb ADV Alb INT Eng ADV Eng INT Geo ADV Geo INT
Albanian > English (only at the intermediate level p=.011)
Albanian > Georgian (both at advanced p= .000 and intermediate p=.000)
English > Georgian (both at advanced p= .000 and intermediate p=.000)
Developmental effect: all groups ADV > INT (Albanian p= .002, English p=
.000, Georgian p=.000)
All groups differ significantly from Greek NS
 Indefinite article
Suppliance Omission
0,0% 2,0% 0,9% 0,0% 3,8%
22,8%

100,0% 98,0% 99,1% 100,0% 96,2%

77,2%

Alb ADV Alb INT Eng ADV Eng INT Geo ADV Geo INT
Albanian vs. English, no difference
Albanian > Georgian (both at advanced p= .005 & intermediate p=.000)
English > Georgian (significant only at intermediate level p=.000)
Difference with NS: Only Georgian INT (p=.000) & Georgian ADV (p=.046)
Developmental effect: only L1 Georgian groups (p=.004)
 Agreement errors in DEF DPs
8,30% 10% 6,70% 10,30%
16,70%
2,50%
8,30%

100%
91,70% 87,50% 93,30% 89,70%
75%

Alb ADV Alb INT Eng ADV Eng INT Geo ADV Geo INT
GENDER CASE NUMBER

All groups: gender errors > case, number errors (p<.01)

Albanian > English (both at advanced p= .008 and intermediate p=.000)
Albanian > Georgian (both at advanced p= .000 and intermediate p=.000)
English vs. Georgian, no difference for either proficiency level
30
 Gender agreement accuracy
Gender Accuracy Errors
0,4% 1,3% 1,3% 5,5% 2,2% 7,6%

99,6% 98,7% 98,7% 94,5% 97,8%

92,4%

Alb ADV Alb INT Eng ADV Eng INT Geo ADV Geo INT

Albanian > English (both at advanced p= .016 and intermediate p=.000)

Albanian > Georgian (both at advanced p= .000 and intermediate p=.000)
Only Alb ADV do not differ significantly from the Greek NS group
Developmental effect for all L1 groups (ADV > INT)
Gender agreement accuracy (DEF DPs)
Masculine Feminine Neuter

100% 99,7%
99,1% 99,5% 98,8%
99,5% 99,3%
97,1% 97,8% 97,2% 96,8%
95,1% 95,9%
94,1% 94,7%

88,8%
87%
86,2%

Alb ADV Alb INT Eng ADV Eng INT Geo ADV Geo INT
Neu > Masc, p= .02 Neu > Masc, p= .01 Neu > Masc, p= .01 Neu > Masc, p= .000 Neu > Fem, p=.007 Neu > Fem, p= .005
Neu > Fem, p=.04 Neu > Fem, p=.04 Fem > Masc, p=.03 Neu> Masc, p=.03
Fem > Masc, p=.04

emerging pattern of accuracy: neu > fem > masc

 Gender used as default(DEF DPs)
Masculine Feminine Neuter

100%

77,8% 78,6% 76,9%

68,5%
63,6%

36,4%
28,6%
21,4%
15,4%
11,1% 11,1% 7,7%
0% 0% 0% 2,9% 0%

Alb ADV Alb INT Eng ADV Eng INT Geo ADV Geo INT
Neu > Masc, p= .005 Neu > Masc, p= .004 Neu > Masc, p= .001 Neu > Masc, p= .004 Neu > Fem, p=.002 Neu > Fem, p= .000
Neu > Fem, p=.005 Neu > Fem, p=.004 Fem > Masc, p=.02 Fem > Masc, p=.003 Neu > Masc, p= .000 Neu> Masc, p=.000
Neu > Fem, p=.001

emerging pattern of default gender: neu > fem > masc

 Back to our Research questions
 RESEARCH QUESTION 1
Can adult learners of Greek attain nativelike proficiency of L2
Greek articles? If not, can it be due to the uninterpretable
features carried by the Greek definite article?

 If the interpretability hypothesis is correct:

1. INDEF > DEF
2. L1 effect (Speakers of L1 with expletive DEF > speakers of L1
without expletive DEF > speakers of L1 without articles)
3. Developmental effect

34
 Results in DEF/INDEF
 L1 effect:
DEF: Albanian > English > Georgian
INDEF: Albanian & English > Georgian
 Developmental effect:
DEF: all L1 groups (ADV > INT)
INDEF: only L1 Georgian group (ADV > INT)
 Difference from Greek NS:
DEF: Greek NS > all L1 groups
INDEF: Greek NS > L1 Georgian
 Our findings seem to support the IH

35
 Back to our Research questions
RESEARCH QUESTION 2
• May adult learners of Greek attain native-like
levels of proficiency in gender agreement in DP?
• Hypotheses
 Lack of L1 effect →morphophonological deficit
(surface problem)
 L1 effect → syntac c deficit
 Developmental effect

36
 Results in agreement
 Very high performance by all L1 groups at both proficiency
levels
 All groups: gender errors > case, number errors

 L1 Effect: Albanian > English & Georgian

 Developmental effects: in all L1 groups (ADV>INT)

 Our results seem to support a syntactic deficit

 Concluding remarks
A crucial difference between some previous
relevant studies in adult L2 Greek articles /
agreement in DPs (Tsimpli 2003, Tsimpli &
Mastropavlou 2007, Tsimpli et al. 2011) and the
present study is
–(a) verification of L2 Greek proficiency level
–(b) investigation of developmental effects
–(c) investigation of L1 effects

38
 Further research
Sentence repetition task focusing on all
expletive uses (and the non-expletive use) of
the DEF article in Greek to further test the IH

39
40
 References
Aronson. H.I (1982). Georgian. A reading grammar. Slavica Publishers, Inc. Indiana University. USA.
Bruhn de Garavito, J. & L. White (2000) L2 Acquisition of Spanish DPs: the Status of Grammatical
Features. BUCLD 24 Proceedings, MA: Cascadilla Press: 164-175.
Chomsky, Ν (1995) Τhe Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
Hawkins, R. and Franceschina, F. (2004) Explaining the acquisition of and nonacquisition of determiner–
noun gender concord in French and Spanish. In Prévost, P. and Paradis, J., (eds), The acquisition of
French in different contexts: focus on functional categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 175–205.
Hewitt, G. (1996). Georgian. A learner's grammar. (2nd ed.) Routledge. London and New York.
Μακρή-Τσιλιπάκου, M. (1989) The gender of ‘άνθρωπος’. An exercise in false generics. In Proceedings
of the 3rd Symposium on the Description and /or comparison of English and Greek: 62-83.
Μακρή-Τσιλιπάκου, M. (1996) Κρασί Ημιαφρώδη και Ψωμάκια Πλήρης για να Εχουμε Υγιείς Μαλλιά
επειδή είναι Δυσμενή Χρόνια. Πρακτικά της 17ης Ετήσιας Συνάντησης του Τομέα Γλωσσολογίας της
Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του Α.Π.Θ.: 532-546.
Marinis, T. (2003). The Acquisition of the DP in Modern Greek. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers
Mirambel, A (1978) Η Νέα Ελληνική Γλώσσα. Περιγραφή και Ανάλυση. Ινστιτούτο Νεοελληνικών
Σπουδών. Ίδρυμα Μανόλη Τριανταφυλλίδη. Α.Π.Θ.
Τσιμπλή, Ι.-Μ. (2003). Η κατάκτηση του γένους στην ελληνικής ως δεύτερη γλώσσα. Στο Α.
Αναστασιάδη-Συμεωνίδη, Α. Ράλλη και Δ. Χειλά-Μαρκοπούλου (επιμ.), Το γένος. Αθήνα: Πατάκης,
168-189.
Tsimpli, I.-M. and M. Mastropavlou (2007). Feature-interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek
clitics and determiners. In J.-M. Liceras, H. Zobl and H. Goodluck (eds.), The role of formal features in
second language acquisition. London: Routledge, 142-183.
 Results
(definite/indefinite)
Def inite Indefinite Zero
OC SOC OMIT OC SOC OMIT OC SOC SUBST
Alb ADV 1183 1174 9 134 134 0 393 393 0
Alb INT 672 655 17 100 98 2 300 298 2
Eng ADV 754 744 10 114 113 1 238 238 0
Eng INT 664 629 35 121 121 0 216 216 0
Geo ADV 737 644 93 52 50 2 342 339 3
Geo INT 479 370 109 57 44 13 371 365 6
Greek NS 593 593 0 102 102 0 164 164 0
 Results
(expletive/non-expletive)
Expletive N o n - ex p l e t i v e
OC SOC OMIT OC SOC OMIT
Alb ADV 117 115 2 1068 1060 8
Alb INT 45 44 1 628 611 17
Eng ADV 45 41 4 712 706 6
Eng INT 61 56 5 604 574 30
Geo ADV 108 95 13 631 550 81
Geo INT 60 50 10 430 331 99
Greek NS 9 9 0 593 593 0
 Correct suppliance of definite article
Expletive vs. Non-expletive
Expletive Nonexpletive
98,3% 99,3% 97,8% 97,3% 99,2%
91,8% 95%
91,1% 88% 87,2%
83,3%
77%

Alb ADV Alb INT Eng ADV Eng INT Geo ADV Geo INT

x2(1, n=757) =21,021

p= .002
 Expletive DEF article
Suppliance Omission
1,7% 2,2% 8,9% 8,2% 12,0% 16,7%

98,3% 97,8% 91,8%

91,1% 88,0% 83,3%

Alb ADV Alb INT Eng ADV Eng INT Geo ADV Geo INT

INT: Albanian > Georgian (p=.022)

ADV: Albanian > Georgian (p=.002)

ADV Albanian > ADV English (p=.051)

No developmental effect for any L1 group
No group differed from the Greek NS (NS produced a v. small n of expletives)
 Non-expletive DEF article
Suppliance Omission
0,7% 2,7% 0,8% 5,0%
12,8%
23,0%

99,3% 97,3% 99,2% 95% 87,2%

77%

Alb ADV Alb INT Eng ADV Eng INT Geo ADV Geo INT

Albanian > English (only at the intermediate level, p=.038)

Albanian > Georgian (both at advanced p= .000 and intermediate p=.000)
English > Georgian (both at advanced p= .000 and intermediate p=.000)
Developmental effect: all L1 groups ADV > INT (Albanian p= .001, English p= .000,
Georgian p=.000)
Difference with NS: All groups
 Example from a participant’s ST
• βλέπω μια γυναίκα η οποία χαιρετάει δύο παιδιά
• τα παιδιά της είναι τώρα;
• μπορεί να είναι και τα παιδιά της που πάνε στο δρόμο
• και έχει ένα σκυλάκι το οποίο το συνοδεύει
• στη δεύτερη εικόνα μιλάνε συζητάνε τώρα τα παιδιά βλέπω
• ένα από τα παιδιά έχει ένα δωράκι ένα κουτί ξέρω εγώ τι έχει μέσα
• και το δείχνει μάλλον τι έχει στο κουτί
• και εδώ ανοίγει το κουτί το παιδάκι
• η γυναίκα τρομάζει μάλλον το κάνει πλάκα δηλαδή
• ένα φίδι το οποίο τα παιδικά που έχουμε κάνει κι εμείς αυτά
• και αυτή φεύγει τρομαγμένος μαζί με το σκύλο

47
 Example from a participant’s response at the
sandwich task
με όλα;
για σένα θα φτιάξω το καλύτερο
παίρνω το ψωμάκι την αλοιφή την αλειφεύουμε μουστάρδα τι είναι
αυτό........
παίρνουμε το ζαμπόν
μετά φέτα κόβουμε
παίρνουμε το μαρούλι γιατί έχουμε και μαρούλι ξέχασα
παίρνουμε ψωμάκι το αλειφέβουμε .....
πολλά βάζουμε
αυτό μαρούλι φέτες με τέτοιο μία φέτα ντομάτα
αυγό αυτό είναι περιττό αλλά τέλοσπαντων
στο τέλος το διπλώνουμε με αυτό
και μετά το ψωμάκι
το κασέρι πατατούλες πατατάκια διπλώνουμε και πάλι φέτα ψωμί

48