See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263806929

Restrictions on Clitic Solidarity in L2 Spanish and

Adult UG Accessibility

Conference Paper · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 31

2 authors:

Jason Rothman Becky Halloran

University of Reading Indiana University Bloomington
138 PUBLICATIONS 1,565 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Second language acquisition View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Becky Halloran on 21 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BUCLD 37 Proceedings
To be published in 2013 by Cascadilla Press
Rights forms signed by all authors
Restrictions on Clitic Solidarity in L2 Spanish
and Adult UG Accessibility
Becky Halloran and Jason Rothman

1. Introduction*

The acquisition of object clitic pronouns in the L2 Spanish of native English

speakers is particularly relevant to ongoing debates regarding adult UG-
continuity (cf. Montrul 2004 inter alia). In particular, it allows one to test
between Full Accessibility (e.g. Schwartz and Sprouse, 1996) and
Representational Deficit approaches (e.g. Hawkins and Hattori, 2006; Tsimpli &
Dimitrakopoulou, 2007). Given that clitics are completely lacking in English,
the learning task for the L1English/L2 Spanish learner includes the acquisition
of new L2 syntactic features that give rise to this new category 1 as well as the
particular language distribution of clitics in Spanish.
A quick sampling of Romance languages shows that the distribution of
object clitics in terms of grammatical placement options and/or preference of
syntactic position (e.g. proclisis, enclisis) varies greatly and is generally a
function of the particular grammar system. The details of the particular
distribution of the clitic system in Spanish can be found in section 2.2. Here, we
highlight the fact that clitics typically must stay together in Spanish, in
accordance with what is called ‘clitic solidarity’ (see section 2.3).
The argument structure of particular verbs, however, places universal
restrictions on clitic solidarity, resulting in the obligatory separation of multiple
clitics, which is otherwise inconsistent with the ‘typical’ pattern of Spanish clitic
distribution. This uncharacteristic pattern obtains, for example, in periphrastic
constructions with relatively few types of matrix verbs, such as causatives,
restructuring verbs and other exceptional case marked (ECM) predicates (e.g.,
perception verbs). Given this, instances of separated multiple clitics are highly

*
Becky Halloran, University of Florida, beckyhalloran@ufl.edu; Jason Rothman,
University of Reading. Thank you to Mike Iverson for his help and contributions as well
as the audience at BUCLD 37. Any and all errors are inadvertent and are completely our
own.
1
Here we assume that in Spanish (and other Romances languages) clitics head their own
functional projections (see footnote 2). We also assume, following traditional notions
within Minimalism, that the difference between Spanish and English here entails a formal
syntactic (uninterpretable) feature difference between the two languages. Whether this
feature is understood as a bona fide feature in the sense of Chomsky, or, in the view of
cartographic proponents, as a position in the syntactic structure (i.e. a functional head that
projects), is not important for our argumentation, and so we leave this issue aside.
infrequent in comparison to clitic solidarity as the ‘elsewhere’ condition.
Interestingly, grammatical exceptions to clitic solidarity, as just described, fall
outside general pedagogical rules on Spanish clitic placement, which
inaccurately maintain that multiple clitics always pattern together.
In this study, we test L2 Spanish knowledge of restrictions on clitic
solidarity; specifically, of argument structure constraints on the distribution of
multiple clitics. As we will see from the pattern of cross-sectional data that we
present, only the advanced learners as a group and some intermediate learners
show such knowledge despite the fact that the argument structure of ECM verbs
does not differ across English and Spanish. Our data show that the beginning
learners and some intermediate learners allow for multiple clitics in disaccord
with ECM argument structure, suggesting a more complex or nuanced account is
required if we do not want to abandon the possibility of L1 transfer of argument
structure.
We will argue that the L2 learners for which ECM argument structure is not
a factor for judgments on multiple clitic placement are simply following the
overgeneralized pedagogical rules; not necessarily because argument structure
does not transfer initially, but rather because the syntax of clitics is not yet part
of their interlanguage grammar. In other words, even if, as we suspect, the
argument structure for perception verbs has been transferred from English, these
learners cannot apply consistently the syntactic reflexes of such transfer to
something they have not yet truly acquired; namely, clitics and their placement.
Instead, they default to the overgeneralized pedagogical rules. Conversely, we
will argue that the learners for whom the ECM argument structure is
deterministic for their L2 judgments on the (im)possibility of clitic solidarity do
so precisely because the syntax of clitics is now in place in their interlanguage
grammar, leaving them no other recourse but to project beyond and even in
conflict with what is taught about clitic solidarity.
In sum, we will argue that the whole of the pattern revealed across the three
L2 proficiency groups examined suggests that the underlying syntax of clitics is
acquirable in adulthood by speakers whose L1s lack them. This is consistent
only with Full Accessibility accounts to UG-continuity in adulthood. Assuming
that verbal argument structure is transferred from the L1 and considering that
English argument structure of ECM verbs should also require the breaking of
clitic solidarity, we will discuss how these data highlight that not all transferred
properties can be applied at the beginning stages of L2 acquisition, specifically
when what is at stake is not the same across the two languages. Based on the
data presented here, we maintain that the ECM breaking of clitic solidarity will
only obtain with the consistency of native-conformity at a proficiency level
where the L2 grammar has a mental representation for clitics. This seems to be
possible at an advanced level of L2 proficiency.
2. Clitics
2.1 Clitics in Spanish

Clitics are weak pronouns that are independent morphemes, but are
phonologically dependent on a strong phrasal element; typically, a verb.
Essentially, this means they cannot exist independently or replace a lexical DP.
While various syntactic analyses for the syntax of clitics in Romance languages
have been presented, for the purposes of this study, we adopt Masullo’s (2004)
Minimalist analysis 2 , assuming Merge of the clitic and its argument with
movement caused by feature percolation. This analysis, in particular, provides
explanatory coverage on the restrictions on Merge and/or Movement that give
rise to the specific properties we examine herein.
Previously, we mentioned that the learning task for the
L1English/L2Spanish learner involves the acquisition of a new syntactic feature
as well as the distribution of the Spanish clitic system. This distribution, in what
we will refer to as ‘traditional’ constructions, is dependent on tense and
predicate complexity (see table 1). The distributional pattern (finite= proclisis,
non-finite= enclisis, finite+non-finite= 3seemingly optional proclisis or enclisis)
is language-specific and therefore must be ‘learned’ in the true sense of the
word.

Table 1. Distributional Pattern of Spanish Clitics

Proclisis Pro- Enclisis Mesoclisis
endoclisis
Finite Te lo doy. *Te doy lo. *Doy te lo. N/A
Non-finite *Te lo dar. *Te dar lo. Dártelo. N/A
Aux/modal Te lo quiero *Te quiero Quiero dártelo. *Quiero te
+ inf dar. dar lo. lo dar.

2.2 Clitic Solidarity

Considering the distributional pattern of clitics in traditional constructions
(those shown in table 1), we aim to highlight, particularly in the periphrastic
constructions, that the two object clitics consistently pattern together, in
accordance with clitic solidarity. When multiple clitic pronouns are projected,
for example, an accusative and a dative, clitic solidarity requires that the two
pronouns stay together (e.g. see Strozer, 1977). The notion of clitic solidarity --
of course not labeled in textbooks as such-- is well-integrated into the instruction

2
Other viable syntactic analyses exist, notably those of Sportiche (1996) and Uriagereka
(1995). Both of these accounts are compatible with our analysis of the restrictions on
clitic solidarity; however, we adopt Masullo’s (2004) approach, as it is more current and
generally more explanatory.
3
We acknowledge lexical biases for proclisis or enclisis preference, e.g. Ir+a+infinitive
favors proclisis while preferir+ infinitive prefers enclisis, yet both are grammatically
available.
of Spanish as a second language, and is used without any reference to (possible)
exceptions in teaching clitic placement in the classroom. However, clitic
solidarity does not hold with particular periphrastic constructions; for example,
those with matrix ECM verbs, in which the two clitics are both accusative
arguments, each projected by one of the two verbs (see figure 1).
Due to the unique argument structure of ECM verbs, in these constructions
each clitic must first merge with the verb that selects it as an argument, forcing
the clitics to separate, and blocking feature percolation. In aux/modal+inf
constructions, the lexical verb projects both arguments and feature percolation is
possible. As a result, both proclisis and enclisis are available as grammatical
options as long as, in accord with clitic solidarity, the clitics stay together. In
traditional periphrastic constructions, (aux/modal+inf), the subject of the matrix
verb also serves as the subject for the embedded verb whereas this is not the
case in ECM constructions. ECM verbs require different subjects for the matrix
and embedded verbs, wherein the subject of the embedded verb must share
identity with the accusative object of the matrix verb (i.e., PRO is co-referential
with the object of the perception verb) (see (1-2)).

(1) Traditional construction (modal+inf)

a. Juan me la quería PRO cantar ayer. (Juan wanted to sing it to me yesterday.)

b. Juan quería PRO cantármela ayer. (Juan wanted to sing it to me yesterday.)

(2) ECM construction

a. Juan me escuchó PRO cantarla ayer. (Juan heard me sing it yesterday.)

3. Prior Studies

Previous research on the adult L2 acquisition of Spanish clitics (Liceras,

1985; Bruhn de Garavito & Montrul, 1996; Duffield & White, 1999) provides
evidence to show that L2 learners have robust knowledge of clitics and are
highly sensitive to the distributional pattern relating to the finite vs. non-finite
asymmetry of the Spanish clitic system (finite= proclisis, non-finite= enclisis,
finite + non-finite= proclisis or enclisis). This evidence has been used
historically to support full access to UG accounts.
Liceras’ (1985) study of the acquisition of Spanish clitics was one of the
first within the generate framework, testing high intermediate L1 learners of
English and French to examine the acquisition of clitics with tensed verbs,
infinitives, and in cases of clitic climbing and clitic doubling. While clitics do
not exist in English, they do exist in French, although their distribution is
partially different than that of Spanish clitics. Liceras found that the
L1English/L2 Spanish learners correctly produced clitics in all of the
aforementioned situations, although there were errors in clitic placement with
tensed verbs and between tensed verbs and infinitives (mesoclitic placement),
both of which can be explained by participants’ exposure to French. Despite
errors in clitic placement in certain contexts, these results provide evidence to
support Full Transfer/Full Access accounts (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996), as both
groups of adult learners produced clitics successfully and their clitic placement,
although inconsistent with the language distribution of Spanish, was consistent
with general UG-constraints.
Bruhn-Garavito and Montrul (1996) conducted a bidirectional study of the
acquisition of clitics with L1Spanish/L2 French learners and L1French/L2
Spanish learners. They found that L2 learners were successful in producing
clitics, and successfully placed clitics with tensed and infinitival verbs, but were
not as successful in acquiring placement in cases of clitic climbing. The authors
suggest that this may be due to the fact that restructuring is an additional
syntactic process that may involve more than the position of the infinitive, a
suggestion that influenced the choice of properties selected in the present study.
In sum, the authors conclude that some participants displayed knowledge of
clitics and clitic placement that would be consistent with having reset the clitic
placement parameter, while others seemed to control the position of clitics but
did not display knowledge of other associated properties.
Lastly, Duffield and White (1999) examined the acquisition of clitic
placement in L1English/L2 Spanish learners in a series of constructions - finite
verbs, auxiliary VPs, restructuring VPs, and causative VPs. As is consistent
with the previous two studies, both intermediate and advanced L2 Spanish
learners displayed successful acquisition of clitic placement in finite and non-
finite constructions, providing further evidence to show that adult learners of
Spanish are able to acquire knowledge of clitic placement regardless of whether
clitics are instantiated in their L1. Also consistent with the results of Bruhn-
Garavito and Montrul (1996), participants in this study displayed errors in
restructuring and causative VP constructions. This finding is particularly
relevant given that restructuring and causative verbs place the same restrictions
on clitic placement as verbs of perception, which we examine herein.

4. Research Questions and Hypotheses

The current study builds on these earlier works, examining the phenomenon
of clitic solidarity and syntactic restrictions to its application with a particular
subgroup of ECM verbs; namely, verbs of perception. The purpose of testing
the acquisition of these verbs is to determine whether L2 learners of Spanish
show sensitivity to the syntactic restrictions placed on clitic solidarity in these
constructions, despite their relative infrequency and overall inconsistency with
general pedagogical rules. We have two principal research questions:

(i) Are L1English/L2Spanish learners able to acquire knowledge of clitic

placement in ‘traditional’ constructions?

(ii) Do L1English/L2 Spanish learners show sensitivity to clitic placement

restrictions in ECM constructions?

Here we emphasize that several variables are at stake when considering the
learning task for the L1 English speaker. First, in order to have a target
representation of clitics, the learner must acquire a new functional category as
well as the features associated with this category4. At the same time, the L2er
must learn both the morphophonology of the clitic forms as well as the
distributional pattern of clitics in Spanish, which, being language-specific, do
not pertain directly to the underlying syntax of clitics. These pieces of the
learning task, therefore, involve learning in the true sense of the word and
knowledge of these aspects alone could be attributed to frequency in the input
and/or explicit instruction, as we know that clitic forms and the traditional
pattern of distribution are taught explicitly (even overgeneralized) in all second
language classrooms.
The restrictions placed on clitic solidarity in ECM constructions, however,
are universal rather than language-specific, and should theoretically fall out
from knowledge of both the argument structure of the lexical verbs at stake and
the underlying syntax of clitics. To be clear, in this case learners simply cannot
rely on instruction (as general pedagogical rules do not include these exceptional
cases) or frequency in the input (as these constructions, both in type and in
number, are much less frequent than ‘traditional’ periphrastic constructions).

4
Following Minimalism, differences across the world’s languages of this type, or
parametric differences, derive from variation in feature specifications or instantiation
across languages. As a result, English and Spanish must have some featural difference
for pronominal objects within the syntax proper, resulting in the former having strong
pronouns and the latter having clitics. Whatever the specifics of these features turn out to
be is precisely what the English natives need to acquire at the level of new L2 features.
Following approaches that claim that clitics are heads of their own functional projection,
this means that some uninterpretable featural difference between English and Spanish
obtains, whereby English lacks the feature that Spanish has that generates object clitics.
We could stipulate that there is an uninterpretable +clitic feature, and could end the story
there. Whether or not there is a clitic feature, or, the difference between English and
Spanish is better explained by another feature to be discussed in future syntactic theory,
is of little consequence for the present study. This is true since whatever the specific
feature turns out to be, it will be the case that Spanish has a feature that English natives
do not have in their L1 and must be acquired in the course of L2 Spanish interlanguage
development to attain a mental representation like that of native speakers.
 Assuming full transfer models, the argument structure of the verbs would
transfer from English, as it is the same in both languages; however, clitics
cannot be transferred. Thus, despite the fact that the argument structure of the
lexical verbs may transfer from English, we hypothesize that learners must have
truly acquired the underlying representation of the clitics themselves in order to
consistently apply argument structure restrictions accordingly. In fact, since the
same logic holds for restructuring and causative contexts as well, what we
maintain here as an explanation would also account for the problems noted in
these specific contexts in previous research as early as Liceras (1985) and
Duffield and White (1999). In accord with this line of reasoning, demonstration
of accurate L2 clitic placement in ECM structures (and restructuring and
causative contexts) could serve as a better diagnostic for true acquisition of
clitics, precisely because knowledge of (production, comprehension , judgment
or all three) clitic climbing in finite and non-finite contexts could obtain from
both general frequency and/or explicit instruction.
Based on evidence in the literature, (Liceras, 1985; Bruhn-Garavito &
Montrul, 1996; Duffield & White, 1999), we predict that intermediate and
advanced L2 learners will display target-like knowledge of clitic placement in
‘traditional’ constructions, although we cannot deny that such knowledge might
be attributable to learning as opposed to acquisition in the way described above.
Based on previous evidence of L2 problems with clitic placement in causatives
and restructuring constructions, combined with the logic that knowledge of the
universal restrictions they (and ECM) place on clitic solidarity are a better
diagnostic of underlying representation, we can argue that clitics are late
acquired. In line with full UG-accessibility, we anticipate that sensitivity to the
restrictions placed on clitic solidarity in ECM constructions, despite instruction
to the contrary and limited input, will eventual be demonstrable in later stages of
L2 development.

5. Methodology

74 participants were divided into three experimental groups (beginner=26,

intermediate=25, advanced=14) by means of a standardly used proficiency
measure and one control group of native Spanish speakers (=9). All participants
in the experimental groups were native English speakers who began studying L2
Spanish in adulthood (mean age of onset of acquisition =13.5). Participants
completed a scalar grammaticality judgment and correction task as well as a fill-
in-the-blank collocation task; however, due to space limitations, here we
exclusively discuss the results of the grammaticality judgment and correction
task.
In the GJT, participants were presented with 116 sentences and asked to rate
them from 1 (completely unnatural) to 4 (completely natural). In the case that
they ranked the sentence with a 1 (completely unnatural) or a 2 (unnatural), they
were asked to correct the error(s) in the sentence. The task consisted of 66
counterbalanced target items and 50 fillers. The target items were
counterbalanced for construction type (finite/modal+inf/ECM+inf) and clitic
distribution (proclisis/ enclisis/ mesoclisis/ pro-endoclisis), resulting in 18 target
items with finite verb constructions, and 24 each with modal+inf and ECM+inf
constructions (see Table 2 for examples).

Table 2. Judgment Task: Examples by type

Construction Type
Finite verb *enclisis
Finite verb proclisis
Finite verb *pro-endoclisis
Modal+inf enclisis
Modal+inf preclisis
Modal+inf *mesoclisis
Modal+inf *pro-endoclisis
ECM+inf *enclisis
ECM+inf *proclisis
ECM+inf *mesoclisis
ECM+inf pro-endoclisis
Example
Cocinámostelo esta noche.
Juan me lo contó ayer.
Te mando la por correo.
Jorge quería cantármela.
Marisol nos la quiere traer.
Guillermo quiere nos la traer.
David me quería contarlo ayer.
Vimos cocinártelo.
Francisco nos la vio traer.
Fernando oyó me lo contar ayer.
Te vi mandarla por correo.

6. Results

In this section we present both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses

of the results of the GJT. (See Figures 1-4). For the inferential statistics, a
repeated-measures ANOVA was compared. Results showed a significant
interaction of all three variables – group, construction type, and clitic position
(F(12,276) = 10.748; p <0.001). Sidak adjustments were conducted for all post-
hoc tests presented here.
Figure 1 shows grammatical clitic placement constructions in which all
three experimental groups display target-like knowledge of clitic placement in
both traditional and ECM constructions. Figure 2 shows the results of all groups
in ungrammatical traditional constructions. Here there are two noteworthy
patterns. First, in finite constructions with *enclisis, the Beginner group
performs differently than all other groups (p<0.002). Secondly, in modal+inf
constructions with *pro-endoclisis, the advanced group’s performance is
consistent with the native controls, while the performance of the beginner and
intermediate groups is not. In this construction, the native and advanced groups
perform significantly differently than the beginners and intermediates (p<0.007).
We will comment on this further in the analysis of figure 4.
Figure 1. Grammatical Constructions Figure 2. Ungrammatical Constructions

4
4
3.5
3.5 3
3 2.5
Beginner
2.5 2 Beginner
2 Intermediate 1.5 Intermediate
1.5 1
1 Advanced Advanced
Native Control
Native Control

Figure 3 shows the results of all groups with all clitic placement
possibilities in ECM constructions 5 . For the beginner group, there are no
significant differences across the ECM constructions based on clitic position,
suggesting that although learners in this group appear to display target-like
knowledge of clitic placement in both traditional and ECM constructions when
considering their judgments of the grammatical placement tokens alone, they do
not make a clear distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical placement
in the case of the ECM constructions. The intermediate group makes a
distinction between all three placement options included in the analysis -
*enclisis/*proclisis/pro-endoclisis - (p<0.001). The advanced group makes a
distinction between *enclisis and the remaining clitic placement options
(p<0.001), and the native control group distinguishes between all three (p <
0.031).

Figure 3. Judgment Task: ‘ECM+inf’ constructions

4
3.5
3
Beginner
2.5
2 Intermediate
1.5
1 Advanced
Native Control

Lastly, Figure 4 shows the results of all groups with pro-endoclitic

placement. Importantly, here we focus on the distinction made by both the
advanced group and the native controls between grammatical pro-endoclitic
placement in ECM constructions and non-grammatical pro-endoclitic placement

5
Constructions with mesoclitic placement were not included in any of the statistical
analyses discussed here, although they appear in the figures.
in modal+inf constructions. Following the argumentation we laid out above,
these are the crucial comparisons. Pairwise comparisons returned no significant
differences across groups in ECM constructions with pro-endoclisis, suggesting
that all groups show target-like knowledge of clitic placement in ECM
constructions, where clitic solidarity is broken. However, in modal+inf
constructions with *pro-endoclisis, the native and advanced groups perform
significantly differently than the beginners and intermediates (p<0.007). These
two groups (advanced and natives) reject the ungrammatical placement, whereas
the beginner and intermediate groups do not appear to do so.
So, while all groups seemingly accept pro-endoclisis in ECM constructions,
only the advanced experimental group is actually sensitive to the restrictions
placed on clitic solidarity exclusively in ECM constructions as this group
displays target-like knowledge in both modal+inf and ECM constructions,
making a clear distinction between the two based on argument structure
interactions with clitic distribution. As we are assuming full transfer of the
verbal argument structure in all experimental groups, we argue that the
distinction seen here between the performance of the advanced experimental
group and that of the beginner and intermediate groups is related to the
acquisition of the underlying syntactic representation of the clitics themselves.

Figure 4. Judgment Task: Pro-endoclisis across construction type

4
3.5
3 Beginner
2.5 Intermediate
2
1.5 Advanced
1 Native
Finite *pro- Modal + nf ECM pro-
endoclisis *pro-endoclisis endoclisis

Without a syntactic representation of clitics, which cannot be transferred

from the L1, the lower proficiency learners are not able to distinguish between
grammatical and ungrammatical placement of clitics in ECM constructions,
which do not follow the typical pattern of clitic solidarity that they may rely on
in traditional contexts, regardless of the availability of the underlying argument
structure in their interlanguage grammar. In other words, how can they make
use of the transferred argument structure to restrict something for which their
grammar has no representation? Apparently, the data show, they do not, which
makes sense given the line of reasoning we have provided throughout. The
advanced proficiency learners, however, appear to have acquired the underlying
syntax of clitics, as evidenced by their sensitivity to the grammaticality of pro-
endoclitic placement in ECM constructions as well as its ungrammaticality in
traditional constructions, to a degree that does not differ from the native
controls. We argue that this sensitivity is lacking in beginners and intermediates
precisely due to a developmental deficit in their underlying representation of
clitics.
Adding further support to our claims, we summarize that in all intergroup
comparisons, for any given item type, the native and advanced groups never
perform differently, while the beginner group differs from the natives over 50%
of the time and the intermediate group does twice (out of 9 comparisons). This
does not mean, however, that there are no differences between the controls and
the advanced learners. Where there was such a difference, it obtained only in a
context in which multiple options are grammatical and the difference we witness
is one of preference. Table 3 displays the preferences that emerge when holding
clitic position constant across the three construction types that were analyzed.
These preferences suggest that all groups have some target-like knowledge of
clitic placement, as grammatical preferences bear out across all groups.

Table 3. Group preferences for construction type across clitic position

Enclisis Proclisis Pro-endoclisis

Native Modal+inf Finite and Modal+inf ECM
Advanced Modal+inf Finite ECM
Intermediate Modal+inf Finite ECM
Beginner Modal+inf Finite ECM& modal+inf

7. Conclusion

The data presented here provide clear evidence to answer our two principal
research questions. Our first question regards the learners’ ability to acquire
knowledge of clitic placement in traditional constructions. Our results show that
all experimental groups display target-like knowledge of clitic placement in
grammatical constructions across construction type. These results confirm those
of previous studies (Liceras, 1985; Bruhn-Garavito & Montrul, 1996; Duffield
& White, 1999) which purported that intermediate and advanced L2 learners are
able to acquire clitics and clitic placement knowledge in traditional
constructions. Further, our results show that even beginner L2 learners display
some knowledge of clitic placement in finite and modal+inf constructions.
While these data are consistent with prior results and suggest that L2 learners
are able to perform with native-like accuracy, this accuracy may be due, at least
in part, to explicit classroom instruction, true ‘learning’ of the language-specific
distribution rules, and high frequency in the input.
Our second question regards the learners’ ability to place clitics in ECM
constructions when universal restrictions apply, due to the argument structure of
the lexical verbs. Our data show that advanced L2 learners make a clear
distinction between ECM constructions and traditional modal+inf constructions
when faced with the pro-endoclisis clitic position, accepting pro-endoclisis
placement in ECM constructions where syntactic restrictions do not allow for
clitic solidarity, and, crucially, rejecting pro-endoclisis placement in modal+inf
constructions where clitic solidarity holds based on placement distribution
specific to Spanish. It appears that the beginner and intermediate groups,
despite displaying target-like knowledge of clitic placement in the grammatical
categories, do not make this distinction. This is consistent with previous
findings for causative and restructuring contexts by Liceras (1985) and Duffield
and White (1999). Since this distinction represents the knowledge that clitic
solidarity is highly constrained to very specific environments and is not
generalizable, we have argued throughout that this distinction should be the
measure through which the L2 representational status of clitics is assessed.
In summary, the data show that advanced learners are the only group truly
sensitive to the inherent restrictions placed on clitic solidarity (despite ambiguity
in the input, low frequency, and instruction to the contrary). Their judgments on
the placement of clitics in the crucial contexts are strong evidence to suggest
that they have successfully acquired the underlying syntax of clitics in Spanish.
This is to say, in the case of the advanced learners, they are truly treating clitics
as clitics. Without being able to rely on ‘rules’ of placement (which is possible
in the traditional constructions), these learners must have acquired an underlying
representation of clitics in order to demonstrate, beyond what they are taught,
how clitics interact in a native-like manner with the particular verbs at play. As
such, these results strongly support Full Access approaches to UG in adulthood.

References

Araya, Guillermo., Henk Haverkate, & Kitty van Leuven. (Eds.). (1980). Los clíticos en
el español actual. Amsterdam: Editorial Rodopi.
Castillo, Concha. (2001). The Configuration of ECM structures. Studia Linguistica, 55
(2), 113-139.
Duffield, Nigel & White, Lydia. (1999). Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic
placement: converging methodologies. Second Language Research, 15, 2, 133- 160.
Gass, Susan M. & Selinker, Larry. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory
course (Third Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hawkins, Roger, & Hattori, Hajime. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-
questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account.
Second Language Research, 22(3), 269-301.
Liceras, Juana. M. (1985). The value of clitics in non-native Spanish, Second Language
Research, 1(2), 151-168.
Martins, Ana Maria. (2006). Aspects of Infinitival Construction in the History of
Portuguese. In Randall S. Gess & Deborah Arteaga (Eds.), Historical Romance
Linguistics (pp. 327- 355). John Benjamins.
Masullo, Pascual J. (2004). Clitics aren‘t Climbers! (Unpublished manuscript).
University of Pittsburg, Pittsburg.
Montrul, Silvina. (2004). The Acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in
monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins B.V.
 Park, Insim. (2004). A study on ECM Infinitive Structure. Studies in Generative
Grammar, 14, 4, 497-517.
Rothman, Jason, Tiffany Judy, Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes, & Acrisio Pires. (2010). On the
(Un)-Ambiguity of Adjectival Modification in Spanish DPs. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32, 47-77.
Sportiche, Dominique. (1996). Clitic constructions. In J. Rooryck and L. A. Zaring
(Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 213-276). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Schwartz, Bonnie D. & Sprouse, Rex A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full
Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research 12: 40-72.
Thomas, Danielle. (2012). Grammatical Optionality and Variability in Bilingualism: How
Spanish-English bilinguals limit clitic-climbing. Dissertation: The University of
Toronto.
Tsimpli, Iianthi M., & Dimitrakopoulou, Maria. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis:
Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language
Research, 23(2), 215-242.
Uriagereka, Juan. (1995). Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in western Romance.
Linguistic Inquiry, 26(1), 79-123.
White, Lydia. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

View publication stats