second language acquisition of unaccusative syntax: macedonian

1

ALEKSANDRA SIMONOVIKJ

Trabajo Fin de Master (TFM) / MA Dissertation

Máster oficial en literatura y lingüística inglesas

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OF

UNACCUSATIVE SYNTAX:

MACEDONIAN AND SPANISH LEARNERS

OF L2 ENGLISH

Departamento de Filologías Inglesa y Alemana

Universidad de Granada

Octubre 2011

Supervisor: Dr. Cristóbal Lozano

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... 2

OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................... 7

1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 10

1.1 THE PHENOMENON UNDER INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................ 11

1.2 AN OVERVIEW OF L2 ACQUISITION ................................................................................................... 13

1.2.1 Linguistic theories of second language acquisition .............................................................. 14

1.2.2 Individual differences in second language acquisition ......................................................... 26

1.2.3 Sources of interlanguage (IL) knowledge .............................................................................. 27

2 LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND: UNACCUSATIVITY AND POSTVERBAL SUBJECTS ............................... 31

2.1 PRELIMINARY THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................ 31

2.1.1 L2 acquisition and Universal Grammar ................................................................................ 31

2.1.2 The pro-drop parameter ....................................................................................................... 33

2.1.3 The architecture of language and the interfaces .................................................................. 39

2.2 THE PHENOMENON UNDER INVESTIGATION: SUBJECT-VERB INVERSION (SV/VS ORDERS) .......................... 41

2.2.1 The Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH) ....................................................................................... 47

2.2.2 Cross-linguistic evidence for the UH ..................................................................................... 51

2.2.3 Unaccusativity in the languages under consideration .......................................................... 56

2.2.3.1 Unaccusativity and word order in native English ....................................................................... 56

2.2.3.1.1 Existential inversion............................................................................................................... 58

2.2.3.1.2 Locative inversion .................................................................................................................. 60

2.2.3.2 Unaccusativity and word order in native Spanish ...................................................................... 64

2.2.3.3 Unaccusativity and word order in native Macedonian ............................................................... 67

3

2.2.3.3.1 Description of unaccusativity ................................................................................................ 71

2.2.3.3.2 Pilot study: Macedonian native speakers’ intuitions on unaccusativity ................................ 72

3 THE L2 ACQUISITION OF UNACCUSATIVITY ................................................................................ 77

3.1 PRELIMINARY BACKGROUND: L2 ACQUISITION AND THE INTERFACES ......................................................... 77

3.2 UNACCUSATIVES IN L2 ACQUISITION .................................................................................................. 78

3.2.1 Introduction: some examples of learners’ production on unaccusativity ............................. 78

3.2.2 Passivized unaccusatives ...................................................................................................... 80

3.2.3 Unaccusative auxiliary selection ........................................................................................... 84

3.2.4 Unaccusative postverbal subjects ......................................................................................... 85

3.3 CONCLUSION: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY OF UH .............................................................................. 93

4 HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................................................. 94

5 METHOD ................................................................................................................................... 96

5.1 SUBJECTS ..................................................................................................................................... 96

5.2 INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 98

5.2.1 Main experimental test: the acceptability judgement test ................................................... 98

5.2.2 Proficiency test: The Oxford Placement Test ...................................................................... 101

5.3 VARIABLES AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ............................................................................................ 102

5.4 PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................................ 104

5.5 DESIGN ...................................................................................................................................... 107

5.6 DATA CODING AND DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 107

6 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 109

6.1 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 109

6.1.1 Results for H1: L2 knowledge of unaccusativity (lexicon-syntax interface) ........................ 109

6.1.2 Results for H2: At initial stages all unaccusative XP-V-S structures will be treated as

grammatical. ................................................................................................................................... 113

4

6.1.3 Results for H3: No transfer hypothesis: Learners’ behavour cannot simply be accounted for

by L1 transfer ................................................................................................................................... 119

6.1.4 Results for H4: Learners will follow the developmental stages proposed by the Unaccusative

Trap (Oshita 2000). .......................................................................................................................... 121

6.2 QUALITATIVE COMMENTS MADE BY THE LEARNERS.............................................................................. 122

6.3 CONTRASTING RESULTS: BY OPT AND BY SELF-PROFICIENCY .................................................................. 125

7 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 128

7.1 L2 LEARNERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF UH .................................................................................................. 128

7.1.1 Discussion of H1: L2 knowledge of unaccusativity (lexicon-syntax interface) .................... 128

7.1.2 Discussion of H2: L2 knowledge of the different preverbal structures: .............................. 129

7.1.3 Discussion of H3: the No-transfer hypothesis and other possible sources of L2 learners’

knowledge........................................................................................................................................ 132

7.1.3.1 Input ......................................................................................................................................... 132

7.1.3.2 Instruction ................................................................................................................................ 133

7.1.3.3 L1 transfer ................................................................................................................................ 133

7.1.3.4 Reasons for lack of L1 transfer ................................................................................................. 134

7.1.4 Discussion of H4: Developmental stages and Oshita’s (2001) Unaccusative Trap hypoThesis

135

7.2 POSSIBLE PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: TEACHING POSTVERBAL SUBJECTS IN L2 ENGLISH ........................... 137

7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ..................................................................................... 138

7.3.1 Postverbal subjects with ‘be’ (expl + be + NP-subject) ........................................................ 138

7.3.2 The effects of weight and focus on postverbal subjects ..................................................... 139

8 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 140

9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 142

10 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 144

11 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 152

11.1 MAIN EXPERIMENTAL TEST: CONTEXTUALISED ACCEPTABILITY JUDGEMENT TEST (ONLINE VERSION) .............. 152

5

11.1.1 Main experimental test for English natives (SAES) ......................................................... 152

11.1.2 Main experimental test for L1 Spa-L2 Eng learners (EASI) ............................................. 164

11.1.3 Main experimental tests for l1 maced-L2 Eng (IUSAJ) .................................................... 177

11.1.4 Randomization of sentences in the main experimental test .......................................... 191

11.2 OPT (OXFORD PLACEMENT TEST) ................................................................................................... 192

11.3 PILOT STUDY ON MACEDONIAN NATIVES’ INTUITIONS ON UNACCUSATIVITY ............................................. 197

11.3.1 Pilot study on Macedonian natives: the test .................................................................. 198

11.3.2 Pilot study on Macedonian natives: raw data ................................................................ 207

11.3.3 Pilot study on Macedonian natives: outputs (charts) ..................................................... 210

11.4 RAW DATA FOR THE MAIN EXPERIMENTAL TEST (FULL TABLES) ............................................................... 210

11.4.1 Raw data for English natives .......................................................................................... 211

11.4.2 Raw data for L1 Spa – L2 Eng learners ........................................................................... 212

11.4.3 Raw data for L1 Maced – L2 English learners ................................................................ 213

11.5 CHARTS FOR THE MAIN EXPERIMENT (CHART OUTPUTS) ....................................................................... 214

11.5.1 Charts for the main experiment: L1 Spa – L2 Eng learners ............................................. 214

11.5.2 Charts for the main experiment: L1 Maced – L2 English learners .................................. 215

11.6 EMAIL: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE ................................................................................................. 215

11.6.1 Participate in SAES (invitation for English natives) ......................................................... 216

11.6.2 Participate in EASI (invitation for L1 Spanish-L2 English leaners) .................................. 217

11.6.3 Participate in IUSAJ (invitation for L1 MaceDonian-L2 English leaners) ........................ 218

11.7 EMAIL: SEE YOUR RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 219

11.7.1 Email sent to L1 Spa-L2 Eng learners: see your results ................................................... 220

11.7.2 Email sent to L1 Maced-L2 Eng learners: see your results ............................................. 220

11.8 EMAIL: PLEASE COMPLETE THE OPT ................................................................................................ 220

11.8.1 Email sent to L1 Spa-L2 Eng learners: Please complete the OPT .................................... 221

6

11.8.2 Email sent to L1 Maced-L2 Eng learners: Please complete the OPT ............................... 222

11.9 CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION ....................................................................................................... 222

11.9.1 Certificate of participation for L1 Spa-L2 Eng learners ................................................... 223

11.9.2 Certificate of participation for L1 Maced-L2 Eng learners .............................................. 225

7

OVERVIEW

The Unaccusative Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1978, Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995 is a

proposed linguistic principle that divides intransitive verbs into two types: unergatives,

whose only argument (subject) typically denotes activities controlled by an agent, and

unaccusatives whose argument is generated postverbally in object position and is a

theme. One of the surface syntactic manifestations of UH is that, while Subject-Verb

order is allowed with both verb types, Verb-Subject order is allowed under certain

conditions: (i) the verb is unaccusative; (ii) the subject introduces new information

(focus); and (iii) the subject is long (heavy).

Previous research has shown that L2 learners are sensitive to the Unaccusative

Hypothesis (UH), irrespective of instruction, input and their L1. One of the aims of this

study is to support previous findings claiming that different L1 background learners of

L2 English are sensitive to the syntactic constraints of the UH by investigating the

acceptance of postverbal subjects by Spanish and Macedonian learners of L2 English. In

particular, the study focuses on the acquisition of postverbal subject structures of the

type (XP)-V-S (1-4), where a preverbal element is realized either as an ungrammatical

overt expletive “it”, an ungrammatical null element (Ø), a grammatical “there”

expletive (existential inversion) and a grammatical PP (locative inversion). These

structures have been widely reported in the L2 literature to be produced by learners of

English with different L1 backgrounds (Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic)

with unaccusative verbs, but never with unergatives.

(1) *it-V-S

a) *…it happened a tragic event…. (L1 Italian)

b) *…it arrived the day of his departure. (L1 Spanish)

c) *…it will happen something exciting. (L1 Spanish)

8

(2) there-V-S

a) …there often arise the problem of political indifference.(L1 Japanese)

b) …there exist two kind of jobs… (L1 Italian)

c) …there exist many kind of prejudice. (L1 Korean)

(3) *Ø -V-S

…it is difficult that [exist volunteers with such a feeling against it]…

(L1 Spanish)

…like a mirage [appeared the large expanse of the sea]… (L1 Italian)

(4) PP-V-S

…in the town lived a small Indian. (L1 Spanish)

…on this particular place happened a story which now appears on all

Mexican history books. (L1 Spanish)

… on her face appeared those two red cheeks and above them beautiful

deep eyes. (L1 Arabic)

This study differs from previous studies in several respects: (i) the participants are

native Macedonian learners of L2 English (who will be compared against L1 Spanish –

L2 English learners); (ii) the study is developmental, measuring the development of XP-

V-S through all proficiency levels (from A1 to C2), which will then be compared

against the English native speakers‟ norm; and (iii) the nature of the preverbal element

(XP) in XP-V-S structures will be analyzed in detail.

Data were collected online via a contextualized acceptability judgment test. 91

Macedonian and 91 Spanish learners of L2 English classified in groups of six

proficiency levels (A1-C2) and 24 native English participants took part in this study.

The overall results indicate that Macedonian and Spanish learners of L2 English are

sensitive to the universal constraints of the UH by allowing the occurrence of postverbal

subjects with unaccusative verbs more than with unergative verbs. In accordance with

the theory of Universal Grammar (UG) it has also been noticed that L1 Macedonian and

9

L1 Spanish learners follow similar developmental stages in the L2 acquisition of

postverbal subjects which converge with the grammars of the control English native

group, suggesting that the acceptance of the structures cannot be accounted for solely by

L1 transfer. Finally, this study will discuss the nature of the preverbal phrase (XP) in

learners‟ grammars, i.e., structural cases like *it-V-S (e.g...it happened a tragic event..)

and *Ø-V-S (e.g. …like a mirage [appeared the large expanse of the sea]… ) will be

discussed, as they will shed some light on, learners‟ processing difficulties and/or

crosslinguistic influence, which will also be discussed in detail.

This study concludes with some pedagogical recommendations for the teaching of

postverbal subjects in L2 English and some suggestions for future research on the nature

of unaccusativity in L2 acquisition.

10

1 INTRODUCTION

The main focus of this study supports the claims that second language (L2) learners are

sensitive to the properties of the Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH) as a proposed invariant

principle of Universal Grammar (UG). The intuition of language learners to the UH

confirms the claims that language acquisition cannot be accounted for only L1 transfer

but it is rather a complex process developing through predetermined stages. We are

interested in exploring the L2 acquisition of postverbal subject structures in L2 English

which is a widely attested phenomenon. Our study analyzes the acquisition of

postverbal subject structures of the type XP-V-S by L1 Macedonian – L2 English

learners compared to L1 Spanish – L2 English learners.

Before we start explaining the phenomenon under investigation we will briefly describe

the organization of this dissertation.

The introductory part of the paper (Section 1) discusses the linguistic phenomenon of

interest and presents an outline of second language acquisition (SLA) theories and some

of the key factors involved in the L2 acquisition process. The following part (Section 2)

discusses the influence of UH on the word order of the three languages under

investigation (English, Spanish, Macedonian). Then there follows (Section 3) the part

explaining the L2 acquisition of unaccusative structures, with particular reference to

postverbal subjects. The following parts (Sections 4, 5 and 6) elaborate the hypothesis,

the method and the results of the study which are later discussed (Section 7).

Conclusions are presented at the end of the dissertation (Section 8).

11

1.1 THE PHENOMENON UNDER INVESTIGATION

In order to describe the phenomenon under investigation we will present examples of

XP-V-S structures (5-9) produced by different L1 learners of L2 English taken from

several empirical studies (Zobl 1989; Rutherford 1989; Oshita 2000; Oshita 2004;

Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2008, 2010) analyzing the acquisition of postverbal subjects

in English. For notation purposes, the preverbal element (XP) is presented in italics, the

verb is underlined and the postverbal subject is marked in bold. All examples provide

information about the L1 of the learner who produced it and the study this structure was

obtained from. Some of the structures are grammatically (i.e., structurally) possible in

native English (PPloc-V-S and there-V-S) and some ungrammatical (*it-V-S; *Ø-V-S;

*PPtemp-V-S) 1.

(5) PP (locative) - V - S

a) … on her face appeared those two red cheeks …

(L1 Arabic; Rutherford, 1989, p. 179).

b) … because in our century have appeared the car and the plane.

(L1 Spanish; Oshita, 2004, p. 120).

c) …on the earth lived people which were born criminal.

(L1 Spanish; Lozano & Mendikoetxea, 2008, p. 106).

d) In some places still exist popularly supported death penalty.


(6) there-insertion – V - S

a) .… there often arise the problem of political indifference …

1 “Ungrammatical” structures are marked by an asterisk (*). The term “ungrammatical” means that a

particular sentence is not possible in native English. “Ungrammaticality” here does not refer to SV

agreement or wrong tense use. For example, the sentence In some places still exist popularly supported

death penalty (5d) may be considered ungrammatical because there is a subject–verb agreement mismatch

but it is considered grammatical because PP (locative)-V-S is possible in native English.

12

(L1 Japanese; Oshita, 2000, p. 315).

b) … there exist two kinds of jobs.

(L1 Italian; Oshita, 2000, p. 315).

c) … there exist many kinds of prejudice.

(L1 Korean; Oshita, 2000, p. 315).

d) …there still remains a predominance of men over women.

(L1 Spanish; Lozano & Mendikoetxea,2008, p. 106).

(7) *it-insertion - V - S

a) *… it happened a tragic event …


b) *…it existed a lot of restrictions.


c) *…it will not exist a machine or something able to imitate the

human imagination.

(L1 Spanish; Lozano & Mendikoetxea ,2008, p. 106.).

d) *In the name of religion it had occured many important events…


(8) *Ø -insertion - V - S2

a) *… like a mirage [ appeared the large expanse of the sea ]…


b) *There is no doubt that [ does exist a big difference between…


2 The existence of null expletives in Ø -insertion - V - S structures is argued by Oshita (2004) who claims

that null expletives are psychologically real to speakers of pro-drop languages and they occupy the

sentence subject position.

13

c) *…because [ exist science technology and the industrialization. ]


d) *It is difficult that [ exist volunteers with such a feeling against it.]


(9) *PP (temporal) - V - S 3

a) * after a few minutes arrive the girlfriend with his family too.

(L1 Spanish; Rutherford, 1989, p. 178).

b) *One day happened a revolution.


c) *In 1760 occurs the restoration of Charles II in England.


The interesting fact is that learners of L2 English with typologically different L1s

produce the same type of errors, which is a phenomenon that needs to be accounted for.

This study examines the acceptance of all XP-V-S structures listed in (5-8). PPtemp-V-

S (9), which has been widely reported in the literature, will be further referred to in

order to support the Unaccusative Hypothesis but will not be examined in this empirical

study, as we will use PPloc (i.e., locative inversion) instead, in the experimental section.

1.2 AN OVERVIEW OF L2 ACQUISITION

In this section we will present a brief overview of some of the main linguistic theories

that aim to account for second language acquisition (SLA), as well as the main

individual factors involved in SLA. The purpose here is not to show an exhaustive

description of the different theories and constructs of SLA, which would be out of the

3 As shown by the examples PP locative produced by learners is typically structurally possible in English

as will be discussed further on this dissertation, while PP temporal is not. Learners however consider

*PPtemp-V-S structures to be grammatical probably due to the grammaticality of PPloc-V-S hence it can

be said that they use use a loco/temporal PP preverbal element as a general device.

14

scope of this study, but rather a preliminary background that will help contextualize this

dissertation.

Mitchell and Myles (2004) define second language acquisition (SLA) as the learning

of another language (other than the mother tongue) spoken in the community or the

learning of any foreign language. There is not yet a general overarching theory that can

fully account for all aspects of SLA, though different approaches and theories try to

explain how the L2 learner acquires linguistic knowledge, each approach showing a

different focus.

1.2.1 LINGUISTIC THEORIES OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

An early theory trying to account for SLA was Contrastive Analysis (CA). It was a

very influential SLA theory in the 60s which studied the interference of L1 on L2,

known as transfer or cross-linguistic influence. It was proposed by Lado (1957) who

claimed the following:

the student who comes into contact with a foreign language will find some features of it

quite easy and others extremely difficult. Those elements that are similar to his native

language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult.

(Lado, 1957:2)

This theory contrasted different linguistic levels of L1 and L2 (morphology, phonology,

syntax, semantics) in order to determine the differences and similarities between two

languages and to predict the possible problematic areas for the L2 learner. If a certain

structure is different in L1 from L2, CA predicted that an error or negative transfer will

occur.

(10) Syntactic structure

a) English Adj-N (white house).

b) Spanish N-Adj (casa blanca) transfer * house white

c) Macedonian Adj-N (Bela kukja)

White house

15

„A white house‟

Noun phrases with adjectives in Spanish have the N-Adj order (casa blanca) while in

English the order is Adj-N (10a) (white house). CA would predict that Spanish learners

of L2 English will produce the ungrammatical *house white (10b) due to negative

transfer. Macedonian learners of L2 English will not produce *house white as

Macedonian has the same Adj-N order as English. They will produce the correct white

house (10c), example of positive transfer which does not cause errors and occurs when

a certain structure is similar in L1 and L2.

The CA is based on the psychological theory of behavourism, which considers SLA to

be a habit formation process during which learners repeat and imitate the stimuli from

the input they are exposed to. Correct imitation should be encouraged and incorrect

imitation should be immediately corrected.

Even though this theory was widely accepted by linguists in the 60s, it started losing

support when it could not answer why learners did not make L1 transfer when it was

expected. An example is the order of object pronouns. In English the object pronoun

occurs postverbally as shown in (11a). In Spanish the object pronoun is placed

preverbally between the subject and the verb, as in (11b). It would be expected for L1

Spanish L2 English learners to make negative transfer (11c) but they produce the

correct „I see them‟ (Hawkins 2001).

(11)

a) I see them

b) Yo los veo

c) I them see [not produced by L1 Spa-L2 Eng]

English learners of L2 Spanish, on the other hand, produce the incorrect “*Yo veo los”

or even “*Yo veo ellos”, which may be considered to be negative transfer from their L1

English. Nevertheless, as we will see in this dissertation, what may seem as clear cases

of transfer, on closer inspection (if we use a fine-grained linguistic analysis) prove to be

cases due to universal developmental patterns, which are well attested in SLA. For

example, adult beginners use simple sentences in the SLA the same as children do when

they learn their mother tongue as shown in (12). These structures are produced by

learners of various L1 backgrounds where they are (morpho) syntactically different

from each other. This clearly indicates that not all L2 errors are due to transfer.

16

(12) No understand

Yesterday I meet my teacher

(Lightbown and Spada 2001, p. 36)

In short, these basic examples indicate that L1 is not the only source of errors in the

SLA process.

The failure of CA to predict all errors produced by L2 learners brought the study of the

origin of errors called Error Analysis (EA) which supports Chomsky‟s (1965) claim

that humans have innate language learning abilities. EA proposes that errors are not bad

habits, as was proposed by the CA. They may occur due to L1 transfer, but they may

also be a product of the innate or cognitive capacities of the learner. Corder (1967)

defined the difference between error and mistake, the former being systematic

referring to learners‟ current knowledge of the language and the latter being

unsystematic errors of performance occurring due to tiredness, anxiety or other external

factors. Even though this theory, which was widely accepted, meant an important leap

forward in our understanding of SLA, it has certain limitations:

i. The origin of errors may be difficult to classify. The no+verb constructions (I no

have a bike) might be considered a transfer error for Spanish L2 learners of

English, but the same error is produced by other L1 learners of L2 English

whose negative structure is not no+V and, additionally, has also been noticed in

L1 English acquisition. It may be the case that „no+verb constructions reflect

transfer and developmental processes working in conjuction (Ellis 2008:311), or

perhaps simply a universal developmental process.

ii. Since EA focuses on the origin of errors, it may not be able to indicate what

exactly has been acquired by the learner.

iii. Learners may avoid L2 structures which do not exist in their L1, which may lead

to lack of data necessary to provide insights about the acquisition of a particular

structure. Schachter (1974) discovered that Chinese and Japanese L2 learners of

English make fewer errors in using relative clauses than Arabic or Persian

learners because these structures are absent in their L1s.

EA stated that learners base their linguistic knowledge on different sources and make

errors which are not always caused by L1 transfer. They may be part of the

17

developmental stages of learners‟ interim grammar defined as Interlanguage by

Selinker (1972). The theory of Interlanguage, which has had a tremendous impact on

our understanding of SLA, studies the development of learner‟s mental grammar, which

is constantly changing as the learner advances towards native-like competence. The

development of the interlanguage is influenced by L1, input and cognitive mechanisms.

All Interlanguage grammars have the following properties:

i. Systematic: Governed by abstract rules at any stage of L2 development.

ii. Transitional: It changes frequently and the progression may be discontinuous (U

shaped learning). At initial stage learners use the correct grammatical form of an

L2 structure (came, ate, went) but they do not understand the rules of the

structure. They only learn the form. At the next stage the learner starts

understanding the rules of the structure and it seems that instead of advancing

their knowledge they go backwards by overgeneralizing and using an incorrect

form of the structure (comed, eated, goed). The last stage shows that learners

have acquired the rules of the structure and use the correct irregular (came, ate,

went) and regular forms of the structure (stayed, played).

iii. Learning strategies: These cognitive mechanisms are used by learners when

building their interlanguage grammar e.g. overregularization (Tanya comed

yesterday).

iv. Fossilization: Interlanguage often fossilizes at a certain stage (according to

Selinker 95% of L2 learners) and does not advance even though learners are

exposed to sufficient input.

v. Variability: Even though it is systematic, the interlanguage grammar shows

variability. The examples in (13) are taken from L1 Spanish – L2 English

learners. This is in fact the type of structures we will analyze in this study.

(13) a) Optional production of passive and active sentences due to the type

of intransitive verb:

Last year my mother died/Last year my mother was died.

b) Production of preverbal/postverbal subjects due to the type of verb

(unaccusative) and the type of subject (light/heavy and topic/focus).

It exist many problems in Spain

18

Many problems exist in Spain

There exist many problems in Spain

The theory of Interlanguage has been largely influential in SLA research in the 70s. The

studies based on the Theory of Interlanguage claim that SLA is governed by a

computational model or innate language acquisition device (LAD), later known as

Universal Grammar (see discussion below).

The morpheme order studies in the 70‟s focused on the acquisition of morphology in

L1 and L2 acquisition and investigated the developmental stages of learners‟

interlanguage. Brown (1973) conducted a longitudinal study on the acquisition of 14

grammatical morphemes in the L1 English of three children. The major finding showed

that all three children followed the same order of acquisition of the morphemes, which

is shown in Table 1 (illustrating the first ten morphemes). Brown‟s study found that the

frequency of input is not crucial for the order of acquisition of morphemes. The definite

article the or 3rd person singular – s are widely present in the input but they are

acquired quite late. Similar orders to Brown‟s have been confirmed by later research

studies examining L2 acquisition of morphemes by children (Dulay and Burt 1974a).

Table 1: Development of morphology in L1 English (Brown 1973)

AGE MORPHEME EXAMPLE

1 2 present progressive -ing Mommy running.

2 prepositions (in, on) in the box

3 plural - s two books

4 2,6 irregular past baby went

5 possessive - s daddy’s hat.

6 uncontractible copula – be Annie is a nice girl.

7 3 article - a, an, the a cat, the cats

8 3,6 regular past - ed She walked

9 3rd person singular -s He lives in the USA.

10 irregular 3rd person - s She has a dog.

Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974) studied the order of acquisition of morphemes of

L2 English by 33 adults with various L1s. They discovered that adults, irrespective of

19

their L1, follow similar pattern as children acquiring their L1 morphology and they

named it „the natural order‟ of acquisition of morphemes shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Development of morphology in L2 English (Bailey, Madden and Krashen 1974)

If we compare Table 1 and Table 2, it can be seen that the acquisition order of L1 and

L2 morphology is similar, indicating that L1 influence in the SLA process for

morphology is not as large as originally proposed by the CA proponents. Other studies

have been conducted and have confirmed the natural order for the acquisition of syntax,

e.g., negation, questions (Bloom and Lahey 1978, inter alia).

The idea proposed by the Morpheme Order Studies states that interlanguage grammar

develops systematically and independently of the influence of the input or L1, in

contrast to the previous proposals of the CA.

The Monitor Model was developed by Stephen Krashen (1982), who was one of the

researchers conducting the Morpheme Order Studies in the 70s. This model, consisting

of five hypotheses, became very influential in SLA research and pedagogy in the 80s.

i. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis states that there are two independent

systems for developing second language ability. ACQUISITION is the

unconscious learning process (similar to what occurs with children acquiring

their mother tongue) and LEARNING employs the conscious language learning

process, i.e., explicit knowledge about the language. Some of the features of

both systems are presented in Figure 1.

20

Figure 1: Features of Acquisition and Learning Systems according to Krashen’s Acquistion-Learning Hypothesis.

ii. The Monitor Hypothesis explains how the separate systems of ACQUISITION

and LEARNING are used in second language performance. Acquisition

"initiates" L2 utterances and provides the fluency of communication. Learning

functions as a MONITOR of the produced utterances and is responsible for their

editing or changing (self-correction) after they have been produced by the

acquisition. This is possible when certain necessary but insufficient conditions

are met (sufficient time to think, knowledge of the rules and focus on form).

This process is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Krashen’s Monitor Model of Language Acquisition

iii. The Natural Order Hypothesis is based on the morpheme order studies

claiming that there is a natural order for the L2 acquisition of English

morphology, which is similar to the order followed by children acquiring their

L1 English. Krashen made a summary of the morpheme order obtained by

several studies, as shown in Figure 3. Morphemes are acquired according to a

predictable natural order which is independent of what is taught in class.

21

Figure 3: "Average" order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes for English as a second language (children

and adults), Krashen (1982).

iv. The Input Hypothesis claims that learners acquire a second language when they

are exposed to comprehensible input, which contains information „a little

beyond‟ the learner‟s current knowledge of interlanguage development. Krashen

named the current level as “i” and the comprehensible input as “i+1”, which is

possible to be understood with the help of the context, knowledge of the world

or extra linguistic information as shown in Figure 4. When the “i+1” level is

achieved, more comprehensible input is needed for learner‟s progression

towards the next level until native like competence is achieved.

Figure 4: Presentation of Krashen’s input hypothesis

v. The Affective Filter Hypothesis has also been very influential for the SLA

research and pedagogy. It explains how affective variables such as motivation,

self-confidence, anxiety etc. are related to SLA success. If the affective filter

(Figure 5) is high, i.e., if the learner is stressed, anxious, tired, etc., it functions

as a barrier to the input, which will not be properly processed and will not reach

the LAD, hence language acquisition will not occur. The affective filter

22

hypothesis explains that when L2 learners fossilize at a certain developmental

stage in spite of the abundant comprehensible input, it is probably due to the

affective filter.

Figure 5: Presentation of Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis

Krashen‟s monitor model has been very influential in the 80s and the 90s for the SLA

acquisition theory, even though it has been criticized for being descriptive without

explaining in detail how the L2 input is converted into L2 knowledge. It also neglects

the role of L1, even though it mentions that L1 does not have a great influence over the

natural order of acquisition.

The Theory of the Universal Grammar (UG) claims that human beings have an innate

capacity to acquire their native language (L1). It states that acquisition of L1occurs

through the inborn language learning mechanism which allows the acquisition of any

language in a native-like form. The presence of the UG in the L1 acquisition process is

evident in the following occurrences (Lightbown and Spada 2001; White 2003; Mitchell

and Myles 2004; Hawkins 2001):

i. Lack of negative evidence: It is a known fact that parents do not correct their

children every time they make mistakes when they learn their mother tongue.

Even when they do provide correction, children do not seem to benefit from it

and continue using the form they have acquired up until that moment. They start

using the correct form when they become „ready‟ to use the structure,

independently of whether a correction has been provided or not. Such example

is shown in (14)

(14) Child: I putted the plates on the table

23

Mother: You mean, I put the plates on the table

Child: No, I putted them on all by myself.

(Lightbown and Spada 2001 p.16).

ii. Poverty of stimulus: This is also known as „the logical problem of L1

acquisition‟. It states that UG is responsible for the acquisition of L1 because

children acquire complex and abstract L1 structures which are underdetermined

in the input. White (2003:5) gives an example of abstract knowledge which is

successfully acquired by children. She explains the complexity of the

distribution of overt or null subject pronouns in embedded sentences in non-pro

drop and pro-drop languages, regarding the type of antecedent in the main clause

they refer to. Namely, in non-pro drop languages like English the embedded

overt pronoun can have a referential (15a), a quantified (15b) and a discourse

antecedent (15c).

(15)

a) referential antecedent [Maryi thinks [(that) shei will win]]

b) quantified antecedent [Everyonei thinks [(that) shei will

win]]

c) discourse antecedent [Whoi thinks [(that) shei will win?]]

White argues that quantified antecedents allow the pronoun to be ambiguous, as

shown in (15b), and explains the ambiguity as follows: if one imagines a room

full of women and everybody thinks of herself as a possible winner or everybody

thinks that one specific woman is a winner.

In pro-drop languages like Spanish and Macedonian, the null subject will take

either a referential or quantified expression in the main clause (see example

from Spanish in (16a,b) and Macedonian (16 c,d)) although it is not

ungrammatical if the overt pronoun is used with the referential antecedent (yet

it is pragmatically redundant). The use of an overt pronoun with a quantified

antecedent is ungrammatical.

(16)

a) referential antecedent [Juani cree [que proi es inteligente]]

24

Johni believes that (hei) is intelligent

[Juani cree [que éli es inteligente]]

Johni believes that hei is intelligent

b) quantified antecedent [Nadiei cree [que proi es inteligente]]

Nobodyi believes that (hei) is intelligent

*Nadiei cree [que eli es inteligente]]


c) referential antecedent [Juani veruva [ deka proi e inteligenten]]

Johni believes that (hei) is intelligent

[Juani veruva [ deka toji e inteligenten]]

Johni believes that hei is intelligent

d) quantified antecedent [Nikoji ne veruva [deka proi e inteligenten]]


*Nikoji ne veruva [deka tojli e inteligenten]]


White (2003) presented an abstract and complex rule which is not possible to be

learnt or acquired from mere exposure to the input. It has to be inferred

somehow from the innate faculty which provides the possibilities for the

formation of mental language representations.

Our study also deals with a poverty of stimulus structure governed by complex

rules which is underdetermined in the input, namely, the unaccusative/unergative

distinction.

25

iii. Rapid development: Children acquire most of the grammatical structures until

the third year. By the fifth year, children are able to produce abstract and

complex grammar which could not be happening due to their ability to analyze

complex structures because they are very young. This phenomenon is possible if

the innate mental language capacity (UG) is at work. Note that learning such

subtle rules takes learners many years and, in most cases, they never achieve

native-like competence.

.

iv. Uniformity: All children learn their mother tongue following the same route in a

uniform manner. Note, by contrast, that L2 learners show variability in success,

which is a trademark of SLA.

v. Grammatical success: All normally developed children achieve native

knowledge of their mother tongue grammar irrespective of their intelligence,

culture, race etc. contrary to L2 learners, which rarely attain native-like L2

competence.

vi. No effort: Children acquire their mother tongue4 without employing any

conscious effort, contrary to L2 acquisition, which is achieved consciously and

with effort (as was previously discussed for the Krashen‟s Monitor Model).

Universal Grammar consists of Priniciples and Parameters (Chomsky, 1981) which

form the design of natural languages. The principles are equal for all languages hence

they are universal and they consist of parameters which cause variation between

languages, i.e., certain parameters are „on‟ for some languages and „off‟ for other

languages. A single parameter setting possesses a cluster of syntactic properties,

although in current version of the models parametric variation is located in the abstract

linguistic features of functional categories. All natural language grammars may be

explained with this syntactic model, which has given opportunities to language

researchers to provide a viable account for the acquisition of L1 and L2 in terms of the

4 The acquisition of L1 is argued to have a critical period (CP) beyond which it will be impossible to

develop native like language features (the cases of Victor and Genie described in Singleton and Ryan,

2004).

26

learners‟ interlanguage linguistic competence only (since the model is silent about

other learner-related characteristics such as motivation, aptitude, etc).

Hawkins (2001) explains the null subject parameter. The universal principle i.e.

Extended Projection Principle (EPP) (Chomsky, 1981) says that all languages have a

grammatical subject, while the parameter provides the possibility for the subject to be

overt (phonetically represented) or null (phonetically empty). In English there are

expletive and referential subjects which are phonetically represented in subject position,

while in Spanish and Macedonian subject position may be occupied by the empty (null)

subject, as shown in (17).

(17)

English It rains I believe that she speaks English.

Spanish Ø Llueve Ø creo que Ø habla Ingles

Macedonian Ø Vrne Ø veruvam deka Ø zboruva angliski

Hence, according to the Principles and Parameters model, the input provides the

design of the mother tongue for the child. The child acquires a certain form of a

proposed parameter (overt or null subjects) with the help of the innate capacity which

allows natural language acquisition.

Therefore, UG provides a “template” of options for the child (e.g., overt/null) and then

the child will set the parameter to its correct value according to the input he/she hears.

The various language acquisition theories we have mentioned so far attempt to

formulate understandable explanations on how language is learnt. It is obvious that

these theories offer acceptable clarifications of the language acquisition process,

although none of them can account for every aspect of language development or even

for other learner-related characteristics not having to do with language itself. The

impossibility for the theories to arrive at a universal acceptance by linguists leads to the

fact that there are other factors affecting second language learning, such as individual

differences.

1.2.2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

UG mentions the creative ability of the learner to use inner mental mechanisms and

arrive to conclusions. Researchers have agreed that every learner has unique

27

characteristics (Krashen 1995; Lightbown and Spada 2001; Mitchell and Myles 2004)

which influence the outcome of the SLA, in spite of the fact that it is difficult to

measure or directly observe these qualities. Cognitive factors (intelligence, language

aptitude, language learning strategies), affective factors (language attitude, motivation,

language anxiety) and age are the unique features of every individual learner

influencing the SLA success. These factors are claimed to be responsible for the wide

variability in L2 attainment, i.e., the fact that, unlike L1 acquisition, some L2 learners

achieve relatively high levels of native-like competence, while most fall short of it to

varying degrees, as discussed above.

The group of cognitive factors consists of (i) intelligence, which has been claimed to

lead to better language learning results (at least in formal settings); (ii) aptitude, which

stands for the special „feeling‟ for languages possessed by some learners and which

appears to help some learners acquire language more easily and rapidly; (iii) the use of

language learning strategies (LLS) as “behaviors and thought processes that learners

use in the process of learning.” (Rubin 1987:19), which is considered to be very helpful

in SLA, as proven by the great number of studies dedicated to LLS.

The affective factors encompass: (i) anxiety, which is inhibitory for language learning

success; (ii) attitude of the learner towards the second language and the culture of its

native speakers, which influences SLA success; (iii) motivation, which governs the

pushing force for undertaking language learning activities.

The age factor, which most researchers consider a biological factor, has caused many

controversies among researchers who have argued the possibility for the existence of a

critical period (CP) for language learning, as proposed by Lenneberg (1967). Beyond

this critical period (supposedly the age around 12), the learner will not be able to

achieve native like competence of the second language. Some researchers support the

existence of a critical period in the SLA process (Singleton 1995; Singleton and Ryan

2004; Scovel 2000) and others have attempted to prove the opposite, that native like

competence can be achieved at an older age as well (Ioup 1995; Bialystok 2001).

1.2.3 SOURCES OF INTERLANGUAGE (IL) KNOWLEDGE

As was previously underlined, interlanguage (IL) stands for the variable and dynamic

learner language system which follows developmental stages over the course of

28

language learning. The variability of the IL performance leads to the question of the

sources influencing the development of the learners‟ interlanguage grammar.

Ritchie and Bhatia (2009) present the „sequence of interlanguage systems’ as follows:

ILS1, ILS2 …. ILSi, ILSi+1…. ILSu‟ (p.26), out of which the final one presents the last

stage of a particular case of SLA. The middle stages of the interlanguage do not

coincide with the grammar of L1 or L2, but they refer to a proper and systematic

grammar internalized by the learner and which is developing under the influence of

various sources.

There are many cases when learner‟s grammar differs systematically from the grammar

of the native speaker, as indicated in (18) (Reynolds 1995), coming from a study

conducted with native Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Indonesian and showing the

difference in the distribution of expletive pronominal subjects which are semantically

empty. This example may be an indication that L1 transfer influences learner‟s

grammar.

(18) I prefer the weekend because is my free time ... I don't have to think

what hour is necessary to wake up ... I consider is necessary to have weekend

because in this case people always will be more relaxed and will work in the

rest of the days better.

The influence of L1 transfer on learner‟s grammar has been proved by other studies as

well. Fathman (1975) studied Korean and Spanish children learning English and

showed that Korean children acquired articles later than Spanish children, which was

accounted for by the absence of this structure in their L1 Korean. Hakuta (1976)

conducted a longitudinal study examining the acquisition of morphemes of a child

Japanese learner of English and noted that structures such as plurals or articles, which

are absent in Japanese, were acquired quite late. Therefore, he claims that innateness

cannot account for all aspects of language development. But recall from our discussion

about Contrastive Analysis earlier that L1 transfer is not the only source of learners‟

errors.

Input alone is necessary but not sufficient for SLA (White 2003). It was previously

mentioned that various linguistic theories gave input different significance for the SLA

process. Brown (1973) and Krashen (1982) were among the first researchers to confirm

29

that learners do not necessarily acquire first what is taught first or what is frequently

present in the input, e.g. the definite article the is acquired quite late both by children

acquiring their L1 and adult learners of L2 English. Hawkins (2001) explains that even

though input may be different in naturalistic and classroom environments, learner

development is similar in the two settings, which suggests that input has a minor

influence on the course of learner development.

White (1991) studied the role of input in the classroom studying the acquisition of the

position of adverbs by L1 French L2 English learners. She was interested whether

learners would benefit more if the instruction was based on the form, i.e., teaching

explicitly the grammatical structure or if learners were exposed to input flooding, i.e,.

input which contains frequent use of adverbs. In English, adverbs of frequency occur

preverbally (Mary often plays the piano – SAVO) while in French they occur

postverbally (*Mary plays often the piano – SVAO). White concluded that formal

instruction influences the acquired knowledge on a short term basis, but it does not have

a significant long-term influence. Hence it could be assumed that formal instruction

does not necessarily mean that learners will acquire a certain structure.

On the other hand Long (1983) reviewed 11 studies which examined classroom,

naturalistic and mixed exposure to L2 and concluded that formal instruction helps in the

achievement of a rapid and better language acquisition without influencing the course of

development,i.e., teaching may change the rate (speed) of acquisition, but not the route

(course) of acquisition). Hence input and instruction play an important role in achieving

better or rapid SLA results but they do not change the course of acquisition of linguistic

structures.

There are cases when learners acquire structures which are not frequent in the input,

even though they are not taught how to construct them. Learners demonstrate

unconscious knowledge of complex structures which are unlikely to be derived from L2

input or instruction.

Learners somehow acquire certain structural grammatical rules, e.g., the production of

postverbal subjects in English with a subtype of intransitive verbs called unaccusatives

(come, appear, exist, happen) as indicated in (19a), and which are the focus of this

dissertation. Sometimes they introduce some elements which may be an indication of

transfer from their L1 (if they are natives of a pro-drop language such as Spanish) as

shown in (19b), which is an ungrammatical structure with a null expletive in English. In

30

other cases, learners produce structures as a result of their grammatical development,

including an overt subject “it”, which is ungrammatical, as shown in (19c), but indicates

that learners have started understanding the function of the structure i.e. they are

following certain developmental stages to acquire the structure.

(19) a. There existed social ills as serious as the ones that exist today.

b. It is difficult that exist volunteers with such a feeling against it.

c. In the name of religion it had occurred many important events.

(L1 Spanish; Lozano & Mendikoetxea, 2010, p. 486-487).

These examples show that interlanguage knowledge is influenced by various sources:

L1 transfer, innateness, developmental mechanisms, input etc.

As we will see in the following sections, the acquisition of an abstract syntactic

structure, namely, postverbal subjects in L2 English, as in (19), will be discussed. It will

be shown that learners‟ knowledge of postverbal subjects is too subtle to be accounted

for only by L1 transfer or by input alone.

31

2 LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND: UNACCUSATIVITY

AND POSTVERBAL SUBJECTS

In this section we will briefly discuss the preliminary theoretical foundations relevant

for our study. We will also introduce the unaccusative syntax and how it is represented

in the languages under consideration with the focus on word order.

2.1 PRELIMINARY THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

In the following subsections, brief introduction to the role of Universal Grammar (UG)

in SLA will be presented. We will then move on to the pro-drop parameter, which is

central for our discussion, since both Macedonian and Spanish are pro-drop languages.

In particular, we will focus on the second property of the pro-drop parameter, namely,

subject-verb inversion (i.e. postverbal subjects). Finally, we will present a brief

overview of the architecture of the language faculty, which is essential to understand

some of the later findings in the empirical section.

2.1.1 L2 ACQUISITION AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR

As discussed in the preceding chapter, UG is a system of principles and parameters

which constrains L1 grammars. L2 learners have the similar task as L1 learners i.e. to

arrive at a native-like knowledge of the linguistic system in order to acquire a certain

language. If, according to UG, languages are acquired through the operations of the

inborn language acquisition device (LAD), which is active for L1, it could presumably

be active for L2 acquisition. Then it is understandable that similar language learning

processes will be followed, i.e., the setting of language parameters in L2 has to take

place, though this has been a very controversial issue over the past three decades (see

Hawkins 2001 and White 2003 for overviews).

The role of UG is obvious in cases where poverty of stimulus occurs. These are cases

when L2 learners cannot infer some abstract grammatical knowledge from the input,

formal instruction or transfer due to rare usage of the structure, yet they manage to

acquire it (Hertel 2003; Lozano 2006a, 2006b; Lozano 2008; Lozano and Mendikoetxea

2008, 2010, Oshita 2000, 2001, Zobl 1989; see also the earlier discussion in the

32

preceding chapter). The explanation for these phenomena is typically attributed to the

fact that learners know more than what is present in the input due to the presence of the

inborn language learning ability.

White (2003) discusses whether UG is accessible in SLA. There are several options:

i. No access is the first hypothesis, claiming that UG is accessible only for L1

acquisition and not for L2 acquisition.

ii. Full Access is the second hypothesis, according to which second languages are

constrained by UG. Mitchell and Myles (2004) further elaborate that this access

has three positions:

a. Full access/no transfer: UG is completely accessible in L2 acquisition,

the same as in L1 acquisition

b. Full access/full transfer: UG is completely accessible in L2 acquisition,

but learners transfer the parameters of their first language in initial

stages, which are then reset in further stages when L2 ceases to conform

to the first language parameters

c. Full access/early impaired representations: UG is partially accessible in

a way that L2 parameters can be reset, but initially they lack functional

categories.

iii. Indirect Access: proposes that learners have access to UG, but only through

their L1 grammar. L1 developed parameters form the basis for second language

development.

Zobl (1983) discusses the default stages of parameters and supports the idea that the

initial state of the learner is his/her L1 setting, which may have marked and unmarked

structures. If the L1 has an unmarked form of a certain structure and the second

language uses a marked form of the same structure, the parameters for this structure

have to be reset, meaning that the learner has to be exposed to more input to acquire this

particular structure. This may be an indicator that a particular parameter is marked. If

the second language also uses the unmarked form of the structure, then the parameters

will not be reset and the structure will be acquired more easily compared to a marked

one. This point of view may explain the possible developmental L2 acquisition stages.

33

An example of a marked /unmarked setting is presented by Hawkins (2001). Namely,

English learners of L2 French find it more difficult to acquire the preverbal pronominal

object described in (20a) and they often produce the ungrammatical (20b), which is the

same as English (20c). Therefore, we might assume that they are making transfer from

L1. French learners of English, on the other hand, do not have any issues acquiring the

final position of object pronouns in English (20c) and never produce (20d), which is

unattested, as marked by the symbol “@”.

(20)

a. Le chien les a mange

b. *Le chien a mange les.

c. The dog has eaten them.

d. @The dog them has eaten

This might be an implication that the unmarked setting for the pronominal direct object

places it in postverbal position, which in French undergoes movement of the NP to

preverbal position whenever a pronominal subject is used.

White (2003) explains that the main idea of the Principles and Parameters theory is that

one parameter setting encompasses a whole cluster of related syntactic properties. The

learner only needs to discover one feature of a single parameter and the whole cluster of

syntactic properties will be automatically elicited. This can be indicated by the

elaboration of the settings of the pro-drop parameter which is relevant for our study.

Current generative L2 theory however, does not focus on the assumption whether

parameters encompass a cluster of properties. The trend nowadays is to explore whether

learners can acquire features and, in particular, whether learners show deficits at the

interfaces (which is one of the topics we will mention later).

2.1.2 THE PRO-DROP PARAMETER

Cook (1983) refers to the Extended Principle Parameter (EPP) (Chomsky, 1981), and

states that every sentence has a subject, exemplifying that some languages like English

require subjects to appear in their surface structure (21a) and languages like Spanish

(21b), Macedonian (21c) or Italian, (21d) may omit the subject in the sentence:

34

(21)

a) He speaks English

b) Habla Spanish

c) Zboruva Macedonian

d) Parla Italian

The pro-drop parameter encompasses a cluster of properties which characterize all pro–

drop languages (Spanish, Macedonian, Italian, Greek, Arabic etc.), as discussed by

numerous researchers (e.g., Haegeman and Gueron 1999; Hawkins 2001; Phinney 1987;

Cook 1993, Lozano 2002, 2008):

i. Null subject (pro): regarding the pro–drop parameter, two groups of languages

can be distinguished. The ones that allow the null or pro subject (Spanish,

Macedonian, Italian, etc.) called pro-drop or null subject languages and the ones

that require overt subjects (English, German, French etc.) called non pro-drop or

non null subject languages (22a). It is considered that even though the subject

may not appear overtly in the surface structure in pro–drop languages like

Spanish, Macedonian and Italian, it exists in sentence initial position (as it is

understood semantically) in the form of a phonetically empty null subject or pro

(22 b,c,d).

(22)

a) He speaks English

b) pro habla Spanish

c) pro zboruva Macedonian

d) pro parla Italian

35

ii. Free5 subject–verb inversion (postverbal subjects)

Tres chicas llegaron. SV (Spanish)

Three girls came

pro llegaron tres chicas VS

pro came three girls

„Three girls came‟.


Tri devojki dojdoa SV (Macedonian)

Three girls came

pro dojdoa tri devojki VS

pro came three girls

„Three girls came‟.

iii. ‘That’-trace effects; Pro-drop languages (Spanish, Macedonian) allow „that

trace‟ which means that the complementiser “que” (Spanish), “deka”

(Macedonian), „remains in trace position after Wh-movement from subject

position‟(Cook 1993:161). Non pro-drop languages like English have a trace t in

the surface structure. The overt use of the complementiser „that‟ is

ungrammatical in English.

Spanish - ¿Quién dijiste que vino? (Who did you say that came?)

Macedonian - Koj rece deka dojde ? (Who did you say that came?)

5 At this stage we are just using a traditional approach to the pro-drop parameter and simply state that

Subject-Verb inversion is „free‟. However, as we will see later, such apparently free inversion is

constrained by several interfaces: lexicon-syntax interface (Unaccusative Hypothesis), syntax-discourse

interface (End-Focus Principle) and syntax-phonology interface (End-Weight Principle).

36

English - Who did you say t came? vs. *Who did you say that came?

(Cook, 1993, p. 162).

iv. Expletives it and there: The expletives serve as empty (dummy) subjects for the

requirements of non pro-drop English to have its subject position filled and case

features checked in non pro-drop languages which require an overt subject. They

are usually used in some „existential‟ sentences such as:

There 6are good teachers and bad teachers.

There is plenty of ice cream.

(Ward, G., Birner, B. J., & Huddleston, R, 2002, p.1393)

or “weather” sentences such as.

It’s raining.

It’s snowing.

Expletive „it‟ is the most unmarked personal pronoun used as empty expletive in

expressions referring also to time and distance: e.g. It‟s long way from here to Cairo

(Quirk 1985:349).

Pro – drop languages do not require overt expletives due to the fact that they allow their

subject position to be occupied by the null proexpl subject which can also check case

features. The null proexpl is the silent counterpart of the dummy it and there. They have

the same syntactic function with the difference that proexpl is not phonetically

represented. The structures containing the empty proexpl subject are presented as

follows

proexpl hay muchos estudiantes en la clase (Spanish)

is a lot of students in the classroom

„There are a lot of students in the classroom‟

(Lozano 2002, p.73)

6 Expletive there will be explained in detail in 2.2.3.1.1.

37

proexpl ima dobri lugje (Macedonian)

have good people

„There are good people‟

(Minova-Gjurkova, 2000, p.176)

proexpl Llueve (Spanish)

rains

„It‟s raining‟

(Lozano 2002, p.73)

proexpl Vrne (Macedonian)

rains

„It‟s raining‟

(Minova-Gjurkova, 2000, p.176)

v. Rich agreement structure: Pro-drop languages (Spanish, Macedonian) show

rich agreement or inflectional morphology of verbs. The verb itself conveys

information about the person and the number of the subject. It contains the

necessary data about the subject which does not have to be overt, but is often

replaced by the null pro. Hence agreement governs pro. Non pro-drop languages

(English) have to have their subject in the surface position because they lack

inflections of the verb thus they have to provide sufficient information about the

doer of the action in the sentence. The difference between the pro-drop and non

pro- drop languages is the choice regarding the nature of agreement. We present

below examples from the verbal paradigm in English (23), Spanish (24) and

Macedonian (25), showing the difference in agreement between non pro-drop

English and pro-drop Macedonian and Spanish.

38

(23) English

1sg I speak 1pl We speak

2sg You speak 2pl You speak

3sg She speak-s 3pl They speak

(Haegman and Gueron, 1999, p.398)

As Haegman and Gueron (1999) state English has only one verbal inflection (3rd

person

singular – s). Subjects are obligatory to be used overtly in order to provide the necessary

information about the utterance. We cannot retrieve any information from the verbal

morphology about the subject. In other words, subjects cannot be identified by the poor

verbal morphology.

The example with the Spanish verb hablar (to speak) illustrates the rich agreement via

the six different agreement inflections for person (first, second and third) and number

(singular and plural) of the same verb. Hawkins (2001) explains that the inflections

define the person and number of the subject which does not need to be overt, but

remains empty in the form of the null pro.

(24) Spanish

1sg habl-o (I speak) 1pl habl-amos (We speak)

2sg habl-as (You speak) 2pl habl-ais (You speak)

3sg habl-a (She speaks) 3pl habl-an (They speak)

(Hawkins, 2001, p.198)

The same situation accounts for Macedonian which is another pro-drop language.

(25) Macedonian

1sg zboruva-m (I speak) 1pl zboruva-me (We speak)

2sg zboruva-sh (You speak) 2pl zboruva-te (You speak)

3sg zboruva-ø (She speaks) 3pl zboruva-at (They speak)

39

(See details for the morphological inflections in Macedonian in Friedman (1993, p.274))

As elaborated by Friedman (1993) and Minova-Gjurkova (2000) subject–verb

agreement in Macedonian expresses person (first, second and third) and number

(singular and plural). The infinitive verb forms can be predicted from the third person

singular in present tense which occurs without any inflections. Due to the fact that we

can elicit information about the subject from the rich morphology of the verb, in

Macedonian the verb may occur without the overt subject, similarly to what occurs in

Spanish.

Our study involves two pro-drop languages, Spanish and Macedonian compared to

English, a non pro-drop language. It focuses on subject-verb inversion i.e. postverbal

subjects as the 2nd

property of the pro-drop parameter.

2.1.3 THE ARCHITECTURE OF LANGUAGE AND THE INTERFACES

SLA research has been dealing with problematic areas even when UG access is obvious.

These areas are called interfaces, referring to „how different modules of the

interlanguage grammar relate to each other‟ as defined by White (2009). There has been

a shift of emphasis in SLA. Namely in the 80s and 90s there was a debate about access

to UG, but now the issue is related to the role of the interfaces in SLA. It has been

investigated whether failure to achieve native like competence in L2 acquisition can be

accounted for problems at the interfaces as an area where cross-linguistic influence

possibly occurs.

The Minimalist program of Chomsky (1995) explains that grammar consists of modules

such as syntax, semantics, morphology and phonology, mapping between each other at

different levels of representation (Figure 6). These interactions are called grammar

internal interfaces. The internal interface relevant for our study is the one between the

lexicon, containing the lexical items (and their corresponding linguistic features) to be

processed, and the syntax, functioning as a computational system or a processor

generating utterances made of the elements of the lexicon. These utterances are

produced by the grammar interfacing with external systems including the articulatory

perceptual (sensory motor (S-M)) at phonetic form (PF) and conceptual-intentional (C-

I) at logical form (LF). The PF deals with sounds while the LF deals with meanings of

linguistic elements.

40

Figure 6: The architecture of language

Sorace and Filiaci (2006) proposed the Interface Hypothesis stating that external

interfaces are more difficult to be acquired than internal interfaces. Figure 6 shows the

interaction between syntax and the knowledge of the external systems in L2 grammar.

The Conceptual-Intentional system encompasses discourse, pragmatics and information

structure which strongly influence language use even though they are external to the

computational system. Casielles-Suarez (2009) states that discourse determines new

information to be placed towards the end of the sentence. This is known as the End-

Focus Principle. The relation between focus and sentence-final position is evident for

pro-drop or null subject languages which allow subject pronouns to be null or overt. As

explained by White (2009), this choice is not optional i.e., it is discourse constrained:

null subjects are used in topic context while overt pronouns are required when focus

information is introduced. Additionally, any focused element, even the subject, may be

placed at sentence final position. English is a non pro-drop language using overt

pronouns to refer to old and new information which may not affect the syntax, even

though in certain occasions the topic-focus structure is followed.The acceptance of

postverbal subjects (VS) where the subject is focus is the target of this study which is

related to the 2nd

property of the null-subject parameter, something that will be

explained in the methodology section.

Wasow and Arnold (2003) indicate the possible reason for placing old information

before new information. Old information is more feasible to be produced early in

structures because it is more accessible than new information. It links the structure to

41

previous sentences and introduces the context for the new information which facilitates

comprehension and production.

Articulatory-Perceptual (or sensory motor (S-M)) system is another external interface

considered to be problematic for L2 learners. According to Wasow (1997), many

languages place light constituents at the beginning and heavy elements at the end of the

sentence, which is known as the End-Weight Principle. Due to the fact that language

use is a communicative activity, we have to analyze it from the point of view of the

involved participants. From the speakers‟ perspective, this may be due to facilitation of

planning and production of utterances. From the listeners‟ perspective, if complex

elements are placed at the end of the sentence, it will be more comprehensible. Lozano

and Mendikoetxea (2010) emphasize that „processing constraints in the performance

systems like the End-Weight Principle, influence syntax, leading to non-canonical word

order structures‟ (pp.480). This is, once again, related to the target of this study which

analyzes postverbal subject structures where the subject is focus and heavy.

White (2011) suggests that problems at the interfaces may not occur due to

representational differences between L2 and native speaker grammars. They may reflect

the processing problems of L2 learners who are not always able to use their underlying

knowledge to access the needed linguistic representation. She also adds that if L2

learners produce certain utterances in a different way than native speakers, it may

suggest that learners face not only production but comprehension problems, referring as

well to the possibility for interfaces to have several sources of difficulty. We will return

to these issues in the final discussion of this dissertation.

2.2 THE PHENOMENON UNDER INVESTIGATION: SUBJECT-

VERB INVERSION (SV/VS ORDERS)

This section shows examples of preverbal and postverbal subjects in the three languages

of interest for our study: English, Spanish and Macedonian, in order to present the

possibilities for the occurrence of subject-verb inversion (i.e., the second property of the

pro-drop parameter) and to emphasize the structures of interest for our study.

English language has a canonical SVO word order (Biber et. al. (1999); Ward, Birner &

Huddleston, (2002)) which regulates the principal elements in the sentence to have a

strictly determined position in the clause. The sentences in (26) show the fixed word

42

order of the English language, which places the subject (in bold) in sentence initial

position followed by the verb (underlined) and other sentence elements.

(26) SV

a) Kim wrote the letter.

(Ward, G., Birner, B. J., & Huddleston, R., 2002, p.1365).

b) Sharon plays bingo on Sunday night.

(Biber et al., 1999, p. 957).

c) Prime Minister John Major was opposite him on one of the

three tables set out for the lavish dinner.

d) A row of Van Goghs hung on one long wall.

e) A silver urn bursting with branches of red berries stood next

to it.

f) A bear is sitting in the corner.

g) Three girls arrived.

The unmarked canonical word order in English may be changed in order to meet certain

conditions of information flow (End-Focus Principle) or weight distribution (End-

Weight Principle) and to achieve emphasis, cohesion or stylistic effect.

As explained by Biber et al. (1999), besides fronting of postverbal elements, subject

verb inversion is one of the marked choices of English word order. There are two types

of inversion allowing variation of the position of the sentence elements: subject-

operator inversion (partial inversion) as in (27), which will not be of further interest

for our study, and subject-verb (full inversion), which is the focus of our study.

Subject-verb inversion is possible to occur in native English if (i) the clause-initial

position is occupied by an opening adverbial element (PPlocative, PPtemporal etc) (in

italics), (ii) the verb is intransitive or copula be denoting existence or appearance

(underlined) and (iii) the subject occurring at clause-final position is heavy and

introduces new information (in bold) as shown in (28).

43

(27) subject-operator inversion

At no time did he indicate he couldn‟t cope.

(Biber et al., 1999, p., 916).

(28) subject-verb inversion (PP-be-S) / (PP-V-S)

a) Opposite him on one of the three tables set out for the lavish

dinner was Prime Minister John Major.

b) On one long wall hung a row of Van Goghs.

c) Next to it stood a silver urn bursting with branches of red

berries.

(Biber et al., 1999, p., 916).

The sentences shown in (28) are the inverted sentences (26c,d,e). They open

with a locative adverbial, the verb is intransitive of existence and appearance or

copula be and the subject is new information (focus) and long (heavy).

Sentences (26a,b,) do not contain intransitive verbs of existence and appearance

or copula be and do not have a focus or heavy subject, hence they do not allow

inversion as shown in (29).

(29)

a) *The letter wrote Kim.

b) *On Sunday night plays Sharon bingo.

Existential there construction is another structure licensing postverbal subjects

with intransitives of existence and appearance and be (Biber et.al 1999; Ward,

G., Birner, B. J., & Huddleston, R., 2002). Sentences (26f,g) also contain

intransitive verb of existence and appearance or copula be and allow postverbal

subjects in existential constructions, as shown in (30).

(30) Existential there constructions (There-be-S) / (There-V-S)

a) There is a bear sitting in the corner.

44

(Biber et al., 1999, p. 912).

b) There arrived three girls.

(Biber et al., 1999, p. 912).

As we are able to see from the examples in (28) and (30), inversion (VS) constructions

in English are mostly possible with intransitive verbs of existence and appearance and

the copula be.

It extraposition is another structure licencing postverbal subjects. Several examples of

this structure are shown in (31).

(31) It extraposition - V - S

a) It is unclear why she told him.

b) It worries me that he hasn’t phoned.

c) It would be pointless to resist.

d) It is a miracle that he did it at all.


It extraposition is a different phenomenon i.e. its postverbal subject is a subordinate

clause which is why it is not going to be dealt with further on in this study. We are

interested in postverbal subject structures where the postverbal subject is a noun phrase.

Spanish is the second language of interest for our study. Due to the fact that Spanish is

a pro-drop language, there is an apparently “free” word order with all verb classes, as

explained by Lozano (2006a,b); (2008). The input available to learners of L2 Spanish

implies that canonical word order (SV) and inversion (VS) are optional alternations, as

indicated in (32) and (33).

(32)

a) Una mujer gritó. (SV)

A woman shouted

‘A woman shouted‟

45

b) Gritó una mujer. (VS)

Shouted a woman

„Awoman shouted‟

c) Un vecino vino. (SV)

A neighbour arrived

„A neighbor arrived‟

d) Vino un vecino. (VS)

Arrived a neighbor

„A neighbor arrived‟.

(Lozano, 2008, p. 137).

(33)

a) Maria ha comprado un libro (SVO)

Maria has bought a book

„Maria has bought a book‟.

b) Ha comprado un libro Maria (VOS)

has bought a book Maria

„Maria has bought a book‟

(Lozano and Mendikoetxea, 2010, p. 476).

c) Un libro ha comprado Maria (OVS)

a book has bought Maria


d) Ha comprado Maria un libro (VSO)

has bought Maria a book

46


Macedonian is a Slavic language which belongs to the group of pro-drop languages,

sharing similarities with Romance languages such as Spanish. Being a pro-drop

language, Macedonian allows various free inversion structures of the sentence elements,

as indicated in (34) and (35), even though SV word order is considered to be the

unmarked order (Friedman 1993; Venovska-Antevska 1995).

(34)

a) Poshtar dojde (SV)

Postman came

„A postman came‟

b) Dojde poshtar (VS)

Came a postman


(Topolinska, 1995, p. 51)

c) Edna devojka vleze (SV)

A girl entered

„A girl entered‟

d) Vleze edna devojka (VS)

Entered a girl


(Minova-Gjurkova, 2000, p. 226)

(35)

a. Jana saka sladoled. (SVO)

Jana likes ice-cream

„Jana likes ice-cream.‟

47

b) Saka Jana sladoled. (VSO)

likes Jana ice-cream


c) Sladoled saka Jana. (OVS)

ice-cream likes Jana


d) Saka sladoled Jana., etc. (VOS)

likes ice-cream Jana

Jana likes ice-cream.‟

(Lazarova-Nikovska, 2003, p. 130).

As the data above show, SV/VS alternations are apparently free in Spanish and

Macedonian. Word order alternations are highly constrained in English. Let us explore

these facts below.

2.2.1 THE UNACCUSATIVE HYPOTHESIS (UH)

In relation to the number of arguments required by the verb, two types of verbs are

distinguished: transitive and intransitive. Transitive verbs require at least two arguments

while intransitive verbs occur only with one argument in the structure. Perlmutter

(1978) noted that the surface subject of one group of intransitive verbs is generated in

object position, i.e., postverbally. Burzio (1986) supported this view and proposed the

Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH), which claims that there are two classes of intransitive

verbs which differ in the position occupied by their only argument in the deep structure

(D-structure): unergatives, generating their argument in the external subject position of

the VP (36a) and unaccusatives (also known as ergatives), which generate their only

argument in the internal object position of the VP, as shown in (36b). The label

unaccusatives derives from the fact that, even though these verbs generate their subjects

in object position, they do not assign accusative case.

48

(36)

a. unergative b. unaccusative

“John spoke” “Three girls arrived”

(Lozano & Mendikoetxea,2010, p. 486)

The argument of unergatives (e.g., speak, cry, shout, sing) is associated with the volition

of the agent and takes only a subject, while the argument of unaccusatives (e.g., arrive,

come, exist, happen) is related to the theme and takes an object position even though it

is a subject.

Baker (1988) proposed the Uniformity of Theta Assigned Hypothesis (UTAH)

underlying that syntactic positions in the D-structure are assigned a particular thematic

role before spell-out. It means that agents are assigned to a subject position and themes

take object position before spell-out. As is also indicated in (36), the surface position of

English sentences requires either the external or the internal argument of the VP to

move to the surface subject position in the sentence, i.e., to Spec IP, in order to check its

nominative case features. Although generated in object position, the argument of

unaccusative verbs moves from its base position to surface subject position in order to

acquire nominative case, because the verb lacks an external subject and does not assign

accusative case to its object element. Hence the canonical word order in English for

both verb types, unergatives (36a) and unaccusatives (36b), is SV.

White (2003) explains the distinction between unaccusatives and unergatives to be

related to universal mapping principles by which the argument structure of the two

different classes of intransitives is built in a different way in the mental representation

of the interlanguage grammar. If these two classes of intransitives are compared to

transitive causative verbs, it will become clear that the sole argument of unaccusatives

49

performs the role of the object of transitive causatives and the argument of unergatives

behaves like the transitive causative subject.

(37)

a) Causative argument structure: ( x <y>)

b) Unaccusative argument structure: (ø <y>)

c) Unergative argument: ( x <ø> )

In (37), (x) represents the external and <y> the internal argument of transitives

corresponding to the initial syntactic subject and object respectively. Both arguments

(external x and internal <y>) occur in identical syntactic environments with preverbal

subjects when they move to surface subject (Spec IP), which is why the distinction

between unergatives and unaccusatives is not immediately obvious in English (38).

(38)

a) Unaccusative: The guest arrived

b) Unergative: The boy jumped

In (38a) the surface subject guest which can be represented by <y> has moved from its

D structure object position to surface subject position, while in (38b) the subject boy (x)

has remained in its base subject position. These different behaviours are shown in (39a)

and (39b):

(39)

a) Unaccusative: the guesti [VP arrived ti]

b) Unergative: the boy [VP jumped]

(Oshita, 2001, p. 280-281)

Additionally, there are some alternating unaccusatives (break, melt, increase) (40)

which can have both transitive (37a) and intransitive (37b) argument structure which

opposes the monadic unaccusatives which do not behave like causative verbs.

50

(40)

The sun melted the ice (transitive)

The ice melted (instransitive)

Crucially, the internal argument of unaccusatives in English may remain postverbally in

its base generated position (in situ) in there (existential) constructions, as shown in

(30b), here repeated as (41a), in which the expletive there occupies the subject position

according to the requirements of English to have an overt element in the Spec IP

position for case checking purposes (EPP).

(41)

a) There arrived three girls.

b) On one long wall hung a row of Van Goghs.

c) Next to it stood a silver urn bursting with branches of red

berries.

(Biber et al., 1999, p. 912).

Importantly, this construction is not possible with all unaccusative verbs. Levin &

Rappaport–Hovav (1995) proposed an approach stating that unccusativity is

semantically determined and syntactically represented. They distinguish three different

classes of unaccusative verbs: (i) externally caused or verbs of change of state (e.g.,

open, break); (ii) inherently directed motion unaccusatives (e.g., arrive, come, fall)

and (iii) unaccusatives of appearance or existence (e.g., exist, appear, remain). Only

the second and the third group of unaccusative verbs allow postverbal subjects with

there constructions (41a) and (42b). The same classes of verbs allow PP-V-S

constructions or subject-verb inversion in English as shown in (28b,c), here repeated as

(41b,c) above.

Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995) created an inventory of

intransitives, including the semantic classes and subclasses of both unaccusatives and

unergatives. This inventory is presented in Table 3 below which is relevant for our

empirical study.

51

Table 3: Inventory of unaccusatives and unergatives (based on Levin 1993; Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995)

2.2.2 CROSS-LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE FOR THE UH

Different languages employ different mechanisms to mark unaccusativity: syntax,

morphology, auxiliary selection etc. There are several syntactic diagnostics showing the

difference between unaccusatives and unergatives shown by various languages. One of

them is subject-verb inversion (SV and VS orders). As was shown in 2.2.1, some

subclasses of unaccusative verbs (of existence and appearance and inherently directed

motion) allow their sole argument to remain in situ if surface subject position (Spec IP)

is occupied by the semantically empty expletive there, licensing the occurrence of a

postverbal subject (42). If there does not occupy the subject position, the argument

moves from its base object position in the D-structure to surface subject position (43).

As opposed to unaccusatives, unergative verbs cannot appear in there existential

constructions (44).

(42)

a) There arrived [three girls]

52

b) There appeared [a grotesque figure]

c) There stands [a man] by the bus stop

(Lozano & Mendikoetxea, 2010, p. 478)

(Lozano, 2008, p.150)

(43)

a) [Three girls]i arrived ti

b) [A grotesque figure]i appeared ti

c) [A man]i stands ti by the bus stop

(44)

a) *There opened the door.

b) *There broke the window.

c) *There melted the butter.

(Lozano & Mendikoetxea,2010, p. 478)

The same subclasses of unaccusative verbs allow inversion of the type PP-V-S (45). In

English it is possible for some unergatives to license locative inversion, which will be

explained in detail in 2.2.3.1.2.

(45)

a) Next to it stood a silver urn bursting with branches of red berries.

(Biber et al., 1999, p. 912).

UH determines word order in pro-drop languages which have an apparently free word

order alternation. In Spanish, SV word order sounds more natural with unergatives (46

a) and VS with unaccusatives (46b) (Hertel 2003; Lozano 2006a,b; 2008, Lozano and

Mendikoetxea 2008). It is important to note that this happens at the lexicon-syntax

interface, i.e., when the verb determines the syntax, in contexts where the whole

sentence is focus (neutral context answering questions like What happened?).

53

(46)

a) Juan ha hablado *Ha hablado Juan

Juan has spoken has spoken Juan

b) *Juan ha llegado Ha llegado Juan

Juan has arrived has arrived Juan

(Lozano & Mendikoetxea 2008, p. 92)

Italian is another pro-drop language which prefers VS order with unaccusatives, as

indicated by Sorace (1993) shown in (47).

(47)

Subject-verb inversion (base-generated)

Sono arivati tre studenti.

Are arrived three students.

‟Three students have arrived‟.

(Sorace 1993, p. 26)

Auxiliary selection is another syntactic marking regulated by the UH. Languages

which alternate auxiliaries (Italian, French) select have with unergatives and be with

unaccusatives in perfective tenses. In Italian unergatives select avere and unaccusatives

(change of state, inherently directed motion and existence and appearance) select essere,

also explained by Sorace (1993) shown in (48a). Also, modal verbs in Italian usually

take avere but they can co-occur with essere when they take unaccusative verbs as

complements (48b). Such constructions allow clitic climbing (48c), i.e., raising of

unstressed preverbal object pronoun. When the clitic (-ci) raises, it is the auxiliary

essere that occurs obligatorily with the modal dovere (have to) (48d).

(48)

a) Mario è/*ha andato a casa.

Mario is/has gone home.

54

„Mario went home‟.

b) Mario ha/è dovuto andare a casa.

Mario has had to-go home

c) (A casa) Mario ha/è dovuto andar-ci.

(Home), Mario there has had to go.

d) (A casa) Mario ci è/*ha dovuto andaré.

(Home), Mario there has had to-go.

(Sorace 1993, pp. 25, 26, 27)

Sorace also explains that in French ètre (be) occurs only with unaccusatives which

denotes change of location (49), while the other two subtypes take avoir (have).

(49)

a) Jim est/a* arrive

Jim arrived

Japanese also recognizes unaccusativity. Hirakawa (1999) elaborates the different

semantic interpretation of Japanese sentences with unaccusatives and unergatives, as

shown in (50). He gives an example with the adverb takusan (a lot) which may modify

both the subject S and the object O of the verb. Japanese has SOV word order and,

whenever the subject and the object are topic, they may be omitted. In such case, it

would be difficult to ascertain whether the subject or the object is quantified by the

adverb takusan (a lot). Native Japanese would know that takusan (a lot) can only

modify the object i.e. the internal argument, but not the subject.

(50)

a) Takusan kaita.

A lot write-PAST

„Somebody wrote a lot.‟

b) Takusan oti-masi-ta.

55

a lot fall-POL-PAST

„A lot (of things) fell.

c) Takusan hashitta.

a lot run-PAST

„Somebody ran a lot.

(Hirakawa, 1999, p. 91)

In (50a), the verb is transitive and the subject and the object are omitted. The meaning

of the sentence cannot be confused: some person wrote a lot of things. When takusan is

used with unaccusatives it can modify its subject which is actually the underlying

object. Therefore, in (50b) takusan refers to the underlying object (things) of the

unaccusative fell and the sentence has the meaning „A lot of things fell‟. In (50c)

takusan cannot modify the subject of the unergative verb because this is the underlying

subject and it cannot mean “A lot of people ran” but the meaning is “Somebody ran a

lot”. This indicates that the adverb takusan modifies the constituent generated in

postverbal position, i.e., the object of a transitive verb and also the subject of an

unaccusative verb, but never the subject of an unergative verb.

Unaccusativity is also evident in Chinese, which is an SVO language, such as English.

As explained by Yuan (1999), the internal argument of Chinese unaccusative verbs may

occur preverbally, as in English, as shown in (51a), or it may display surface

unaccusativity by occuring postverbally, as shown in (51b). The internal argument

appears postverbally only if it is an indenfinite noun phrase. If the argument is a definite

NP, its postverbal position is ungrammatical, as indicated in (51c). The argument of

unergative verbs in Chinese may only appear in preverbal subject position, similar to

English and Japanese. Hence the so called “definiteness effect” is observed in Chinese.

It means that the postverbal subject of unaccusatives has to be an indefinite NP. If it

occurs in preverbal position it is a definite NP. This is similar to English where

postverbal subjects are usually indefinite NPs (focus) even though the rule is not as

strict as in Chinese.

56

(51)

a) shang ge yue, san sou chuan zai zhe ge hai yu chen le.

last CL month three CL ship in this CL sea area sink PFV

„Last month, three ships sank in this sea area.‟

b) shang ge yue, zai zhe ge hai yu chen le san sou chuan.

last CL month in this CL sea area sink PFV three CL ship


c) *shang ge yue, zai zhe ge hai yu chen le na sou chuan.

last CL month in this CL sea area sink PFV that CL ship

„Last month, that ship sank in this sea area.‟

(Yuan, 1999, p. 279)

2.2.3 UNACCUSATIVITY IN THE LANGUAGES UNDER CONSIDERATION

In the following sections we will focus on the syntactic representation of unaccusativity

in the languages under consideration: English, Spanish and Macedonian. Some of these

syntactic details were shortly explained for English and Spanish in section 2.2.2.

2.2.3.1 Unaccusativity and word order in native English

As explained in 2.2., English is a canonical word order language (SVO) always

requiring its subject position to be occupied by an overt element for feature checking

purposes (EPP). As already explained, the subject of unergatives base generates in

subject position of the VP but the subject of unaccusatives generates in object position

of the VP. It moves to Spec IP to check its nominative case features. The canonical

word order in English is SV, both with unergatives (52) and unaccusatives (53), where

the preceding question (What happened…?) requires an all-focus answer where all

constituents are new information (focus). These contexts are labeled all focus contexts,

as will be explained below.

(52) What happened last night in the street?

a) [A woman shouted] Foc SV

b) *[Shouted a woman] Foc VS

57

(Lozano, 2008, p.144)

(53) What happened last night at the party?

a) [The police arrived] Foc SV

b) *[Arrived the police] Foc VS

(Lozano, 2008, p.145)

Here we can discuss the influence of discourse on word order, which is relevant for our

study. As was mentioned in 2.1.3. (Casielles-Suarez (2009)), discourse may go beyond

syntax and influence the order of sentence elements. For our purposes it is necessary to

distinguish two contexts: (i) Neutral focus context is produced as a reply to an all-

focus question like „What happened?. In neutral context we let the lexicon determine

the syntax, i.e., we are dealing with the lexicon-syntax interface. In English the word

order in neutral context is SV, both with unergatives and unaccusatives, indicating that

verb type (unaccusative or unergative) does not seem to play a role in the word order.

Non-canonical word order is ungrammatical (52b) and (53b).

(ii) Presentational focus context requires a focused subject as an answer to a question

like „Who shouted?.‟ Examples (54) and (55) show the word order in English in

presentational context which is determined by the discourse.

(54) Who shouted last night in the street?

[A WOMAN] Foc shouted SV

*Shouted [A WOMAN] Foc VS

(Lozano, 2008, p.161)

(55) Who arrived last night at the party?

[THE POLICE] Foc arrived SV

*Arrived [THE POLICE] Foc VS

(Lozano, 2008, p.161)

The presentationally focused subject of unergative verbs raises from its base position

Spec VP to Spec IP for case and focus checking purposes and the word order is SV. The

subject of unaccusatives moved from the VP object position to the surface subject

58

position Spec IP to acquire nominative case, as English language requires the subject

position to be occupied by an overt element, as mentioned several times in this

dissertation. Hence it can be concluded that English word order is SV for both neutral

and presentational contexts with unergative and unaccusative verbs. Additionally, in

presentationally focused contexts, the subject occurs postverbally with unaccusatives

when it is heavy and focus (Biber et.al (1999)) (as they are in our empirical study). This

fact will be elaborated and explained in detail in the following sections.

2.2.3.1.1 EXISTENTIAL INVERSION

Existential there is defined by Biber et al., (1999) as a:

„formal device used together with an intransitive verb to predicate the existence

or occurrence of something (including the non-existence or non-occurrence of

something) „ (p.943).

According to Ward, Birner and Huddleston (2002), existential inversion may have the

structure there+be+indefinite NP, known as existential clauses, as in (56), and also

there+V(intransitive)+indefinite NP, known as presentational clauses or existential

clauses with verbs other than be, as in (57).

(56) There are around 6000 accidents in the kitchen of Northern Ireland

homes every year.

(Biber et al., 1999, p. 943).

(57) Somewhere deep inside there arose a desperate hope that he would

embrace her.

(Biber et al., 1999, p. 943)

Before we continue describing the structure we will refer to the difference between

existential there and locative there.

Existential there is derived from the locative adverb there (thereloc), but has lost its

original locative meaning and functions as a semantically empty expletive (therepro).

The difference between expletive there and locative there is shown in (58).

59

(58)

a) Therepro is nothing thereloc.

b) What is therepro thereloc. ?

(Ward, G., Birner, B. J., & Huddleston, R, 2002, pp.1391)

Syntactically, existential there functions as an empty grammatical subject in existential

and presentational constructions which satisfies the requirements of English language to

have an overt element in surface subject position (according to the Extended Projection

Principle (EPP) which was mentioned several times in this dissertation).

Biber et. al. (1999:945) explain that existential constructions with verbs other than be

(presentational constructions) are rare and occupy only a small part of all existential

clauses: in fiction and academic prose less than 5% and in news and conversation less

than 1%. This is a very important factor for this study since we are investigating these

sentences and it is unlikely that L2 learners picked up the structure from the input (due

to its extremely low frequency in the input).

The focus of this study will be existential clauses with verbs other than be

(presentational clauses), where the postverbal subject co-occurs with intransitive verbs

(namely, a subset of unaccusative verbs, though in the descriptive literature (grammars

by Biber et al. 1999, Huddleston & Pullum 2002, Quirk et al. 1985) there is no

discussion about which type these intransitive verbs belong to, though in the generative

literature they have been well studied and have been classified as a subset of

unaccusatives, as we have explained earlier. We will therefore not discuss structures of

the type there-be-NP any further.

Unaccusative verbs of existence and appearance and inherently directed motion (as

explained in 2.2.1), are the intransitive verbs other than be, allowing there

constructions, as shown in (59), where the preverbal element (expletive there in this

case) is in italics, the unaccusative verb is underlined and the postverbal subject is in

bold.

(59)

a) There came a roar of pure delight as it closed around him and

carried him on.

60

b) There seems no likelihood of a settlement.

c) In all such relations there exists a set of mutual obligations in the

instrumental and economic fields.

(Biber et al., 1999, p. 943)

d) There remain only two further issues to discuss.

e) After they had travelled for many weeks, there came the moonlit

night when the air was still and cold.


The subject remains in its base generated object position (in situ) and the surface subject

position is occupied by the expletive there. Existential constructions are often used in

conjunction with adverbials of time or place (59c,e), because things happen in the

context of time and place. Biber et.al (1999) additionally explain that existential there

presents new information into the discourse, because it typically occurs with an

indefinite subject which carries focus (new) information. This fact is important for this

study as it deals with postverbal subjects which are focus. Even though it does not occur

often, presentational constructions allow postverbal subjects with definite noun phrases

as shown in (59e) (see details in Biber et.al 1999, section 11.4.3.).

2.2.3.1.2 LOCATIVE INVERSION

Sometimes, subject – verb inversion opens with place adverbials. This structure is often

referred to as locative inversion. Levin and Rappaport-Hovav (1995) explain that

locative inversion has a non-canonical word order „PP-V-S‟ which is a result of the

change of place between the subject (S) and the locative adverbial (PP). The verb in the

locative inversion must be intransitive, considered to belong mostly to the subclass of

unaccusative verbs of appearance (60a,b) and existence (60c). Sometimes

unaccusatives of inherently directed motion appear in locative inversion constructions

(60d). The preverbal element (now a PP) is shown in italics, the unaccusative verb is

underlined and the postverbal subject is in bold.

(60)

a) Over her shoulder appeared the head of Jenny’s mother.

61

b) From such optical tricks arise all the varieties of romantic

hallucination…

c) .. in the corners and the corridors and the bus debarkation point

existed that stricken awareness..

d) Here and there flourish groves of aged live oaks.

(Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995, pp. 220-221)

Unaccusative verbs of change of state do not typically occur in locative inversion

constructions as shown in (61a,b) or existential constructions (61c) due to the fact that

they are usually alternating unaccusatives which alternate in transitivity.

(61)

a) *On the top of the skyscraper broke many windows.

b) *On the streets of Chicago melted a lot of snow.

(Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995, pp. 224)

c) * There melted a lot of snow.

As Levin and Rappaport-Hovav (1995) further explain, even though locative inversion

is mostly related to unaccusative verbs of existence and appearance, there are several

subclasses of unergative verbs which are found in this construction. The unergative

verbs entering into this construction behave as unaccusatives by being used with

directional adverbials (62a) or activity verbs with animate subjects (62b). Also, verbs of

light emission (62c) and of body internal motion (62d) may appear in locative inversion

constructions.

(62)

a) Inside swam fish from an iridescent spectrum of colours …

b) On the third floor worked two young women called Maryanne

Thomson and Ava Brent.

c) On one hand flashes a 14-carat round diamond…

d) Black across the clouds flapped the cormorant.

62

(Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995, pp. 224-225)

Levin and Rappaport-Hovav (1995) explain that the subject in these constructions has to

be less familiar than the preverbal element (focus). This is also the reason why verbs

which are informationally heavy (rush, walk) are not found in locative inversion with

locative adverbials. It is possible for the heaviness of the verb to become lighter if

directional adverbial is used instead. They also propose that this phenomenon can be

taken into account from discourse considerations. Mendikoetxea (2006) elaborates that

unergative verbs of manner of motion become unaccusatives if the construction opens

with a directional PP.

(63)

a) Down the dusty Crisholm Trail into Abilene rode taciturn Spit

Weaver, his lean brown face an enigma…

b) Into this scene walked Corky’s sister, Vera, eight years old…

(Mendikoetxea 2006 p. 137 taken from Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995, p. 221)

The flexibility of locative inversion to accept different subclasses of verbs

(unaccusatives and unergatives) may be related to the origin of Modern English i.e. the

verb second (V2) structure of Old and Middle English. The verb second (V2) structure

has been “lost” in present day English, throughout the Middle English period, although

it has remained to persist as a feature of all other Germanic languages. Namely, this

property places the finite verb in the second constituent position in the clause after the

initial element, regardless of its clause function, usually a pronominal, negative and

temporal or locative adverb (Burrow and Turville-Petre, 2001; Haeberli 2007; Heycock

and Kroch 1993). More precisely, when the subject was long (which definitely means

that it was new), it was postverbal, i.e., the V2 mechanism basically worked as

presentational/locative inversion: the preverbal element is informationally light and

typically relates the info to the preceding discourse, and then the postverbal subject is

long and focus.

This is very similar to Modern English. Casiellez-Suarez (2009) explains that focus is

the stressed and informative part of the utterance which tends to occur towards the end

of the sentence (syntax-discourse interface). She claims that in English utterances

follow the Topic-Focus structure and that there is a tendency for accented focus to be

63

placed towards the end of the sentence. Basically, it is a general psycholinguistic

mechanism used to alleviate the speaker and listener‟s processing of the information. As

mentioned in 2.1.3. Additionally, Wasow (1997) explains that many languages put light

constituents at the beginning of the sentence and heavy elements towards the end of the

sentence (syntax-phonology interface) in order to make the utterances more

comprehensible for both the listener and the speaker involved in the communicative

activity. In English, this phenomenon is shown most clearly in the postverbal elements

(64).

(64)

a) There's a sentence in the letter assuring to the extent legally

possible confidentiality.

(Wasow 1997, p. 87)

b) With this competitiveness comes the desire to stand out from

the crowd and be the best.

c) Thus began the campaign to educate to public on how one

contracts aids.

(Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2010 pp. 486,490)

In English SV is the word order used with all types of verbs (unergatives and

unaccusatives) but if the subject is focus and heavy it tends to be placed postverbally

with unaccusative verbs in XP-V-S constructions. Unergative verbs, as it was already

mentioned, allow postverbal subjects in locative constructions only (PPloc-V-S). Hence

it can be concluded that inversion in English is not constrained only at the lexicon-

syntax interface but it is also constrained at the syntax-discourse (focus) and the syntax-

phonology interface (heavy).

It has been proposed that the interfaces of syntax with other parts of grammar are more

problematic to be acquired and they show L1 influence even though narrow syntax has

been acquired. Rankin (2011) studied this issue with German and Dutch (V2 languages)

learners of L2 English and focused on the transfer possibilities of V2 structure. The

results confirmed the predictions that even though syntax was mastered, transfer

happened at discourse syntax interface, where L1 preference of topicalization structures

64

continued to occur. Further on, Rankin proposed that „it is discourse-pragmatic patterns

that transfer as opposed to syntactic interference‟ p.16., i.e. that V2 transfer may be

happening due to transfer of discourse-pragmatic patterns from the L1 rather than

syntactic deficits. This is relevant for our study which will also discuss the possible

transfer of PP-V-S from L1 Macedonian and Spanish which is in fact a V2 structure.

(see sections 7.1.3.3. and 7.1.3.4.)

2.2.3.2 Unaccusativity and word order in native Spanish

Recall from our previous discussion in 2.1.2 that the second property of the pro-drop

parameter relates to the possibility of inverting the subject and the verb. But the

apparently flexible word order in Spanish is actually constrained by syntactic rules

stemming from the type of verb involved in the structure (lexicon-syntax interface),

and discourse rules depending on the type of information encoded in the sentence

(syntax-discourse interface) (Hertel 2003; Dominguez and Arche 2008; Lozano

2006a,b; Lozano 2008; Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2008, 2010). Spanish is a topic first

focus last language, meaning that the focused element in a sentence is expected to

appear in sentence-final position, even if the canonical word order is to be changed.

Example (65a) shows the word order in neutral context, providing an all-focus reply to

the question „What happened‟ (¿Que pasó?) and (65b) shows the word order in a

presentational context, where the subject has been focused and, therefore, needs to

appear in sentence-final position.

(65)

a) What happened?

[Juan ha traído el perro]Foc SVO

Juan has-brought the dog

„Juan has brought the dog‟

b) Who has brought the dog?

Ha traído el perro [Juan] Foc VOS

has brought the dog Juan


65

*[Juan] ha traído el perroFoc *SVO

Juan has-brought the dog


(Arche and Dominguez 2008, p. 2)

As has been shown earlier, the verb type also influences the word order in Spanish.

Namely, the subject of unaccusatives always appears postverbally irrespective of the

information status of the sentence (neutral or presentational focus), as explained by

Hertel (2003), Lozano (2006a, 2006b) and Arche and Domiguez (2008). Examples (66)

and (67) show the word order with unergatives and unaccusatives in neutral context and

(68) and (69) show the word order in presentational context.

(66) neutral focus / unergatives

¿Qué pasó anoche en la calle?

What happened last night in the street?

[Una mujer grito] Foc SV

A woman shouted

„A woman shouted‟

*[Grito una mujer] Foc VS

Shouted a woman


(Lozano, 2008, p.144)

(67) neutral focus / unaccusatives

¿Qué pasó anoche en la fiesta?

What happened last night at the party?

*[La policia vino] Foc SV

The police arrived

„The police arrived‟

[Vino la policia] Foc VS

66

Arrived the police


(Lozano, 2008, p.145)

Examples (66) and (67) show that the canonical word order is used in neutral context

with unergatives, but VS is pragmatically more acceptable with unaccusatives. As

explained by Lozano (2006a), Spanish marks the presentational focus syntactically by

placing the subject in sentence final position.

(68) presentational focus / unergatives

Quien grito anoche en la calle?

Who shouted last night in the street?

*[UNA MUJER] Foc grito SV

A woman shouted


Grito [UNA MUJER] Foc VS

Shouted a woman


(69) presentational focus / unaccusatives

Quien vino anoche a la fiesta?

Who came last night to the party?

*[LA POLICIA] Foc vino SV

The police arrived

„The pólice arrived‟

Vino [LA POLICIA]Foc VS

Arrived the police


(Lozano, 2008, p.161)

67

Therefore, in presentational context VS is pragmatically more acceptable both with

unergatives and unaccusatives, proving that word order in Spanish is also determined at

syntax-discourse level. This is clearly shown in the bar chart below, Figure 7 (source:

experimental data from Spanish native speakers reported by Lozano (2006a) and

adapted here for expository purposes).

Figure 7: Word order in neutral and presentational contexs in Spanish

Therefore it can be summed up that in Spanish word order is constrained by the lexicon

at the lexicon-syntax interface (all focus contexts) where unergatives require SV and

unaccusatives VS. At the syntax-discourse interface word order is constrained by focus

requiring VS both with unergatives and unaccusatives when the subject is new

information.

2.2.3.3 Unaccusativity and word order in native Macedonian

The Macedonian language has not been largely studied from a generative point of view.

We are not aware of any previous studies on unaccusativity in Macedonian. There are

some theoretical studies about the word order in Macedonian, governed by discourse

(topic and focus information), which we will refer to further on, but none of these

studies elaborate in detail the focus of our interest or mention the

unaccusative/unergative distinction.

Sussex and Cubberley (2006) studied in detail the Slavic languages and state that these

languages (Macedonian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian etc.) place old or topic information

at the beginning of the sentence and new information goes towards the end i.e., they are

68

topic first focus last (which, as we have seen in the preceding section, is what happens

in native Spanish).

As mentioned in 2.2., the unmarked word order in Macedonian is SVO. Due to its pro-

drop features, Macedonian shows word order flexibility, as in (34a,b) here repeated as

(70).

(70)

a) Poshtar dojde (SV)

postman came


b) Dojde poshtar (VS)

Came a postman


(Topolinska, 1995, p. 51)

Topolinska (1995) describes that (70b) is unmarked by definiteness. The subject

„poshtar-postman‟ is an indefinite NP (focus) and is placed after the verb. The subject is

placed before the verb when it is marked by definiteness (topic), such as in (71), thus it

may be assumed that topic information is placed at the beginning of the sentence and

focus usually after the verb.

(71) Poshtarot dojde (SV)

Postman-the came

„The postman came‟

In relation to the above, Minova-Gjurkova (2000) discusses word order in Macedonian

from a functional point of view (discourse), elaborating that the natural order is to place

the theme (topic) before the rheme (focus) information (34c) here repeated as (72a).

This word order in Macedonian is called objective word order. The rheme (focus) can

be placed at the beginning of the sentence if emotional emphasis is involved. The

speaker starts with the most important element, even if it would be pragmatically more

69

logical to place it in sentence final position (34d) here repeated as (72b). This is the

subjective word order. Both statements are acceptable and the information will be

suitably transmitted.

(72)

a) Vleze edna devojka (VS)

Entered a girl

„A girl enetered‟.

b) Edna devojka vleze (SV)

A girl entered


(Minova-Gjurkova, 2000, p. 226)

The topic-focus word order with locative inversion is common in Macedonian. As

explained by Milenkovska (2002a), when the locative or temporal adverbial refers to the

previous context it is usually placed in sentence initial position and semantically

motivates inversion, as in (73).

(73)

Vo kukjata od samoto moste vleguva Rusanka.

In house-the from itself-the bridge enters Rusanka.

„In the house, from the bridge itself enters Rusanka‟

(Milenkovska (2002), p.124)

Milenkovska (2002) also mentions that the subject NP occur postverbally (marked

realization of the word order) when it carries new information (focus). She provides

several examples taken from novels written by renowned Macedonian authors as in

(74). Even though nothing was mentioned about the heaviness of the subject it is

obvious from the below examples that, besides being focus, the subject is also heavy.

70

(74)

a) Od chistinata nagore se protegashe padina so sitni

grmushki i so mnogu kamenja.

from clearing-the above spreaded slope with small bushes

and a lot of stones.

„Above the clearing spreaded a slope with small bushes and a lot of

stones.‟

b) Se izvivaat goli vetrovi fateni vo mrezhata na ulicata.

Blew sharp winds caught in the web of the street.

„Sharp winds were blowing caught in the street web.‟

c) No zad niv stoeja drugi vojnici, nahraneti i obleceni

i so pushki ili stapovi vo racete.

But behind them stood other soldiers, fed, and dressed up

and with guns or sticks in arms-the.

„But behind them stood other soldiers, fed and dressed up carrying

guns or sticks in their arms‟.

(Milenkovska 2002a,b, pp.126/127, 249)

As was previously mentioned, unaccusativity in Macedonian has not been studied.

Word order is flexible but it is unclear whether it is governed by the lexicon-syntax

interface due to the fact that SV/VS is allowed with all verb types (neutral context). As

far as the presentational focus context is concerned, we could only refer to the above

studies and examples, which suggest that focus and heavy subjects tend to occur

postverbally in Macedonian. Hence we could assume that syntax-discourse and

syntax-phonology interface influence word order in Macedonian by placing focus and

heavy subjects towards the end of the sentence.

71

2.2.3.3.1 DESCRIPTION OF UNACCUSATIVITY

In the previous section, we were able to see the preference of SV / VS with unergatives

and unaccusatives in neutral and presentational contexts by English and Spanish

natives. Table 4 summarizes the word order for different contexts for English and Table

5 for Spanish. Given that there are no experimental studies on native Macedonian, we

will discuss the SV/VS alternation in native Macedonian in the section below, where we

report on a short experimental study testing Macedonian natives‟ preferences.

Table 4: Word order in neutral and presentational contexs in English

English

neutral context unergatives SV

unaccusatives SV

presentational context unergatives SV

unaccusatives SV

presentational context

(if the subject is focus

and heavy)

unergatives

existential

constructions

SV

locative

inversion VS

unaccusatives

existential

constructions VS

locative

inversion VS

It is obvious that unaccusativity is not represented at a surface level in neutral and

presentational contexts in English due to the fixed word order and the requirements of

English to have an overt subject in the sentence (EPP). If, however, the subject is focus

(new information) AND heavy (long) postverbal subject constructions are allowed with

unaccusative verbs in existential constructions and locative inversion constructions

which are presentational context constructions. Postverbal subject constructions are

possible with some subclasses of unergatives (see description in 2.2.3.1.2. above) with

long and heavy subjects in locative inversion constructions only.

Table 5: Word order in neutral and presentational contexs in Spanish

Spanish

neutral context unergatives SV

unaccusatives VS

presentational context unergatives VS

unaccusatives VS

72

Unaccusativity in Spanish is more obvious at surface level showing SV only with

unergatives in neutral context. Unaccusatives in neutral context and both types of verbs

in presentational context prefer VS.

As just mentioned, we did not come across any Macedonian studies or descriptive

papers on unaccusativity and word order in different contexts. Due to the fact that these

data are crucial for our study, investigating whether acquisition of postverbal subjects in

L2 English is a result of transfer or rather a developmental issue, we conducted a pilot

study to examine the intuitions on SV/VS with unergatives and unaccusatives in neutral

and presentational context in Macedonian, which is described in the next section.

2.2.3.3.2 PILOT STUDY: MACEDONIAN NATIVE SPEAKERS’ INTUITIONS ON

UNACCUSATIVITY

A contextualized grammaticality judgment test was developed (see appendix 11.3, p.

197). We used 4 unergatives (work, play, speak, cry) and 4 unaccusatives (come, exist,

begin, appear) and developed 16 sentences with unergatives (8 neutral context and 8

presentational context) and 16 with unaccusatives (8 neutral context and 8

presentational context). The test consisted of 32 contexualized situations which ended

with a question referring either to neutral context „Shto se sluchi?‟ (What happened?) or

presentational context “Koj dojde/zboruvashe/raboteshe?(Who came/spoke/worked..?)

The participants could accept either SV or VS orders for each contextualized question.

In (75) we have shown one example of the pilot test showing the neutral context

question (75a) with the unaccusative APPEAR and the presentational context question

(75b) with the unaccusative COME, provided in Macedonian (Cyrillic alphabet) and

followed by an English translation.

(75)

a) Гледаш хорор филм со Весна и заѕвонува нејзиниот телефон.

Таа излегува од собата и се враќа по завршувањето на

разговорот. Во меѓувреме испушти еден дел од филмот и

прашува: “Што се случи“? Ти одговараш:

1) се појави дух (VS)

73

2) дух се појави (SV)

You are watching a horror film with Vesna when her telephone starts

ringing. She goes out of the room and comes back after she has finished

the conversation. She missed one part of the film and asks: “What

happened”? You answer:

1) appeared a ghost (VS)

2) a ghost appeared (SV)

b) Ти си на забава со твојата пријателка Тања. Таа оди да си земе

пијалок а во меѓувреме на забавата доаѓа некој непознат човек.

Тања се враќа, забележува дека некој дошол и прашува: “Кој

дојде“? Ти одговараш:

1) еден човек дојде (SV)

2) дојде еден човек (VS)

You are at a party with your friend Tanya. She goes to get a drink

and in the meantime there comes an unknown man. Tanya returns,

notices that someone has come and asks: “Who came”? You answer:

1) a man came (SV)

2) came a man (VS)

We randomized the order of the questions in terms of context and type of verb. Also,

the order of SV/VS options was randomized for different sentences in order to avoid an

order-of-presentation effect.

The test was developed in Google Docs, which is a data storage service which provides

a possibility for its users to create and edit documents online which was convenient for

our purpose. The test was distributed online to potential participants over the internet.

The participants were explained that we needed their opinion on the acceptability of the

sentence without explaining any linguistic details regarding the experimental aims, and

that they had to choose one option only. 62 native speakers of Macedonian took part in

the testing. After we received and analyzed the results we took out two verbs from the

74

Macedonian results (1 unergative-SPEAK and 1 unaccusative-APPEAR)7 and we

compared them with the overall Spanish results (Figure 8a and 8b respectively).

Figure 8a: Word order in neutral and presentational contexs in Macedonian

10,8

43,5

30,1

66,1

89,2

56,5

69,9

33,9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

neutral_unac(%) neutral_unerg(%) presentational_unac(%) presentational_unerg(%)

% o

f accep

tan

ce [fo

rced

ch

oic

e S

V/V

S]

Macedonian natives (N=62)

SV

VS

Macedonians prefer VS with unaccusatives, both in neutral and presentational context

which is the same as in native Spanish. These results indicate that Macedonians are

sensitive to the UH knowing that the internal argument of unaccusative verbs generates

in its object position in the VP. Surprisingly enough, Macedonians prefer VS in neutral

context with unergatives as well (even though the difference compared with

unaccusatives is minor, i.e., we could be dealing here with a case of native optionality,

since both SV and VS are preferred with unergatives in neutral contexts) but SV with

unergatives in presentational context, which is completely opposite to the Spanish

results.

7 SPEAK (unergative) and APPEAR (unaccusative) were eliminated because they were the weakest

candidates in their condition.

75

Figure 8b (repeat of Figure 7): Word order in neutral and presentational contexs in Spanish

62,5

89,0

50,0

57,7

83,9

46,7

86,983,9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

neutral_unac(%) presentational_unac(%)

% o

f accep

tan

ce [accep

tab

ilit

y o

f b

oth

SV

an

d V

S]

Spanish natives (N=14) (source: Lozano 2006a)

SV

VS

The methodology we used might play a role in the results we obtained. Namely, the

participants did not produce their own answers, but they were forced to choose two

options: either SV or VS. VS with unergatives in neutral context was not expected,

though the results point in the direction of optional SV/VS with unergatives in neutral

contexts, as pointed out above. This may be due to the great flexibility of word order in

Macedonian.

The SV order for unergatives in presentational context was also unexpected. It might be

explained via the description of Minova-Gjurkova (2000) of the subjective word order

in Macedonian. Learners may feel the possibility to be able to change the word order

with unergatives when they emphasize the answer. Namely, the rheme (focus) can be

placed at the beginning of the sentence if emotional emphasis is involved. The speaker

starts with the most important element, even if it would be pragmatically more logical to

place it at sentence final position8. This is more difficult to be done with the core

unaccusatives because often they do not „sound well‟ in SV order while it is more

8 We managed to talk to some of the participants in the pilot study who told us their opinion about the

sentences. Namely, they thought that different interpunction signs were supposed to be used at the end of

the sentences because some of them seemed like exclamations, in relation to the context they were

anchored to. Due to the absence of these signs they chose the answers based on their subjective opinion

i.e. mostly chose the SV option emphasizing the DOER of the action as the question is WHO did

something.

76

possible to be done with unergatives. The obtained word order in different contexts in

Macedonian is shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Word order in neutral and presentational contexts in Macedonian

As we will see in the experimental section, the distribution of SV/VS with

unaccusatives and unergatives that we have just reported for English, Spanish and

Macedonian will be crucial to interpret the results of this dissertation.

Macedonian

neutral context unergatives VS/(SV)

unaccusatives VS

presentational context unergatives SV

unaccusatives VS

77

3 THE L2 ACQUISITION OF UNACCUSATIVITY

The main outline of this chapter is to present unaccusativity in L2 acquisition by

providing preliminary background on L2 acquisition and the interfaces and describing

unaccusatives in L2 acquisition with reference to postverbal subjects supported by

examples of learners‟ production on unccusativity taken from various empirical studies.

3.1 PRELIMINARY BACKGROUND: L2 ACQUISITION AND THE

INTERFACES

In the 80s SLA research focused on the issue of access to UG and parameter resetting

(Chomsky 1981). In the mid 90s research moved on from studying these rather global

issues to the development of the Minimalist program (Chomsky 1995), which considers

the human language ability to consist of a computational system (syntax) which is fed

by the lexicon (features). Such system interacts with external interfaces (phonology and

semantics, or, technically speaking, the sensi-motor system and the conceptual-

intentional system). In particular, advances in linguistic theory have been interested in

studying interface conditions, which has has also been a topic of interest in recent SLA,

which in the 2000s has focused on how the computational system interacts with the

interfaces. Researchers examine whether failure to acquire fully native-like L2

competence occurs due to learners‟ inability to integrate material at the interfaces and

whether interfaces encompass cross-linguistic influence. These issues are relevant for

this empirical study.

Therefore SLA can be explored from three levels: (i) lexicon-syntax interface, referring

to the lexicon-semantic features of the structures to be acquired and their interaction

with the grammar, (ii) syntax-discourse interface, which refers to the interaction of the

discourse with the syntactic properties of the structure and (iii) syntax-phonology

interface dealing with the interaction of syntax and the phonological properties of the

structure. The Unaccusative Hypothesis is instantiated at the lexicon–syntax level. But

interface conditions are crucial for our study. It shows that unaccusativity (lexicon-

syntax interface) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the production of

postverbal subjects (which are the focus of this study), because other interfaces are

78

involved in their production and acceptance: syntax-discourse (end-focus principle) and

syntax-phonology (end-weight principle), as will be seen below.

3.2 UNACCUSATIVES IN L2 ACQUISITION

The theory of the Unaccusative Hypothesis (see chapter 2) has shown various

diagnostics on unaccusativity (semantic, syntactic etc.) The sensitivity to the

unaccusative hypothesis in SLA is observed in the behavior of various L1 learners

producing ungrammatical and contextually inappropriate passive unaccusatives e.g., An

accident was happened for “An accident happened” (Balcom, 1997; Hirakawa, 1999; Ju

2000; Oshita, 2000; Zobl, 1989). It was already mentioned in 2.2.2. that unaccusatives

determine the selection of auxiliaries in languages choosing different auxiliaries in

perfective tenses. Learner‟s sensitivity to follow the native norm of auxiliary selection

depending on the verb type is part of the phenomena described by Sorace (1993). One

of the factors allowing postverbal subjects in L2 English is the UH which has been

largely studied by several authors (Zobl 1989; Rutherford 1989; Yuan 1998; Oshita

2001, 2004; Lozano & Mendikoetxea 2008, 2010).

In the following subsections we will review studies on unaccusativity in L2 acquisition,

which will serve as a background for the experimental study. The last subsection on

unaccusative postverbal subjects in L2 acquisition, which is the focus of this study, is

crucial to understand the experimental section and the results.

3.2.1 INTRODUCTION: SOME EXAMPLES OF LEARNERS’ PRODUCTION ON

UNACCUSATIVITY

This section provides examples produced by learners of L2 English of various L1

backgrounds to indicate the universal sensitivity to the UH. Learners produce similar

structures (grammatical and ungrammatical) regardless of their L1, (76-78).

(76) PASSIVE UNACCUSATIVES

a) *Most of the people are fallen in love and marry with somebody.

b) *My mother was died when I was just a baby.

(Zobl 1989, p. 204).

79

(77) AUXILIARY SELECTION

a) *Non ha potuto venire

b) Non e potuta venire

(Sorace 1993, p. 41).

(78) POSTVERBAL SUBJECTS

a) PP (locative) - V (unaccusative) - S

. … on her face appeared those two red cheeks …

(L1 Arabic; Rutherford, 1989, p. 179).

b) *PP (temporal) - V (unaccusative) - S

*One day happened a revolution.


c) there-insertion - V (unaccusative) - S

… there often arise the problem of political indifference …


d) *it-insertion - V (unaccusative) - S

*… it arrived the day of his departure …


e) Ø-insertion - V (unaccusative) - S

It is difficult that exist volunteers with such a feeling against it.


We will review the acquisition of these linguistic data (76-78) in the following

subsections.

80

3.2.2 PASSIVIZED UNACCUSATIVES

Zobl (1989) was one of the first researchers showing that learners produce certain

errors, as indicated in (76), here repeated as (79), due to unaccusativity.

(79)

a) *Most of the people are fallen in love and marry with somebody.

(L1 Japanese, Zobl 1989, p. 204).

b) *My mother was died when I was just a baby.

(L1 Thai, Zobl 1989, p. 204).

L2 learners of English with different L1 languages (Thai, Arabic – Zobl (1989);

Chinese-Balcom (1997); Korean-Ju (2000), Oshita (2000,2004); Italian, Spanish-Oshita

(2000, 2004); Japanese-Oshita (2004), Zobl (1989)) passivize intransitive unaccusative

verbs (are fallen in love, was died), even though native English speakers passivize only

transitive verbs. This behavior may indicate that learners are somehow able to notice the

parallel between the passivized errors they produce and the real transitive passives. In

English passives, the theme argument NP moves from object (80a) to subject (80b)

position for case checking purposes, which is realised by passive morphology (80c).

(80)

a) [proexpl INFL [ vp V NP]]

b) [NPi INFL [vp V ti]]

(Zobl 1989, p. 207).

c) The candiesi were bought ti by the children.

The argument structure of unaccusatives has its theme argument in base object position,

which in English has to be moved in the surface subject position due to case checking

purposes, as was explained in 2.2.1. Even though this movement is not marked in

English, learners passivize only unaccusatives which indicates that they are somehow

sensitive to their underlying argument structure which undergoes similar movement to

81

that of transitive passives. The result is the erroneous use of passive morphology with

unaccusatives, even though passivization has not occurred. By using passive

morphology with unaccusatives, they discard the doer of the action, i.e., the agent,

which does not exist with unaccusatives, hence the ungrammaticality of the structure.

Oshita (2000) studied written production of passivization errors. A total of 941 tokens

were produced with unaccusatives, out of which 38 were passivization errors (81). Also,

640 tokens involved unergative verbs, but learners produced only one passivization

error (82), which indicates that unergatives are not passivized. This is another proof that

learners are sensitive to the fact that the argument of unaccusatives is VP

internal/theme.

(81)

a) *They were happened a few days ago.

(L1 Italian; Oshita 2000, p. 314).

b) *..suddenly pale face was appeared out of the window.

(L1 Korean; Oshita 2000, p. 312).

c) *After that we were arrived at the station.

(L1 Japanese; Oshita 2000, p. 314).

(82)

*He has been walked since last month.

(L1 Spanish; Oshita 2000, p. 310).

Balcom (1997) explains the passivization process with different types of unaccusatives.

She distinguishes two types of unaccusatives in the formation of passive morphology.

The first one are the unaccusatives with a transitive counterpart (e.g. break, open) which

have an external and internal argument (Agent and Theme) and which allow transitive /

unaccusative alternation. They are „derived from causatives by binding the external

argument in the lexical semantic representation so the agent is not projected to the

argument structure‟ (p.7), the pattern being shown in (83).

82

(83)

Unaccusative with Transitive Counterpart

[[ x DO-SOMETHING] CAUSE [ y BECOME STATE]]

ø <y>

The other subtype are the unaccusatives without a transitive counterpart (e.g. happen,

fall) which may have two internal arguments (Theme and Location), out of which the

latter is possible to be implicit, and no external argument. They follow the pattern in

(84).

(84)

Unaccusative without transitive counterparts

[ y BE/BECOME AT z]

<y> Ploc<z>

In order to be passivized, unaccusatives without a transitive counterpart have to add an

external argument via causativization before passivization occurs. Both subtypes of

unaccusatives with „be‟+en are derived by passivization, which occurs when the

external argument is bound at argument structure. In such cases, learners would produce

incorrect structures with unaccusatives without a transitive counterpart, as presented in

(85), thus following the passivization pattern (86).

(85)

a) *Jane was fallen down by Mary.

b) *The accident was happened to collect the insurance.

These examples are obtained by Hirakawa (1994) and were presented in Balcom (1997, p.8).

83

(86)

[[ xDO-SOMETHING] CAUSE [ y BECOME STATE]]

x ø <y>

Oshita (2000) analyzed Balcom‟s claim that causativization is one of the reasons for the

occurrence of passive unaccusatives. His study provided only one example (87) of

possible causativization of the verb before having been passivized.

(87)

* It [i.e., a wall] was falled down in order to get a bigger green house.

(L1Spanish; Oshita 2000, p. 313).

According to Oshita, causativization is unlikely to happen in situations which denote

events beyond the control of a volitional subject (88a) or when the doer of the action is

the subject NP (88b), which does not require causativization and then passivization of

the verb.

(88)

a) *… the word, „the role of women‟ is appeared just several years

ago.

(L1Korean; Oshita 2000, p. 314).

b) *I was nearly arrived to my office.

(L1Italian; Oshita 2000, p. 314).

Ju (2000) proposes that a cognitive factor influences the overpassivization phenomenon.

Whenever there is a context which implies a possible external causer (89) of an event

(available for a by phrase passive interpretation), learners perceive an agent and they

tend to passivize the unaccusatives appearing in such contexts more than unaccusatives

which do not. In this case, the fan is perceived as an external doer of the action

motivating learners to produce the incorrect structure due to the non-agentive verb.

84

(89)

Tom switched on the fan.

*Shortly after, the smoke in the room was disappeared by the fan.

(Ju 2000, p. 93).

The conclusion is that passivization of unaccusatives should be viewed as an overt

marker of NP movement, more precisely, an overgeneralization of the passive

morphosyntax of L2 English i.e., overpassivization.

3.2.3 UNACCUSATIVE AUXILIARY SELECTION

Recall that one of the diagnostics for the unaccusatives/unergative opposition is

auxiliary selection (section 2.2.2). Sorace (1993) studied the sensitivity to the UH of

English and French learners of L2 Italian. In Italian (as explained in 2.2.2),

unaccusatives (i) occur with the auxiliary essere (be), (ii) optionally occur with essere

(be) when taken as complements with modals and (iii) take essere as the co-occuring

auxiliary with dovere when clitic climbing occurs, as presented in (48) above. The study

involved native French speakers (French uses only unaccusatives of change of location

with etrè (be) and other unaccusatives with avoir (have)) and English natives (which

use only have in perfective constructions). Sorace conducted a grammaticality

judgement test including various types of unaccusatives used with essere in the

constructions mentioned above. Avere (have) was also used in the same constructions

and participants had to select the correct auxiliary.

Table 7 Mean acceptability judgments on five categories of unaccusative verbs, Essere and Avere versions. (Sorace 1993)

85

The results showed (Table 7) that both French and English speakers are sensitive to the

fact that unaccusatives normally occur with essere in Italian. L1 showed to be

influential for the auxiliary choice because French and English speakers accepted at a

greater degree avere (have) with unaccusatives describing a state than native Italians.

3.2.4 UNACCUSATIVE POSTVERBAL SUBJECTS

The study of Zobl (1989) mentioned in 3.2.2., also noticed that speakers from various

L1 backgrounds produced ungrammatical VS orders mostly with unaccusative verbs

(90)

(90)

a) Sometimes comes a good regular wave.

b) I was just patient until dried my clothes

c) I think it continue of today condition forever.

(L1Japanese; Zobl 1989, p. 204).

Learners seem to be sensitive to the fact that the internal argument of unaccusatives

appears in object position (in situ) and they do not move it to surface subject position

(Spec IP) to get nominative case. In these cases, learners either do not fulfill the surface

subject position i.e., do not provide the necessary expletive there required in English as

in (90a,b) or they provide the expletive „it‟ (90c) and form ungrammatical structures

(which, as we will see, are crucial to understand the experimental section in this

dissertation). Zobl emphasizes that these structures are produced by intermediate, upper

intermediate and advanced level students. Additionally he explains that it is unlikely

that transfer occurs due to the fact that participants‟ L1 is Japanese, which is a SOV

language.

Postverbal subjects were also produced only with unaccusatives in the studies

conducted by Oshita (2000; 2004). The structures there-V-S (91a), *it-V-S (91b) and

*Ø -V-S (91c) were produced by Spanish, Italian , Korean and Japanese L1 speakers.

(91)

a) ..there exist many kind of prejudice.

86

(L1Korean; Oshita 2000, p. 316).

b) ..*it arrived the day of his departure.


c) ..*like a mirage appeared the large expanse of the sea.

(L1 Italian; Oshita, 2004, p. 120)

There-V-S was the rarest produced structure, even though it is grammatical. Spanish

and Italian speakers produced more VS structures than Japanese and Korean who

produced more passive unacccusatives. Oshita claims that null expletives are transferred

from the L1 Spanish and Italian, hence the production of *Ø -V-S mostly among Italian

and Spanish speakers (a fact that will be relevant for the experimental study in this

dissertation). The production of *it-V-S is due to the fact learners prefer it in subject

position instead of the grammatical there due to its nominal features. On the other hand,

the low production of postverbal subjects among Japanese and Korean speakers

indicates that null expletives do not exist in their native languages.

Yuan (1999) studied whether English learners of L2 Chinese will be sensitive to the

unaccusative/unergative distinction in Chinese in the acquisition of VS structures.

English and Chinese have different mapping of the semantics and the syntax as

explained in 2.2.2. The internal argument of Chinese unaccusative verbs may occur

preverbally, as in English, as shown in (51a), here repeated as (92a), or it may display

surface unaccusativity by occuring postverbally as shown in (51b), here (92b). The

internal argument in Chinese appears postverbally only if it is an indefinite noun phrase

as in (92b). Definite noun phrase cannot occur postverbally as in (51c), here (92c).

(92)

a) shang ge yue, san sou chuan zai zhe ge hai yu chen le.

last CL month three CL ship in this CL sea area sink PFV


b) shang ge yue, zai zhe ge hai yu chen le san sou chuan.

last CL month in this CL sea area sink PFV three CL ship


c) *shang ge yue, zai zhe ge hai yu chen le na sou chuan.

last CL month in this CL sea area sink PFV that CL ship

87

„Last month, that ship sank in this sea area.‟

(Yuan, 1999, pp. 279)

The subjects were 48 native English learners of L2 Chinese divided into 4 proficiency

levels and a native Chinese control group. They described pictures which required the

use of unaccusative verbs allowing both preverbal and postverbal occurrence of the

subject, and unergative verbs which do not allow postverbal subjects. Additionally, they

were tested by a grammaticality judgment test including the same type of sentences. The

verbs used for the test, which allow VS with indefinite noun phrase, were (i) externally

caused unaccusatives (ii) unaccusatives of directed motion (iii) unergatives which

behave as unaccusatives when used with a directional phrase9 (PP jump + direction

+NP) as explained in 2.2.3.1.2. Unergative subjects do not appear in postverbal

position. The results indicated that the unaccusative/unergative distinction is acquired

very late or it is never acquired at a native-like competence by English learners of L2

Chinese and that the acquisition follows certain developmental stages which are not

linear.

Oshita (2001) studied the results obtained by Yuan (1999) and proposed his

Unaccusative Trap Hypothesis which explains the developmental stages of the

acquisition of the unaccusative / unergative distinction. Figures 9, 10 and 11 show the

results obtained by Yuan, represented in column charts by Oshita (pp. 296-297). Figure

9 shows the results of the picture descriptions requiring use of unaccusative verbs.

Learners produced postverbal structures correctly with externally caused (break) and

directed motion (fall) unaccusatives and incorrectly with some internally caused

unergatives (run). The lowest proficiency level group hardly produced any VS

structures. Groups 2 and 3 produced them with an increasing tendency, while the most

proficient group tended to decrease the VS production. Natives produced VS with all

the verbs allowing the VS occurrence. Simultaneously all learners preferred SV to VS

order for all verbs.

9 For additional explanation see“Unergatives that „become‟ unaccusatives in English locative inversion

structures: A lexical syntactic approach by Amaya Mendikoetxea (2006).

88

Figure 9. Percentage of V-NP production on the picture description task (based on Table 3 in Yuan, 1999, p. 285)

Figure 10 shows the acceptability of VS on a scale ranging from -2 (completely

unacceptable) to 2 (completely acceptable) from the grammaticality judgment test. It is

obvious that group 1 rejects VS completely. Groups 2 and 3 accept VS with all verbs.

At intermediate stages learners seem to overextend the structure to all verb types. Group

4 distinguishes the verbs allowing VS from the ones that do not allow the structure, but

not as sharply as the native speakers.

Figure 10: V-NP Acceptance on the grammaticality judgment task (based on Tables 4, 5, and 6 in Yuan, 1999, p. 286).

Yuan divided the fourth group into 3 subgroups (Figure 11), according to the results

from the picture description data and the grammaticality judgment test. Namely, 4A

accepted and 4B rejected all VS sentences. 4C distinguished correctly the grammatical

and ungrammatical structures. It means that 4A behaves like groups 2 and 3 and 4B like

group 1. Based on these results, Oshita proposes the three developmental stages for the

acquisition of the unaccusative / unergative distinction named the Unaccusative Trap

(UT), as shown below.

89

Figure 11. V-NP Acceptance on the grammaticality judgment task (based on Tables 4, 5, and 6 in Yuan, 1999, p. 286).

The first stage (unergative stage): The interlanguage grammar perceives both

unaccusatives and unergatives as being unergatives and only SV is produced and

accepted. Learners do not possess the knowledge of the underlying structure of both

unergatives and unaccusatives at this level. They misanalyze unaccusatives as

unergatives and do not „correctly‟ use SV with all verb types.

The second stage: The second stage recognizes acceptance of VS structures

irrespective of their ungrammaticality. The learner probably becomes aware of the

syntactically relevant semantic features of unaccusative verbs, hence the use of passive

unaccusatives, use of (it)-V-S structures and reluctance to use SV, indicating that

learners have progressed to the second stage. Oshita explains that at this stage learners

probably become aware of the mapping of the internal argument in object position but

they are not clear about how to produce the structure without the required subject in

English, hence the production of the ungrammatical structures (*it-V-S and passive

unaccusatives My mother was died). Even though SV is mostly used in the input,

learners somehow become sensitive to the fact that the subject of unaccusatives is

generated in object position.

In Yuan‟s data, nothing suggests that groups 2 and 3 are sensitive to the

unaccusative/unergative distinction but they somehow start accepting VS and

overgeneralize it with all types of verbs. Oshita compares this measure to the locative

construction in English, which allows unergatives in VS structures, as explained in

2.2.3.1.2.

90

The third stage: Learners achieve native-like competence when they start using the

object to subject movement without producing ungrammatical structures (*it insertion,

passive unaccusatives). At this stage learners may start using grammatical there

constructions. In Yuan‟s data, only the 4C group reached near-native competence while

the 4A and 4B remained at the first and second developmental stage in spite of their

high proficiency level.

It is clear from the previous studies that the production of VS structures is a result of

unaccusativity (Unaccusative Hypothesis, UH). But unaccusativity is a necessary but

insufficient condition for the occurrence of postverbal subjects in English (Lozano and

Mendikoetxea 2008; 2010). Namely, L1 Spanish learners of L2 English produced

postverbal subject constructions (both grammatical PP-V-S and there–V-S and

ungrammatical *it-V-S and * Ø -V-S) only with unaccusatives which shows the

constraints of the lexicon-syntax interface. Additionally, the subjects have to be focus

i.e., introduce new information (End Focus Principle), and heavy or long (End Weight

Principle), involving the influence of the syntax-discourse and syntax-phonology

interfaces respectively in the production of VS as shown in (93).

(93)

a) PP (locative) - V - S

In some places still exist popularly supported death penalty.

b) there-insertion – V - S

Furthermore there also exists a wide variety of optional

channels which have to be paid.

c) *it-insertion - V - S

*In the name of religion it had occured many important events

d) * Ø -insertion - V - S

*It is difficult that exist volunteers with such a feeling against it.

e) *PP (temporal) - V - S

91

*In 1760 occurs the restoration of Charles II in England.

(L1 Spanish; Lozano & Mendikoetxea, 2010, pp. 486,487).

In short, three interface constraints are needed for the production of postverbal subjects

in L2 English. This is a crucial fact for the setting up of hypotheses and for the

experimental design of the stimuli in the following chapters.

Examples taken from the Main Experimental Test for L1 Macedonian-L2 English

(IUSAJ) (See Appendix 11.1.3) are shown in (94) in order to illustrate the design of the

examples about to be studied in the experimental section. Importantly, the experimental

sentences follow the structural pattern of the sentences in (93) from the corpus studies.

The experimental constructions contain unaccusative and unergative verbs in order to

test whether learners would accept the correct XP-V-S constructions with unaccusatives

and unergatives.

(94)

a) PP (locative) - V - S

… in my dictionary appears a very interesting definition for this

word. (UNACCUSATIVE)

… but in room 4 spoke a very important doctor from Oxford

University (UNERGATIVE)

b) there-insertion – V - S

…so there came a dramatic increase of 45% of unemployment

(UNACCUSATIVE)

*…so there talked the president of the United States

(UNERGATIVE)

c) *it-insertion - V - S

*…some politicians think that it began a new period in Spanish

history. (UNACCUSATIVE)

92

*…I think that it played only the children of the people who were

rich (UNERGATIVE)

d) Ø -insertion - V - S

*…some experts say that exist some students who support it.

(UNACCUSATIVE)

*…that work only the people who have stable job.

(UNERGATIVE)

In order to support the point that postverbal subjects are produced when the 3 interface

conditions (unaccusativity, focus, and heaviness) are met and that otherwise the subject

is produced in preverbal position, we show examples of preverbal subjects with

unaccusatives which are light and topic (95).

(95)

a) The feminism begun with the French Revolution and the

Industrial Revolution

b) These debates began over two decades ago.

c) Hugo came from a burgoisie background.

(Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2010, pp.489,490)

The difference between the production of postverbal subjects between L2 learners and

English natives is not in the interface conditions that allow VS order (simply because

learners obey the same interface constraints as native English speakers do), but rather

lies in the grammaticality of the preverbal structures they produce. Learners produced

mostly ungrammatical sentences with an ungrammatical it - insertion and grammatical

locative, while natives produced grammatical PP-insertion and there-insertion. Namely,

the ungrammatical postverbal subjects are not the source of grammatical deficits:

as learners have no difficulties in identifying topic/focus and heavy/light

postverbal subjects, but rather they belong to the computational system and/or

the failure to map this information into appropriate syntactic structures: learners

cannot encode End-Weight and End-Focus Principles onto the correct

93

grammatical constructions and overuse the construction (it-insertion and Ø-

insertion), possibly due to processing difficulties and crosslinguistic influence.

(Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2010, p. 494).

3.3 CONCLUSION: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY OF UH

The studies mentioned in 3.2. state that L2 learners treat unaccusatives differently from

unergatives from a (morpho)syntactic point of view. Oshita (2004) claims that the UH is

psychologically real in L2 acquisition. This was shown in the studies explaining

passivized unaccusatives (Zobl 1989, Balcom 1997, Oshita 2000, Ju 2000), auxiliary

selection (Sorace 1993), and the production of postverbal subjects (Oshita 2000, Yuan

1999, Zobl 1989, Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2008; 2010). In English, unaccusatives are

mostly produced in SV constructions, and such word order does not indicate the

unaccusative/unergative distinction overtly. Inversion in native English is mostly

possible with unaccusatives but the constructions are very rare, as indicated in 2.2.3.1.1.

(See Biber et.al (1999, p. 945)), therefore, it is unlikely that learners acquire these

structures as a result of positive evidence from the input. All the studies mentioned so

far refer to the fact that learners are sensitive to the unaccusative/unergative distinction

which is what our study will focus on.

94

4 HYPOTHESES

After having presented the theoretical background on unaccusativity (chapter 2) and

reviewed the relevant studies on the L2 acquisition of unaccusative/unergative contrasts

(chapter 3), we are now in a position to set up some hypotheses about the acquisition of

unaccusatives vs unergatives in L1 Macedonian – L2 English and L1 Spanish – L2

English..

It is expected that Macedonian learners of L2 English will be sensitive to the constraints

of the Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH) by allowing postverbal subjects with

unaccusatives (more than with unergatives) in L2 English, as English natives do.

Considering the fact that Macedonian data will be compared against Spanish data, it is

also expected that both groups of learners will show similar behavior throughout

different proficiency levels, approaching native-like competence as they approach the

final developmental stage. In short, L2 learners obey the Unaccusativity Hypothesis at

the lexicon-syntax interface. Recall from chapter 2 that all three languages in question

(English, Macedonian and Spanish) treat postverbal subjects as new (focus)

information, whereas preverbal subjects represent old (topic) information (End-Focus

Principle). Additionally, postverbal subjects are usually considered to be heavier than

preverbal subjects (End-Weight Principle). Hence it is expected that both groups

(Macedonian and Spanish) will accept postverbal subjects in the same contexts in which

they are allowed in native English. Therefore, based on numerous theoretical studies

and previous empirical findings we formulate four hypotheses, which are presented here

in a general format, though we will examine their different nuances as we present the

data.

H1: L2 knowledge of Unaccusativity at the lexicon-syntax interface: As was

stated in previous research, L2 English learners will obey the principles of the

Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH) right from the early stages of acquisition and

independently of their L1 (Macedonian/Spanish), thus accepting VS with

unaccusatives more than with unergatives, as English natives do. L2 learners

therefore obey the UH constraints at the lexicon-syntax interface.

95

H2: L2 knowledge of the different preverbal structures: Even though the UH is

observed through all developmental stages, at initial levels all unaccusative

structures will be treated as grammatical by both groups of learners,

independently of their grammatical status in native English (there/PP/*Ø/*it-V-

S). Ungrammatical unaccusative structures (*it-V-S; *Ø-V-S) will be rejected as

proficiency increases, showing a clear developmental pattern. The overuse of

ungrammatical expletive *it and *Ø will be accounted for in terms of (i) the

universal EPP principle (chapter 2), (ii) the selection of a default expletive from

the mental lexicon, and (iii) some possible L1 transfer effects.

H3: No transfer hypothesis: the observed behavior cannot be simply accounted for

by L1 transfer alone10

, since the observed developmental pattern is a general

result of learners‟ sensitivity to UH.

H4: Learners will follow the developmental stages proposed by the Unaccusative

Trap of Oshita (2001): (i) The first stage (unergative stage): learners perceive

both unaccusatives and unergatives as being unergatives and only SV is

produced and accepted (ii) The second stage: The second stage recognizes

acceptance of VS structures irrespective of their ungrammaticality with all verb

types (unaccusatives and unergatives). Learners start acquiring the rules of the

structure hence the production of ungrammatical passive unaccusatives or it-V-S

structures. (iii) The third stage: Learners achieve native-like competence when

they start using the object to subject movement without producing

ungrammatical structures (*it insertion, passive unaccusatives).

10 Note that we are highlighting the fact that the results cannot be due to L1 transfer only, though some L1

influence/advantage on group of learners over the other (Macedonian vs Spanish) cannot be discarded, as

will be discussed later.

96

5 METHOD

In this chapter we will describe the method used to conduct our empirical study by

providing detailed information about the participants, the instrument used to collect

data, the procedure followed to collect and analyze the data and the design of the study.

5.1 SUBJECTS

The subjects who participated in this empirical study can be divided into three groups.

The first group consisted of native Macedonian learners of L2 English. A larger group

of participants belonged to a foreign language teaching school and two student service

centres in Kavadarci and Skopje (Macedonia) and another small group of participants

belonged to the postgraduate program at FON University in Skopje Macedonia. The rest

of the subjects volunteered to participate after receiving an email containing the test (see

appendix 11.6.3. for details). This study reached an overall number of 314 participants,

out of which 215 completed the acceptability judgment test but only 95 completed both

the acceptability judgment test and the proficiency placement test necessary for the data

to be concluded. Four cases were removed from the final data due to invalid results,

thus the final number was 91 (28-male and 63 female). The proficiency test divided the

participants into six levels: A1-26; A2-14; B1-10; B2-15; C1-13; C2-13. The age of the

participants ranged from 13 to 39. The L1 Macedonian-L2 English learners biodata can

be seen in appendix 11.4.3. Table 8a11

presents a brief summary of the main biodata

characteristics (mean values presented) of the Macedonian group.

11 AGE and YEARS STUDYING ENGLISH for B1 level was calculated for 8 cases, 1 case did not

provide info.

97

Table 8a: Brief summary of the main biodata characteristics of the Macedonian group (mean values presented)

Macedonian

LEVEL NO. OF CASES

GENDER (M-male; F-female)

AGE(mean) YEARS STUDYING ENGLISH (mean)

OPT SCORE (mean)

A1 26 8M/18F 26 7 41 A2 14 6M/8F 24 8 56 B1 10 3M/6F 23 8 63 B2 15 3M/12 F 25 10 70 C1 13 5M/8F 24 11 81 C2 13 3M/10F 26 11 89

The second group consisted of a set of Spanish learners of L2 English coming from a

larger sample collected by a group of Spanish researchers (see Lozano & Mendikoetxea

2011). Since the Spanish subjects were matched against the Macedonian subjects in

terms of age, sex and proficiency (see section 5.5 below), we selected 91 cases only (29

male and 62 female) from the Spanish native data (out of a total of 322). The age of the

Spanish participants ranged from 15 to 46. The L1 Spanish-L2 English learners biodata

can be seen in appendix 11.4.2. Table 8b presents a brief summary of the main biodata

characteristics (mean values presented) of the Spanish group.

Table 8b: Brief summary of the main biodata characteristics of the Spanish group (mean values presented)

Spanish

LEVEL NO. OF CASES


AGE(mean) YEARS STUDYING ENGLISH (mean)

OPT SCORE (mean)

A1 26 8M/18F 24 8 42 A2 14 6M/8F 24 8 57 B1 10 3M/6F 23 12 63 B2 15 4M/11F 26 12 71 C1 13 5M/8F 24 14 81 C2 13 4M/9F 27 12 90

The third group of participants consisted of a control group of 24 English native

speakers (12 male and 12 female) from England and the United States, aged 21 to 61.

The English natives‟ biodata can be seen in appendix 11.4.1. Table 8c presents a brief

summary of the main biodata characteristics (mean values presented) of the English

group.

Table 8c: Brief summary of the main biodata characteristics of the English group (mean values presented)

English

NO. OF CASES


AGE(mean)

24 12M/12F 38

98

5.2 INSTRUMENTS

A set of two tests was used for the purpose of this study: (i) a contextualized

acceptability judgment test (see appendix 11.1) to measure the phenomenon under

investigation, which is the main experimental test of this dissertation, and (ii) a

proficiency test (see appendix 11.2) in order to examine the variations in learners‟

behavior per proficiency level. The set of tests was created in a form of an online test

via the LimeSurvey12

platform for web based research.

5.2.1 MAIN EXPERIMENTAL TEST: THE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGEMENT TEST

We considered that an acceptability judgment test would be a suitable tool for

measuring the phenomenon under investigation due to the fact that judgment tasks

provide a means of establishing whether learners know that certain forms are impossible

or ungrammatical in the L2. Thus, an acceptability judgment task can be used to find

out whether sentences which are ruled out by principles of UG are also disallowed in

the interlanguage grammar (White 2003:18).

The acceptability judgment test was developed by a group of researchers at the

University of Granada and Universidad Autónoma de Madrid for the purpose of an

ongoing study called EASI (Estudio sobre Adquisiciòn de la Syntaxis del Inglés) to

measure native Spanish learners‟ sensitivity for the conditions allowing VS in English.

Due to the fact that we are measuring the same phenomenon with native Macedonians,

we decided that this test was the most suitable instrument for our study. In this way, by

using the same instrument, comparisons between the Macedonian vs. Spanish learners

of L2 English could be made and, therefore, issues such as L1 transfer and universal

12 The LimeSurvey web platform for distribution of online questionnaires has been hosted by CSIRC

(Centro de Servicios de Informática y Redes de Comunicaciones – Centre for Information Services and

Communication Networks) for the research needs of the University of Granada. LimeSurvey is an open-

source software which is being developed world-wide by computer scientists.This platform provides

online distribution of tests in a way that after completion results are automatically sent back to a

designated email address. It also provides numerous data presentation options such as extrapolation of

data in different formats (Excel, PDF, CSV) or programs (SPSS).

99

developmental patterns could be contrasted. The Macedonian version of the study

received the name IUSAJ (Istrazuvanje za Usvojuvanje na Sintaksata na Makedonskiot

Jazik), translated in English as (SAES) Study on the Acquisition of English Syntax,

which was the name used for the online test distributed in English to the English native

control group.

The actual experimental design and variables of the main empirical test is described in

the section below (section 5.3), though we will present here a description of the

instrument. The opening part of the test (see appendix 11.1.3) contained instructions on

how to do the test. Then there followed a background information section in which the

subjects were supposed to provide information about their sex, mother tongue, mother

tongue of their parents, spoken language at home, age, educational background,

language learning background, stay abroad and self- proficiency rate (note that this self-

proficiency rating is a subjective measure given by the learners, but we also used an

objective placement test to determine learners‟ proficiency: The Oxford Placement Test,

to be described below). The acceptability judgment test consists of 32 postverbal

subjects stimuli which can be represented by the XP-V-S structure.

Four unaccusatives (exist/appear/begin/come) and four unergatives

(talk/work/play/speak) were selected for the creation of the stimuli. The choice of these

verbs was based on their most frequent occurrence in postverbal subject structures in the

Spanish subcorpora of the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE), and

(WriCLE) Written Corpus of Learner English, which consists of eleven subcorpora of

academic essays written by lower advanced L2 English learners of eleven different L1s.

These verbs are also part of Levin (1993) and Levin and Rappaport-Hovav (1995)

inventory of unaccusative and unergative lemmas represented as core unaccusatives and

unergatives (see discussion in section 2.2.1). Each verb appears in four different stimuli

having one of the four XPs (ungrammatical *it insertion and *Ø expletive and

grammatical there insertion and locative adverbial PPloc) at clause-initial position as

indicated in (96), an example with the unaccusative EXIST.

(96)

a) *it EXIST

100

Nowadays, if you work as a policeman in Spain, you can easily

get into difficult situations. But…

…I think that it exist many more risky and dangerous jobs.

b) there EXIST

Even though we live in a democratic country with plenty of

opportunities…

…I believe that there exist unlucky people who are extremely

poor.

c) Ø EXIST

A lot of university students have recently complained about the

„Bologna process‟, but…

…some experts say that exist some students who support it.

d) PPloc EXIST

Nowadays, it is very dangerous to walk alone at night in a big

city...

...because in those cities exist many dangerous criminals who

could kill you.

The introductory sentence, which sets the scene and introduces a certain context, does

not contain postverbal subjects. This preceding discourse was included due to the fact

that (i) it sets the scene for the target sentence and is needed because we are dealing

with discursive factors here and (ii) it biases for a postverbal focus and heavy subject in

the target sentence. So, the preceding discourse in a way biases towards such type of

postverbal subject.

The final position of the target sentence is occupied by a focus and heavy subject

containing 6 to 8 words13

hence these are presentational structures of the type discussed

in section 2.2. The participants provided their opinion on whether the target sentence is

grammatical or ungrammatical, on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally

ungrammatical) to 5 (totally grammatical), as indicated in (97) (see appendix 11.3.1. for

a full detail of the test). If participants consider a given structure to be completely

13 Previous studies (Lozano & Mendikoetxea 2008, 2010) have found in corpus data that 6 to 8 words

make a long (heavy) subject. Lower than that, the subject was considered short (light).

101

ungrammatical they are expected to choose 1 and if the sentence is viewed to be

completely grammatical, they are expected to choose 5. Intermediate values (2–4) are

given if the participants consider the sentence structure to be partially acceptable.

(97)

The house was very dirty. All the windows were closed, the rooms were dark...

... and from the kitchen came a horrible smell of burning oil .

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

The sentences were ordered in a scrambled randomized sequence in which the same XP

(ungrammatical *it insertion / *Ø insertion / grammatical there insertion / locative

adverbial PPloc) or verb (unaccusative / unergative) does not appear in two consequent

sentences (see section 11.1.4 on the procedure on how sentences were randomized). At

the end, participants were given the option to provide their opinion about the test. The

complete version of the test is attached under the Appendix number (11.1).

5.2.2 PROFICIENCY TEST: THE OXFORD PLACEMENT TEST

The second instrument used for the study was the online version of the Oxford

Placement Test (see Appendix 11.2), which was the second part of the LimeSurvey set

of two tests. The placement test appeared immediately after the first (acceptability

judgement) test was completed.

After the learners completed the two tests, they received an email with their proficiency

test results and a short description of the grammar parts which should be improved

based on the test performance.

The web-based type of research proved to be feasible for our study. To support this

claim some previous studies, examining some aspects related to the use of this type of

research, will be mentioned. Wilson and Dewaele (2011) list the pros and cons of

conducting web based research. They underlined five advantages and two disadvantages

of conducting a study of this kind. Namely, they claim that conducting a web based

102

research is more economic than conducting a traditional research. Another advantage is

that the administration of the test is faster and easily distributable which provides a

large sample of participants. The collection of data is automatically imported into a

spreadsheet software where it can be easily processed. It is also probable that the

anonymity of the web research increases the level of honesty because the participants do

not feel threatened when providing their answers. Web research is also convenient to

access large and varied samples worldwide as well as small and specialized populations

otherwise difficult to be reached. The disadvantages are related to the self-selection of

participants and the increased heterogeneity in the sample.

The sample of our study is not entirely homogeneous. Even though all our subjects have

learnt English and possess certain knowledge of the language, they have different

background features. Our participants are „self-selected‟ due to the fact that they have

been contacted at random and invited to participate if they have any knowledge of

English. They were also invited to further distribute the test. Considering the fact that

we are examining a universal phenomenon, we assumed that similar background

features of the subjects would not strongly influence the outcome of the results should

they all have certain knowledge of English. In order to ensure more homogeneity in the

sample and to conduct a more reliable study we did a matched-pair design of our study

(see section 5.4. below).

The largest problem we faced with our web based research is related to the lack of

possibilities to control the completion of the questionnaires due to the absence of the

researcher (even though the absence of the researcher can have positive effects if

participants feel anxious if they are observed when tested). Namely, participants were

properly instructed to include the same email address twice, i.e., before doing both tests

and that they had to complete both tests for their results to be valid and processed. We

had many incomplete tests or completed ones without having the same email address for

the second test, which made it impossible for these cases to be traced and used for the

study. Despite this, the number of volunteers exceded our expectations since a sizeable

sample for each of the proficiency levels was obtained.

5.3 VARIABLES AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

103

In this section we will present in detail the scheme about the variables upon which the

acceptability judgement test was developed in order to present a visual idea of the test

for the readers.

Two independent variables were used in the test: the verb type

(unergative/unaccusative) and the preverbal element XP (*it / there /*Ø / PPloc). As was

previously mentioned in 5.2.1., the verbs were taken from the Spanish corpora

International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) and (WriCLE) Written Corpus of

Learner English based on their most frequent occurrence in postverbal structures (see

percentage of concordances for each verb below). The most frequent unaccusatives used

in XP-V-S constructions were EXIST, APPEAR, BEGIN and COME and the most

inverted unergatives were TALK, WORK, PLAY and SPEAK. The four types of

preverbal XP were also taken from the corpus data. For each verb there are 4 stimuli

(one for each preverbal XP), as summarized below.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

■Var1: Verb (unac / unerg)

■Unacc: n=4, high inversion (inv/totalinv in ICLE+WRICLE)

Exist (41.4%)

Appear (24%)

Begin (8.6%)

Come (6.9%)

■Unerg: n=4, most frequent (conc/totalconcs in ICLE+WRICLE)

Talk (35.7%)

Work (30.2%)

Play (7.7%)

Speak (4.4%)

■Var2: pre-verbal XP

■*it (n=4)

■there (n=4)

■*Ø (n=4)

■PPloc (n=4)

Three constants were observed in the development of the test: (i) each stimuli contains

postverbal subject which is focus, (ii) the postverbal subject of the stimuli is also heavy

(containing 6 to 8 words), and (iii) the word order of all stimuli is VS.

104

CONSTANTS

■C1: Info status (focus) of subject

■C2: Weight (heavy), between 6 words (median) and 8 words (mean)

■C3: Word order (VS)

SV orders were not included in this version of the test for the simple reason that, since

participation is on a volunteer basis, a long test containing the same amount of SV as of

VS sentences would mean that it would be too long and too tedious, hence the risk of

not getting enough volunteers for this study.

The stimuli design of the acceptability judgement test is shown below. There are 32 VS

stimuli, 16 unaccusatives and 16 unergatives. Each verb was used in four stimuli

opening with a different preverbal element (*it / there /*Ø / PPloc).

STIMULI DESIGN

■32 stimuli (VS order):

►4 XP (*it / there / *Ø / PPloc ) x 4 Vunac (exist/appear/begin/come): 1. *it EXIST

2. there EXIST

3. *ø EXIST

4. PPloc EXIST

5. *it APPEAR

6. there APPEAR

7. *ø APPEAR

8. PPloc APPEAR

9. *it BEGIN

10. there BEGIN

11. *ø BEGIN

12. PPloc BEGIN

13. *it COME

14. there COME

15. *ø COME

16. PPloc COME

►4 XP (*it / *there / *Ø / *PPloc ) x 4 Vunerg (talk/work/play/speak): 17. *it TALK

18. *there TALK

19. *ø TALK

20. PPloc TALK

21. *it WORK

22. *there WORK

23. *ø WORK

24. *PPloc WORK

25. *it PLAY

26. *there PLAY

27. *ø PLAY

28. *PPloc PLAY

29. *it SPEAK

30. *there SPEAK

31. *ø SPEAK

32. *PPloc SPEAK

5.4 PROCEDURE

As was already mentioned in 5.2., the online version of the acceptability judgement test

and the OPT were already used for the purpose of EASI (Estudio sobre Adquisición de

105

la Sintaxis del Inglés), which examined the same phenomenon with native Spanish

learners of L2 English. Due to the fact that the existing instructions were in Spanish, we

had to activate another questionnaire in the LimeSurvey platform as another part of the

same study under the name IUSAJ (Istrazuvanje za Usvojuvanje na Sintaksata na

Angliskiot Jazik) (see appendix in section 11.1.3). All the instructions were translated

into Macedonian, but the content of the acceptability judgement test obviously remained

intact (i.e., in English).

After the questionnaire was adapted to be used by native Macedonian learners of L2

English, we created an invitation email in Macedonian asking the potential participants

to take part in this study. This message contained the following: brief information about

the study; information how to participate indicating that only native Macedonians who

have knowledge of English can take part; information that participants will learn about

their proficiency level and which grammar aspects should be improved; note that they

will be sent a thank you certificate after we receive their complete results. Next there

followed the link for participation in the study. (see appendix in section 11.6.3).

Then we continued with the distribution of the test. The message was sent to a large

number of foreign language schools in Macedonia, student service companies, public

and private institutions and personal contacts. They were all kindly asked to further

distribute the message. We also contacted several Macedonian Universities and invited

them to participate in this study and include their students as well. We received many

individual submissions of the test, but except for the two positive reactions mentioned

in the acknowledgements we did not receive any interest for a group testing to be

conducted in a certain educational institution. The final test results from the

LimeSurvey platform showed the number of 314 tests out of which 95 were complete.

Four participants of this 95 were eliminated due to invalid results thus the final number

of useful participants was 91.

As was explained in 5.3., web based data collected from LimeSurvey are automatically

imported into a spreadsheet software, where they can be easily processed. Whenever a

participant completed the acceptability judgement test, we received an email at a

previously designated email address. Raw data were coded into an excel spreadsheet

containing four sheets (Appendix 11.4 shows the final version of the raw data). The first

sheet contained the copied raw data and the OPT score and OPT level (A2-C2) for

106

every participant. The second sheet contained the completed results grouped per

proficiency level and the values and sums of the unaccusative/unergative preference per

level and per structure (ungrammatical *it insertion and *Ø expletive / grammatical

there insertion and locative adverbial PPloc). The third sheet contained the bar charts

and trend charts showing the obtained results (see appendix 11.5). The fourth sheet

contained the full OPT results. These results were accessible at the following web page

http://www.wagsoft.com/testResults-gr.txt and provided the email addresses of the

participants who properly completed the two tests. Due to the fact that we needed to

track these participants separately in order to thank them for their participation and to

ask them whether they would be interested in receiving a printed certificate of

participation, we used the following link http://www.wagsoft.com/cgi-

bin/showDiagnostics-gr.cgi? and added [+email%40domain.country] and obtained the

individual results for each particular participant and the information explaining which

grammar parts should be improved. This link contained an electronically generated

form with information about precise placement results, which was suitably emailed

to each participant separately in order for them to be able to refer to it and examine their

results in detail (Appendix 11.7).

Throughout the data extraction procedure, we became aware that many tests could not

be used as final data because they were either incomplete or the necessary email address

was not included in the two tests. The number of incomplete tests was increasing and

we decided to resend a reminder email to the participants to complete the unfinished

parts (Appendix 11.8). The response to these emails was not very high. We consider

that this is due to the length of the two tests together. Namely, one participant would

need at least 30 minutes to complete the tests and we think they were unwilling to

repeat the completion of the missing parts. The final number of valid cases was 91. All

valid cases received a specially designed electronic certificate of participation in the

IUSAJ study (Appendix 11.9).

After obtaining the Macedonian data, we made another version of the online

questionnaire designed for the control English natives group. The introductory part was

translated in English, some of the background questions (mother tongue of the parents;

language instruction) were removed and we created another email message explaining

that we needed a group of English natives to give us their opinion on whether a certain

http://www.wagsoft.com/testResults-gr.txt

http://www.wagsoft.com/cgi-bin/showDiagnostics-gr.cgi

http://www.wagsoft.com/cgi-bin/showDiagnostics-gr.cgi

107

structure seems grammatical or not (Appendix 11.1.1). Understandably, the OPT was

not included for the English natives. After distributing the test we obtained 24

completed results. As we already had the Spanish data available, we started designing

the comparison of collected data.

5.5 DESIGN

Due to the fact that we are examining a universal phenomenon, we decided to match the

91 Macedonian case with cases from the Spanish native data, collected under the same

method, i.e., to conduct a matched-pair design of the study by comparing IUSAJ data

and EASI data. The Spanish data were larger than the completed Macedonian data

which provided the possibility for each Macedonian case to be paired with a very

similar Spanish case. The cases were matched by gender, age and proficiency score

(OPT). Each of the 91 Macedonian cases, 28 male and 63 female, was compared to the

most similar Spanish case and we obtained 29 male and 62 female Spanish cases. The

ID number of each Macedonian case was paired with the ID number of the most similar

Spanish case.

In order to make it more convenient, we combined the two excel sheets containing the

final Macedonian and Spanish data with the paired ID numbers into one document,

containing only the paired cases, divided by proficiency and the bar and trend charts for

Macedonian and Spanish data. At the end, we added the results of the 24 native English

controls.

It was decided that the matched pair design of the study should be used in order to

obtain a more homogeneous sample and to minimize the variability between the

learners, hence to increase the reliability of the study.

5.6 DATA CODING AND DATA ANALYSIS

First the data coding process will be explained and at the end of the section we will

explain the statistical data analysis.

As was mentioned in 5.2 in the Instruments section, the participants evaluated the

grammaticality of each of the 32 postverbal subject structures on a Likert scale from 1

to 5. Data were collected online in the LimeSurvey platform, as explained earlier, which

generated excel spreadsheets containing the raw data with the values selected by

108

each case for every sentence and the mean values for each case both for unaccusative

and for unergative structures (see the raw data spreadsheet in appendix 11.4.)

The spreadsheet with the raw data was then manipulated in order to make sense of the

raw data, since the output generated by LimeSurvey was randomized, as the sentences

were in the experiment.

The spreadsheet also contains mean values for unaccusative and unergative structures

per proficiency level and for the native English group as well. This representation of the

data gives a clear indication for the learners‟ behavior regarding the

unaccusative/unergative preference from initial stages. .

The spreadsheets also contain mean values per case and per level for every structure

regarding the clause initial XP element (*it-V-S/there-V-S/*Ø-V-S/PP-V-S) for both

unaccusatives and for unergatives. It can also be observed whether, even if considered

grammatical at initial stages, these structures are preferred more with unaccusatives than

with unergatives. The stability or instability of the grammatical and ungrammatical

structures will also become evident and possible developmental stages will be observed.

The values will show whether Macedonian and Spanish learners behave in a similar

way regarding the evaluation of the structures, even though the two languages differ in

the presentationally focused context.

The best explanatory analysis of the data will be provided by the bar charts and trend

charts visually showing the unaccusative vs. unergative distinction; the acceptance of

the different initial XP per proficiency level; the acceptance of postverbal subjects

examined separately for every unaccusative or unergative verb; the tendency to accept

or reject certain structures with proficiency; the sensitivity to the grammaticality or

ungrammaticality of structures per proficiency level and the comparison of learners‟

behavior with the behavior of the English native controls.

Data were analyzed quantitatively (mainly by looking at the means) since there are too

many variables at stake, as shown earlier. We have not done any inferential statistics (t-

tests) because there are too many variables (not only the linguistic ones: XP (*it/*Ø

/there/PP), verb type (unac/unerg), verb lexeme (work, play, exist…), but also the

developmental ones: proficiency (A1-C2). Hence, it is impossible to perform an

ANOVA, since there would be too many interactions between the variables to

understand what they mean.

109

6 RESULTS

This chapter contains description of the resuls obtained in this empirical study. The

results corresponding to each hypothesis will be presented with bar and trend charts and

will be explained in detail. Additionally the qualitative comments of the participants

will be included in order to obtain a clear idea whether learners were aware of the

structures they were evaluating.

6.1 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

Data will first be analyzed quantitatively and then qualitatively. The quantitative

analysis encompasses presentation of the mean values obtained for each XP-V-S

structure and for each proficiency level for both groups (Spanish and Macedonian). The

qualitative analysis encompasses the qualitative comments of the participants about the

test and the structures they had to evaluate.

6.1.1 RESULTS FOR H1: L2 KNOWLEDGE OF UNACCUSATIVITY (LEXICON-

SYNTAX INTERFACE)

The Macedonian group of L2 English learners prefers postverbal subjects (VS) more

with unaccusatives than with unergatives at all proficiency levels (Figure 12). Even

though unaccusatives are accepted more than unergatives at all levels, the distinction

between the two types of verbs is different per level. The acceptance of VS order

decreases as proficiency increases. A1 level shows the highest VS preference with all

unaccusatives (3,9), but also rates high VS with unergatives (3,4). A2 level shows larger

difference between unaccusatives (3,8) and unergatives (3,0). B1 level is the best

discriminator of the unaccusative (3,7) unergative (2,8) distinction. B2 level shows

similar behavior to B1 slightly decreasing the difference between unaccusatives (3,5)

and unergatives (2,7). C1 and C2 levels show decrease of the difference and the same

values for unaccusatives (3,0) and unergatives (2,5). English natives show greater

unaccusative (2,9) / unergative (2,1) distinction than A and C levels but similar to B

levels.

110

Figure 12: Postverbal subjects (VS) with all unaccusatives and unergatives for L1 Macedonian – L2 English

3,9 3,8 3,73,5

3,0 3,0 2,93,4

3,02,8

2,72,5 2,5

2,1

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 Eng

Unac_ALL

unerg_ALL

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

Spanish learners (Figure 13) show similar behavior to Macedonians regarding the

acceptance of VS with unaccusatives more than with unergatives, for all proficiency

levels. A1 level shows high preference of unaccusatives (3,5) and unergatives (2,9). A2

level increases the acceptance of VS with unaccusatives (3,7), which is opposite to

Macedonians, but decreases VS possibilities with unergatives (2,7). B1 is the best

discriminator of the unaccusative (3,7) / unergative (2,6) distinction. B2 level behaves

similarly to B1 showing a great unaccusative (3,1) unergative (2,1) distinction, although

the acceptance of VS order decreases. C1 shows smaller difference between

unaccusatives (2,7) and unergatives (2,0), which is very similar to C2, which slightly

decreases VS preference with unaccusatives (2,6) and unergatives (1,9). English natives

are presented in Figure 13 with the same values for VS with unaccusatives (2,9) and

unergatives (2,1) as in Figure 12 for the aim of comparison.

111

Figure 13: Postverbal subjects (VS) with all unaccusatives and unergatives for L1 Spanish – L2 English

3,53,7 3,7

3,1

2,7 2,6

2,9

2,92,7

2,6

2,1 2,0 1,92,1

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


Unac_ALL

unerg_ALL

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

Note that, though the developmental profile for the L1Spa-L2 Eng chart (Figure 13)

may not look completely similar to the L1Mac-L2Eng profile (Figure 12), recall that

Figure 13 is based on a small sample of the Spanish data. The overall Spanish data

(N=322), shown in Figure 13b yield a more comparable profile to that of Figure 12.

Figure 13bis: Postverbal subjects (VS) with all unaccusatives and unergatives for L1 Spanish – L2 English (N=322)

3,53,7 3,5

3,3

2,9

2,6

2,9

3,02,8 2,7

2,52,2

1,9 2,0

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


Unac_ALL

unerg_ALL

L1 Spa- L2 Eng

Next, we will present the difference between unaccusatives and unergatives per

proficiency level for Macedonians and Spanish. Figure 14 shows the difference for VS

with unaccusatives and unergatives per proficiency level for Macedonians (i.e., the

difference between unaccusative VS and unergative VS calculated from Figure 12).

112

Two decimal values show the unaccusative/unergative difference, which is the same for

A1 and C2 levels (0,56). A2 level increases the difference (0,84), which reaches its

maximum value at B1 level (0,92) and slightly decreases at B2 level (0,86). English

natives show close values (0,82) to A2 and B levels.

Figure 14: Difference between unaccusatives and unergatives for Macedonian learners

0,56

0,840,92

0,86

0,510,56

0,82

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0


Diff Unac vs Unerg L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

Figure 15 shows the difference for VS with unaccusatives and unergatives per

proficiency level for the Spanish participants, as was presented for the Macedonians

(i.e., the difference between unaccusative VS and unergative VS calculated from Figure

13). A1 level shows the smallest difference between unaccusatives and unergatives

(0,55) for the acceptance of VS word order. A2 level prefers VS with unaccusatives at a

greater difference from unergatives (0,94). B1 shows the maximum difference (1,13),

which slightly decreases at B2 (1,04). C1 level decreases the VS with

unaccusative/unergative difference (0,66), which becomes even smaller at C2 (0,61).

Once again the difference shown by English natives is included (0,82) for control

purposes.

113

Figure 15:Difference between unaccusatives and unergatives for Spanish learners

0,55

0,94

1,131,04

0,660,61

0,82

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2


Diff Unacc vs Unerg L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

6.1.2 RESULTS FOR H2: AT INITIAL STAGES ALL UNACCUSATIVE XP-V-S

STRUCTURES WILL BE TREATED AS GRAMMATICAL.

In this section we will analyse the results of the preverbal constituent (XP) in

postverbal-subject structures of the type XP-V-S with both unaccusative and unergative

verbs. Due to space limitations and better visual presentation of the H2 results, the

tables and the text will occupy the overall surface of the pages below. This is done so to

ensure visual comparability across groups, across verbs and across proficiency levels for

the structures under investigation.

FIGURE 16: The results summarized in Figure 16 (see pages below containing full-

length bar charts) show how Macedonian group treats unaccusatives in the four

examined preverbal structures (there/PP/*Ø /*it) by presenting the obtained mean

values for each proficiency level independently. A1 level tends to accept unaccusatives

as grammatical in all four given structures *it-V-S (3,7), there-V-S (4,0), *Ø-V-S (4,0)

and PP-V-S (4,1). A2 level shows a slight decrease for the ungrammatical *it-V-S (3,8),

and *Ø-V-S while grammatical there-V-S and PP-V-S (4,1) remain to be highly

accepted. Level B1 notices similar situation with a slight decrease in value for *Ø-V-S

(3,3) and there-V-S (4,1). Level B2 shows noticeable decrease for ungrammatical *it-V-

S (3,1) and *Ø-V-S (2,9) while grammatical there-V-S (4,2) and PP-V-S (3,9) remain

stable which indicates that learners discriminate grammatical from ungrammatical

114

structures. At C1 level there is a decrease in the acceptance of all VS structures. The

lowest acceptance is obtained for *it-V-S (2,5) and *Ø-V-S (2,6) while grammatical

there-V-S (3,5) and PP-V-S (3,6) are accepted at a higher rate. At level C2

ungrammatical *it-V-S (2,1) and *Ø-V-S (2,5) are even less accepted. There-V-S

notices increase (3,8) while PP-V-S notices only a slight decrease (3,5). English natives

also accept ungrammatical *it-V-S (2,1) and *Ø-V-S (2,5) at a very low rate. These

results imply that, at initial stages, Macedonians treat all unaccusatives rather equally,

regardless of the (un)grammaticality of the structure they appear in (there/PP vs *Ø

/*it). As proficiency increases learners distinguish between the grammatical (there/PP:

remain rather stable) vs. ungrammatical (*Ø /*it: decrease constantly) structures. This

will be discussed in detail in the Discussion section.

FIGURE 17 (see pages below) shows the treatment of Macedonians of VS with

unergatives in the same four preverbal structures. Compared to unaccusatives in Figure

16, unergatives are less accepted with all VS structures in accordance with the UH.

They are not completely rejected due to the fact that in native English locative inversion

with unergatives is possible (see discussion in section 2.2.3.1.2.) A1 level allows all

structures out of which PP-V-S has the highest value (4,0), while *Ø-V-S and *there-V-

S shows the same value (3,3) and *it-V-S is the least accepted (2,8). At level A2 only

*there-V-S (3,4) notices slightly increased value while the other three structures PP-V-

S (3,5), *Ø-V-S (2,9) and *it-V-S (2,2) notice decreased values. B1 notices decrease of

VS with unergatives for all structures except for PP-V-S (3,6). *it-V-S shows the

lowest value (2,1). *Ø-V-S (2,6) is also less accepted than *there-V-S (3,0). At B2

level only PP-V-S (3,8) shows slightly increased values while all other structures, *it-

V-S (1,8), *Ø-V-S (2,4) and *there-V-S (2,7) decrease. C levels notice a decrease of

VS with unergatives for all structures. At C1 *it-V-S (1,9) slightly increases while *Ø

-V-S (2,3), *there-V-S (2,6) and PP-V-S (3,4) decrease. The VS decreasing tendency

with ungrammatical structures *it-V-S (1,7) and *Ø-V-S (2,0) continues at C2 level and

*there-V-S (2,7) and PP-V-S (3,5) slightly increase. English natives results show low

rates of VS with unergatives for all structures. PP-V-S (3,1) is the most accepted, as

expected (due to its grammaticality), while *it-V-S (1,4), *Ø-V-S (1,8) *there-V-S (2,0)

show very low values.

The same as with unaccusatives, we can notice that learners initially discriminate

between grammatical PP-V-S vs. the rest of ungrammatical unergatives (*there/*it/*

115

Ø), therefore they are aware that there-V-S is possible only with unaccusatives which is

again in accordance with the UH. This will also be discussed in detail in the Discussion

section.

FIGURE 18 (see pages below): The acceptance of the Spanish group of VS with

unaccusatives in all four structures is presented in Figure 18. At A1 level we can notice

very similar values for all structures: *it-V-S (3,4), there-V-S (3,5), *Ø-V-S (3,3) and

PP-V-S (3,8) which is an implication that the Spanish group treats all structures as

grammatical at initial stages, similar to the Macedonians. At level A2 learners behave

in a similar way as A1 showing the high mean values for all structures: *it-V-S (3,4),

there-V-S (3,5), *Ø-V-S (3,6) and PP-V-S (4,1). Level B1 also notices acceptance of all

structures as grammatical: *it-V-S (3,7), there-V-S (3,8), *Ø-V-S (3,6) and PP-V-S

(3,8). B2 level shows large decrease in the acceptance of VS with unaccusatives for *it-

V-S (2,9), there-V-S (2,8), *Ø-V-S (2,8) while PP-V-S (3,8) remains the same. At C1

there is a decrease of the VS acceptance for *it-V-S (2,6), *Ø-V-S (2,0) while PP-V-S

(2,9) except for there-V-S (3,2) which notices a higher value. C2 level shows a further

decrease of ungrammatical VS in *it-V-S (2,0) and *Ø-V-S (1,9) structures and

acceptance of grammatical VS in there-V-S (3,4) and PP-V-S (2,9). English natives

accept, at very low rates, ungrammatical VS structures *it-V-S (2,1) and *Ø-V-S (2,1)

while grammatical structures notice a significantly higher acceptance: there-V-S (3,6)

and PP-V-S (3,8). This behavior implies that, at higher stages, the Spanish group

discriminates between grammatical and ungrammatical structures, which is different

from the behavior of the Macedonians, who start distinguishing between them at lower

stages. The tendency to accept grammatical structures and reject ungrammatical as

proficiency level increases is the same among Macedonians and Spanish. The difference

is that Macedonians are more sensitive at lower levels. We will discuss this in detail in

the Discussion section.

FIGURE 19 (see pages below): The acceptance of VS structures with unergatives

by the Spanish group is presented in Figure 19. A1 level shows the highest acceptance

for grammatical PP-V-S (3,5) and lower acceptance for the other ungrammatical

structures *it-V-S (2,7), *there-V-S (2,8), *Ø-V-S (2,9), which is an indication that

learners discriminate between grammatical PP-V-S vs. the ungrammatical unergative

116

structures (*there/*it/*Ø). At A2 level PP-V-S (3,4) remains rather stable, while *it-V-

S (2,2), *there-V-S (2,4) and *Ø-V-S (2,8) notice decreased values. Level B1 allows

VS with unergatives with PP-V-S (3,1) at the highest rate. *It-V-S (2,5) and *there-V-S

(2,4) behave similarly to A2 and *Ø-V-S (2,3) is accepted at a lower rate. B2 level

shows large decrease of the ungrammatical *it-V-S (1,8), *there-V-S (2,1) and *Ø-V-S

(1,6), while PP-V-S (2,8) remains as the most accepted VS structure with unergatives.

At C1 there is a very similar situation having lower values for *it-V-S (1,6), *there-V-S

(2,3), *Ø-V-S (1,4) and a higher value for PP-V-S (2,7). Surprisingly enough, C2

notices the highest value for *there-V-S (2,5), while *it-V-S (1,6), *Ø-V-S (1,7) and

PP-V-S (2,0) show lower acceptance rates (though PP-V-S remains as the highest of

ungrammatical *it and *Ø). English natives also accept at very low rates

ungrammatical structures *it-V-S (1,4) *there-V-S (2,0) and *Ø-V-S (1,8), while

grammatical PP-V-S (3,8) is accepted at a higher rate. Therefore, the Spanish group

also discriminates the grammatical PP-V-S vs the ungrammatical structures from the

outset (a discrimination that increases as proficiency level increases), with the exception

of C2 level which seem to overgeneralize there-V-S with unaccusatives and accept it as

grammatical with unergatives. We will discuss in detail the implications of all these

findings in the Discussion section.

117

Figure 16: Acceptance of grammatical vs. ungrammatical structures

with unaccusatives per proficiency level by Macedonian learners

3,74,0 4,0 4,1

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

*Unac-it Unac-there *Unac-zero Unac-PP

A1

A1

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

3,6

4,2

3,4

4,1

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


A2

A2

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

3,6

4,1

3,3

4,1

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


B1

B1

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

3,1

4,2

2,9

3,9

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


B2

B2

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

2,5

3,5

2,6

3,6

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


C1

C1

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

2,3

3,8

2,5

3,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


C2

C2

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

2,1

3,6

2,1

3,8

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


English natives

E…


with unergatives per proficiency level by Macedonian learners

2,8

3,3 3,3

4,0

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

*Unerg-it *Unerg-there *Unerg-zero Unerg-PP

A1

A1

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

2,2

3,4

2,9

3,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


A2

A2

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

2,1

3,0

2,6

3,6

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


B1

B1

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

1,8

2,72,4

3,8

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


B2

B2

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

1,9

2,62,3

3,4

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


C1

C1

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

1,7

2,7

2,0

3,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


C2

C2

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

1,4

2,01,8

3,1

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


English natives

Eng

118


with unergatives per proficiency level for Spanish learners

3,4 3,5 3,3

3,8

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


A1

A1

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

3,4 3,5 3,6

4,1

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


A2

A2

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

3,7 3,83,6

3,8

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


B1

B1

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

2,9 2,8 2,8

3,8

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


B2

B2

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

2,6

3,2

2,0

2,9

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


C1

C1

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

2,0

3,4

1,9

2,9

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


C2

C2

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

2,1

3,6

2,1

3,8

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


English natives

Eng


with unergatives per proficiency level for Spanish learners

2,7 2,8 2,9

3,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


A1

A1

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

2,22,4

2,8

3,4

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


A2

A2

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

2,5 2,42,3

3,1

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


B1

B1

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

1,82,1

1,6

2,8

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


B2

B2

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

1,6

2,3

1,4

2,7

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


C1

C1

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

1,6

2,5

1,7

2,0

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


C2

C2

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

1,4

2,01,8

3,1

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


English natives

Eng

119

6.1.3 RESULTS FOR H3: NO TRANSFER HYPOTHESIS: LEARNERS’

BEHAVOUR CANNOT SIMPLY BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY L1 TRANSFER

The results presented for H2 are also relevant for H3. In this section we will present the

same results as trend charts in order to provide a better developmental visual insight of

the no-transfer account.

Figure 20 shows the acceptance of unaccusative VS in all structures by the Macedonian

group. Considering the fact that Macedonian and Spanish are pro-drop languages

allowing null subjects, *Ø-V-S would be expected to be highly accepted if learners were

making L1 transfer. At A1 level, *Ø-V-S (marked with the green line) is treated as

grammatical and is accepted at high rates, together with the other structures (recall that

this is in line with H2: at initial stages all preverbal structures are treated similarly,

independently of their (un)grammaticality). At A2 level, *Ø-V-S becomes the least

accepted, showing the early discrimination of *Ø-V-S as ungrammatical, which is

unexpected if L1 transfer occurs. As proficiency increases, the acceptance of *Ø-V-S

gradually decreases. The Spanish group behaves in a similar way, as shown in Figure

21. At initial stages they accept all structures as grammatical. The rate for *Ø-V-S

becomes the lowest at B1 level, and narrowly decreases at B2 indicating that transfer

cannot be the only source of learners‟ interlanguage knowledge. The rates continue to

decrease at C levels. As can be seen from Figure 20 and Figure 21, both Macedonian

and Spanish groups start distinguishing grammatical from ungrammatical structures

from early stages. Macedonians become sensitive even at A2 level while Spanish

distinguish at intermediate levels.

Figure 20: Acceptance of grammatical vs. ungrammatical structures with unaccusatives per proficiency level for Macedonian learners

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


*Unac-it

Unac-there

*Unac-zero

Unac-PP

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

120

Figure 21: Acceptance of grammatical vs. ungrammatical structures with unaccusatives per proficiency level for Spanish learners

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


*Unac-it

Unac-there

*Unac-zero

Unac-PP

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

Similar behavior is shown for VS with unergatives by Macedonian and Spanish groups,

as presented in Figure 22 and Figure 23 respectively. It can be seen that both groups

discriminate *Ø-V-S from early stages, even though this structure is very common in

their L1s with both types of intransitive verbs in the contexts under investigation in this

experimental study: VS where the S is heavy and focus (unergative Gritó una mujer que

parecía estar loca/Vikna edna zhena koja izgledashe deka e luda; unaccusative Llegó

una mujer que parecía estar loca/Dojde edna zhena koja izgledashe deka e luda, as

discussed in the theoretical chapter (sections 2.2.3.2 and 2.2.3.3). Additionally note that

both groups accept ungrammatical *it-V-S, which is clearly a structurally implausible

construction in their L1s, hence L1 transfer cannot be the only source of knowledge.

Further note that they also prefer PP-V-S as a grammatical structure from initial stages.

Therefore it is obvious that Macedonian and Spanish groups behave in a similar way

regarding the grammaticality of VS structures, regardless of their plausibility in the

learners‟ L1. We will discuss these results in further detail in the Discussion section.

Figure 22: Acceptance of grammatical vs. ungrammatical structures with unergatives per proficiency level for Macedonian learners

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


*Unerg-it

*Unerg-there

*Unerg-zero

Unerg-PP

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

121

Figure 23: Acceptance of grammatical vs. ungrammatical structures with unergatives perproficiency level for Spanish learners

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


*Unerg-it

*Unerg-there

*Unerg-zero

Unerg-PP

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

6.1.4 RESULTS FOR H4: LEARNERS WILL FOLLOW THE DEVELOPMENTAL

STAGES PROPOSED BY THE UNACCUSATIVE TRAP (OSHITA 2001).

Figure 24 and Figure 25 show that Macedonian and Spanish learners prefer VS with

unaccusatives more than with unergatives at all levels (i.e., from A1 level to B2 level),

which is in accordance with the behavior of the native English control group and

contrary to Oshita‟s (2001) claim that learners treat unaccusatives as unergatives and do

not allow VS at initial stages (see discussion in the L2 literature review chapter, section

3.2.4). Therefore, our fourth hypothesis (H4) is rejected.

Figure 24: Acceptance of VS wih unaccusatives more than with Figure 25: Acceptance of VS wih unaccusatives more than with unergatives

unergatives by Macedonian learners by Spanish learners

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

Unac_ALL unerg_ALL

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

Eng

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

Unac_ALL unerg_ALL

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

Eng

L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

Despite the fact that our data seem to reject Oshita‟s proposal, it is worth remembering

that learners do show their best discrimination between unaccusative VS and unergative

VS at intermediate levels, which may be in accordance with Oshita‟s UT, according to

which learners accept VS with all intransitive verbs (both unergatives and

unaccusatives) at intermediate stages, indicating that they become sensitive to rules

allowing the structure. The discrimination at intermediate levels was presented in Figure

14, here repeated as Figure 26 for the Macedonian group, and Figure 15, here repeated

122

as Figure 27 for the Spanish group. Even though VS is preferred with unaccusatives at

all levels, it is also accepted with unergatives, especially at initial stages. Surprisingly

enough, the English natives control group does not completely reject VS with

unergatives in ungrammatical structures (*it-V-S, *there-V-S and *Ø-V-S), a fact that

will be discussed later. To summarise, learners are apparently „better‟ at intermediate

stages simply because they are unaccusativising intransitive verbs, i.e., they treat as

unaccusatives all intransitives (this will be discussed in detail in the Discussion section).

Figure 26: Difference between unaccusatives and unergatives for Figure 27: Difference between unaccusatives and unergatives for Spanish

Macedonian learners learners

0,56

0,840,92

0,86

0,510,56

0,82

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0


Diff Unac vs Unerg L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

0,55

0,94

1,131,04

0,660,61

0,82

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2


Diff Unacc vs Unerg L1 Spa- L2 Eng.

6.2 QUALITATIVE COMMENTS MADE BY THE LEARNERS

Our subjects were given the option to type in their personal opinion about the sentences

they were evaluating in the acceptability judgment test. We selected a couple of phrases

provided by the Macedonian group, several from the Spanish group and a few from the

English natives in order to present how they understood the structure they were

evaluating. The sentences will be given in their original form followed by an English

translation and information about the level of the learner.

MACEDONIAN LEARNERS’ QUALITATIVE COMMENTS

1. za nekoi recenici neznaev dali da stavam nekoja sredna ocena iako mislam deka samo eden zbor ne

bese tocen, drugoto bese vo red, no i pokraj toa staviv 1, dali e vo red? mislam deka bi mozelo

samo da ima dali e tocna ili ne, da ne postojat i srednite vrednosti

[Translation] I was not sure whether I was supposed to mark a medium value even though I think

that only one word was incorrect in spite of which I chose 1, is this ok? I think it would be

sufficient to choose only correct or incorrect options without having to choose values in between. –

level A1

2. nejasnosti imav mnogu

123

[Translation] I had many doubts - level A1

3. Smetam deka trebase pod sekoe prasanje da dademe primer kako smetam deka treba da izgleda

recenicata. Mi bese mnogu tesko da gi ocenam.

[Translation] I think that we were supposed to be given the option to provide our version of each

sentence. I found it very difficult to evaluate the sentences. – level B1

4. 90% od recenicite dobija 2 bidejki bea gramaticki nelogicni.

[Translation] 90% of the sentences were evaluated with 2 because they were grammatically

illogical. – level C1

5. Dali navistina treba samo da se zema vo predvid redosledot na zborovite vo recenicata ili i

pravilnata, odnosno nepravilnata upotreba na odredeni zborovi i upotreba na drugi zborovi namesto

niv?

[Translation] Do we really have to take into consideration only the word order or we should also

pay attention to the correct or incorrect use of certain words and use other words instead? – level

C2

As we are able to see from the comments above, Macedonian learners of L2 English are

not aware of the conditions allowing VS structures, thus it can be said that they behave

according to their intuitions about the correctness of the sentences. They clearly indicate

that they were not certain about the correctness of the structures which shows that they

do not have the conscious knowledge about the conditions allowing VS structures. They

do not indicate any knowledge about different types of intransitive verbs or different VS

structures (*it-V-S, there-V-S and *Ø-V-S, PP-V-S) due to the lack of formal

instructions teaching the unique behavior of intransitive verbs or the specific structures

allowing VS with certain types of verbs.

Similar comments were obtained by the Spanish participants in this study.

SPANISH LEARNERS’ QUALITATIVE COMMENTS

1. Hay algunas preguntas en las que dudo... sobre todo con las expresiones "there + verbo", pero

porque creo que no lo he visto en mi vida.

[Translation] There are some questions I doubt … mostly the ones containing the expression "there

+ verb" because I have never seen this structure before. – level A1

2. Un test largo, y muchas preguntas con errores del mismo tipo.

[Translation] A very long test and a lot of questions containing the same type of errors- level B1

124

3. El error que mas se repite creo que es el de estructura sintáctica, el orden en de las oraciones de

indicativo en inglés deben tener la estructura SVO. Luego hay construcciones con "there" + un

verbo que no es "to be", y creo que es incorrecto aunque no estoy seguro al 100%. Saludos.

[Translation] I think that the most repeating error is related to the syntactic structure, the sentence

order of the indicative in English should be SVO. Also, there are structures such as "there" + verb

which is not “to be” and I think this is incorrect although I am not 100% sure. Regards. – level

B2

4. He empezado el test viendo que todas las oraciones estaban mal debido al sujeto, pero luego me ha

parecido que algunas si que son gramaticalmente correctas, y me ha despertado dudas sobre este

tipo de oraciones que ahora tengo que repasar porque no me acuerdo bien!!

[Translation] I started doing the test and I realized that all sentences were wrong due to the

subject, but later I realized that some sentences are grammatically correct and I started having

doubts about this type of sentences which I have to revise because I do not remember them well!! –

level C1

5. Opino que se ha repetido excesivamente un mismo tipo de error. El test se alarga con preguntas

que tienden a ser iguales las unas a las otras, y dudo que esto aporte nuevos datos.

[Translation] I think that the same type of error was excessively repeating. The test is prolonged

with questions which are similar to one another, and I doubt that it can bring new knowledge –

level C2

The A1 level student clearly indicates that he/she has never come across the there+verb

expression, which indicates the rarity of the structure in the input. Even at higher levels

(B2), there+verb is considered to be uncommon, supporting the fact that students are

not instructed to learn this structure in class or do not find it often in the input. The C1

student states his/her instructed knowledge about the grammaticality of SVO word

order, but is confused by his/her approval of the grammaticality of “some” VS

structures showing the sensitivity for VS under certain conditions. This learner believes

that these structures were learnt in class, even though this is probably not the case,

which clearly indicates that knowledge of the Unaccusative Hypothesis is independent

from instructed knowledge.

And these are some comments made by the English native speakers:

ENGLISH NATIVES’ QUALITATIVE COMMENTS

1. I think that most of the issues here were to do with tenses and phrasing. Some meaning was lost

due to spelling error.

2. In the directions, it may be better to inform us that we are to judge the second half of the

sentence or the last phrase or add space between the given and the judged sentence. Some of the

sentences were hard to read anyway because the grammar was incorrect, which is the point of the

125

assignment, so by making the directions as clear and direct as possible is best. Thank you.

Even though English natives clearly distinguish grammatical from ungrammatical

structures and make all the relevant contrasts that we have discussed throughout this

dissertation, they do not show conscious awareness of the unaccusative/unergative

distinction, but they rely on their native sensitivity for the correctness of the structures.

In spite of the ungrammaticality of *it-V-S, *there-V-S and *Ø-V-S with unergatives,

English natives do not fully reject these structures. We were advised by some of the

English natives14

that these structures are not completely rejected in everyday speech,

where various structures become possible. In particular, informal talks with English

natives revealed that the postverbal subject did not sound “that bad”, particularly in *it-

V-S structures (it appeared a new social class called „the climbers‟), because English

allows superficially similar constructions, namely, it-extraposition (it appears that John

is ill). Obviously, inversion is not structurally identical to extraposition, since in the

former the postverbal subject is an NP, while in the latter it is a full clause. This

linguistically naive assumption that both structures are the same, might have led English

natives not to reject drastically the ungrammatical constructions under investigation.

The crucial fact that can be drawn from the qualitative comments made by the

participants is that, despite their beliefs and opinions, they all follow a clear

developmental pattern and show clear contrasts between verbs

(unaccusatives/unergatives) and between preverbal material (*it/*Ø/there/PP), which

indicates that the observed behavior is not random, but is rather constrained by the

Unaccusative Hypothesis, as argued throughout this dissertation.

6.3 CONTRASTING RESULTS: BY OPT AND BY SELF-PROFICIENCY

This section is an aside on the quantitative data which was worth exploring briefly. As

was explained in 5.3., after we collected the Macedonian data, we had many incomplete

tests and we could not trace the proficiency level of more than 200 Macedonian cases.

In order to obtain some idea about the acceptability judgment test results of the whole

lot (complete and incomplete tests), we decided to divide the subjects in proficiency

14 A special gratitude to Prof. Cristobal Lozano for discussing the acceptance of ungrammatical VS , especially *it-V-S structures

with native English speakers.

126

levels according to the self-rated proficiency they provided in the background

information section. These results are shown in Figure 28 and are compared with the

completed Macedonian results divided by the objective Oxford Placement Test (OPT)

in Figure 12 above, here repeated as Figure 29.

Figure 28: Acceptance of VS wih unaccusatives more than with unergatives by Macedonian learners rated by self-proficiency

3,8

3,43,6

3,8

3,53,2

3,5

3,03,2 3,1

2,72,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

Unac_ALL

unerg_ALL

L1 Maced-L2 Eng

(self-proficiency)

Figure 29: Subject-verb inversion (VS) with all unaccusatives and unergatives for Macedonian learners [Fig. 12 above]

3,9 3,8 3,73,5

3,0 3,0 2,93,4

3,02,8

2,72,5 2,5

2,1

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


Unac_ALL

unerg_ALL

L1 Maced-L2 Eng.

As can be appreciated by contrasting both figures, even though the learners‟ self-

proficiency classification cannot be taken for granted (since it represents the proficiency

level they believe they are in [Figure 28], and not the actual one they are in [Figure

29]15

), both charts are presented only for the purpose of general comparison and

15 Figure 29 contains the English natives‟ results which denote that learners follow certain developmental

stages in SLA acquisition of VS structures and approach the native-like norm

(by OPT))

127

verification of learners‟ awareness of the possibilities allowing VS in English. All self-

rated proficiency levels observe the UH and prefer VS more with unaccusatives than

with unergatives. This is the expected behavior, which is in accordance with the valid

Macedonian cases, as measured by the OPT. As can be seen in Figure 28 A1 level

shows high acceptance of VS both with unaccusatives and unergatives. A2 level accepts

VS less than B1 and B2, which is similar to the previous matched-pair results, showing

that B levels are the best discriminators of the unaccusative / unergative difference. C1

and C2 levels of the self-proficiency results show decrease in the overall acceptance of

VS word order which is the same as the results obtained by the OPT levels. The

difference between unaccusatives and unergatives is observed at high rates among the

self-proficiency results while OPT results indicate smaller unaccusative / unergative

distinction. Even though these two figures show differences, it is obvious that all

learners prefer VS more with unaccusatives than with unergatives, which, once again,

indicates their sensitivity to the principles of the UH.

128

7 DISCUSSION

In this chapter we will discuss the results obtained in the study and we will attempt to

explain the implications of the findings in relation to whether they support the proposed

four hypotheses. We will include possible ideas for future research.

7.1 L2 LEARNERS‟ KNOWLEDGE OF UH

In this section we will discuss whether the results (chapter 6) confirm or reject the four

proposed hypotheses (chapter 4).

7.1.1 DISCUSSION OF H1: L2 KNOWLEDGE OF UNACCUSATIVITY

(LEXICON-SYNTAX INTERFACE)

The main result of our study confirms previous research that L2 learners obey the

principles of the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Both Macedonian and Spanish groups

accept postverbal subjects as grammatical with unaccusatives more than with

unergatives, as native speakers do, (Figures 12 and 13). VS is preferred more with

unaccusatives for all XP-V-S structures, even at initial stages, showing that learners are

sensitive to the UH from the very outset.

The early stages showed interesting results. Even though VS structures are accepted

more with unaccusatives than with unergatives, there is a high acceptance rate for both

types of verbs. It is possible that learners are either “experimenting/restructuring” or

perhaps “L1 influence” is taking place (This will be discussed later on). At initial stages

(A1, A2) there is a high acceptance of postverbal subjects (Macedonian and Spanish),

both with unaccusatives and unergatives (although UH is obeyed) and learners initially

treat all structures as grammatical. It may be considered that, learners start restructuring

at initial levels hence the high acceptance for both unaccusative/unergative postverbal

subjects. If this was not the case, learners would not have accepted VS (the non

canonical word order of sentences), which is not present in the input they are exposed

to.

Learners may be influenced by their first language word order flexibility, showing

acceptance rates of postverbal subjects for both types of verbs (unaccusatives and

unergatives), though we will discuss this issue later.

129

Intermediate levels are the best discriminators of the unaccusative/unergative

distinction. It seems that learners overgeneralize the VS rule at intermediate levels,

experiment with and overgeneralise the VunacS structure, start understanding it and at C

levels they go back to the canonical SV order, which is the most frequent in the input

and it is the preferred word order of native English speakers as well.

At advanced levels learners become more severe with VS order and tend to reject it

while accepting the canonical SV order in their ILG. They are not experimenting with

the data, but have decided to accept the canonical word order which is present in the

input.

To summarise, at the lexicon-syntax interface learners are sensitive to the Unaccusative

Hypothesis in L2 English, as they prefer XP-V-S more with unaccusatives than with

unergatives. This confirms the first hypothesis (H1).

7.1.2 DISCUSSION OF H2: L2 KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIFFERENT PREVERBAL

STRUCTURES:

As was shown by the results (Figures 20 and 21), at early stages all unaccusative

structures (there/PP, vs *it/*Ø) are treated as identically grammatical, while

ungrammatical ones are constantly rejected as proficiency increases, thus showing a

clear developmental pattern, which confirms our H2. It is important to state that even

though the ungrammaticality of the different preverbal structures is not distinguished

from the outset, the UH is recognized at all levels.

Importantly, the grammaticality of structures is observed at initial stages for

unergatives. PPloc-V-S is discriminated as grammatical vs. the rest of the

ungrammatical structures (*there/*it/*Ø) at the outset, both by Macedonian and Spanish

learners (Figures 22 and 23).

The crucial finding for our study is the fact that, as proficiency increases, Macedonian

and Spanish groups discriminate more between grammatical unaccusative there/PP vs.

ungrammatical *it/*Ø. Figures 16 for Macedonians and 18 for Spanish show a clear

developmental pattern in the acquisition of the grammaticality of this structure. The

final pattern for the grammaticality of structures for unaccusatives is as follows: PPloc

≥ There > *it ≥ *Ø and for unergatives : PP loc >> *There > *Ø ≥ *it, as shown below

(where the wide gaps indicate a large difference „>>‟ and a small gap a minimal

difference „≥‟), indicating that learners acquire the grammaticality of the structure by

following certain linear developmental stages across proficiency levels.

130

UNACCUSATIVE pattern of XP acceptance in XP-V-S structures:

UNERGATIVE pattern of XP acceptance in XP-V-S structures:

Let us examine each of these preverbal XPs in detail:

*it-V-S is high at initial and interim stages. This corresponds to the second and third

stage of Oshita‟s UT claiming that learners become sensitive to the rules of the

structure. They exploit the rules in the interim stage and acquire the correct structure in

the final stage. While they are in the interim stage learners become aware of the

postverbal position of the argument of unaccusatives by allowing the subject in

postverbal position, but they are also aware that in English the subject position has to be

occupied by an overt element by inserting expletive it in subject position. The

ungrammatical it*-V-S is one of the structures occurring as a possible solution of

learners‟ search for an answer for this syntactic encoding problem. As proficiency

increases, the ungrammatical *it-V-S decreases for both unaccusatives and unergatives.

Macedonians, however, are more sensitive to the ungrammaticality of *it-V-S and they

reject it at lower levels.

there-V-S remains stable with unaccusatives across proficiency for both groups

(Figures 20 and 21), which is expected due to its grammaticality, but decreases with

unergatives, showing that L2 learners of English are sensitive to the fact that there-V-S

is possible only with unaccusatives.

This knowledge cannot be derived from instruction/teaching alone, since textbooks do

not contain information specifying that there-V-S is allowed with a subset of

unaccusatives and never with unergatives (and English teachers are not aware about the

unaccusative hypothesis and its complex rules). A plausible explanation is that learners

are sensitive to positive evidence from the input, but, as was argued in chapter 2,

131

English native corpus data illustrate that this structures show an extremely low

frequency (2.2.3.1.1). A more likely explanation is that learners are sensitive to the UH.

They do not get negative evidence that “there-Vunerg-S” is ungrammatical, i.e., they are

not overgeneralizing the there-V-S structure to unergatives, which also supports H1.

According to Oshita (2001) there-V-S is acquired in the final stage, when learners

acquire the correct pleonastic element (i.e., expletive) placed in the sentence subject

position.

PP-V-S is the most preferred structure both with unaccusatives and unergatives, since

locative inversion is possible in native English with both types of verbs (Levin and

Rappaport-Hovav (1995); Biber et al. (1999); Mendikoetxea (2006); Oshita (2001); and

see also the discussion in section 2.2.). This is also confirmed by the preference of PP-

V-S among English natives in our results. Thus, it may be considered that learners are

sensitive to the structure and behave as English natives do.

As for PP-V-S with unergatives (Figures 11 and 12), learners discriminate grammatical

PP (locative inversion) from the beginning vs. the rest of the ungrammatical structures

(*there *it and *Ø). The structural configuration of PP-V-S is similar to the verb second

(V2) structure (see discussion in section 2.2.3.1.2), which relates the opening element to

the previous context. The use of PP-V-S both with unaccusatives and unergatives may

indicate that syntax-discourse interface overrides lexicon-syntax interface. Namely, in

V2 languages VS is possible with all verbs which is probably why, as a consequence of

the historical features of English being a V2 language, unergatives are also allowed with

PP in this structure, since the structure has historically served a discursive function, i.e.,

introducing onto the scene a new element (postverbal subject) by linking the sentence to

the prior discourse with an opening element (preverbal PP).

*Ø-V-S shows low acceptance rates, which indicates that learners do not make

transfer or, at least, that the structure is not the priviledged target for transfer because, if

transfer was taking place, then higher rates of Ø would be expected in both groups, as

their L1 is pro-drop and contains an identical structure. This matter merits further

analysis, so it will be discussed in the following section.

132

7.1.3 DISCUSSION OF H3: THE NO-TRANSFER HYPOTHESIS AND OTHER

POSSIBLE SOURCES OF L2 LEARNERS’ KNOWLEDGE

In the preceding sections we have argued that learners‟ knowledge is constrained by a

universal constraint at the lexicon-syntax interface, namely, the UH. In the next

subsections we will explore the possibility of there being other sources or learners‟

knowledge of unaccusativity.

7.1.3.1 Input

There-V-S remains rather stable for unaccusatives not only for both the Macedonian &

Spanish matched groups, but also for the entire sample of the Spanish group for all

proficiency levels, but decreases with unergatives, hence it may be assumed that

learners are sensitive to the fact that there-V-S is possible only with unaccusative verbs

(as a result of the UH) or they may have picked it up from the input.

In order to check previous claims about the rarity of this construction and to see whether

learners can derive them from the input, we checked several popular L2 English

textbooks (LifeLines Pre-Intermediate; New English File-Intermediate; Upstream-

Advanced level) and tried to find XP-V-S instances. Throughout the three mentioned

textbooks, we did not come across any examples of these constructions. They are not

mentioned in the grammar syllabus and the texts included in the books do not contain

such constructions.

The fact that this structure is not found in any textbooks and is not part of classroom

instruction (since, typically, teachers do not know the subtleties of there-V-S being

possible only with a subset of unaccusatives but never with unergatives), indicates that

learners are sensitive to the UH. They do not get negative evidence (i.e., correction)

that there-V-S is ungrammatical with unergatives, then their knowledge derives from

the UH. Such knowledge cannot be accounted by overgeneralization because learners

do not overgeneralize there-Vunacc-S to there-Vunerg-S. This lends support to H1.

Another indication that input alone cannot account for the acquisition of this structure is

the fact that it is rarely produced by natives and learners cannot encounter it often in the

input. We are dealing with a poverty of stimulus construction which has been recorded

to be „rare and make up a very small proportion of all existential clauses: less than 5%

in fiction and academic prose and less than 1% in news and conversation (Biber et.

133

al.1999:945) (already mentioned in section 2.2.3.1.1.). In accordance to this, results

from empirical studies (Lozano & Mendikoetxea (2010)) have reported that native

English produce less VS structures than learners of L2 English. These claims imply that

it is unlikely that XP-V-S structures can be inferred from input.

7.1.3.2 Instruction

As was mentioned above (7.1.3.1) we checked several popular L2 English textbooks

(LifeLines Pre-Intermediate; New English File-Intermediate; Upstream-Advanced level)

and tried to find XP-V-S instances. These constructions were not included in any of

these textbooks which means that XP-V-S structures are not part of the formal

instruction of L2 English. Thus, it is unlikely that teachers are aware of the

unaccusative/unergative distinction and the constraints allowing XP-V-S occurrence.

Additionally, the qualitative comments of the Macedonian and Spanish group (see

section 6.2.) show that learners are not aware of the conditions allowing VS structures

because they have probably not been instructed about the unique behavior of intransitive

verbs or the specific structures allowing VS with certain types of verbs.

To sum up, learners cannot „learn‟ XP-V-S constructions because they are not included

in the formal instruction of L2 English.

7.1.3.3 L1 transfer

In the following paragraphs we will discuss the possibility that learners might be

transferring the structures under investigation (XP-V-S) from their L1 Macedonian or

L1 Spanish. While this seems a logical and obvious conclusion, we will see in the

following subsection how such an assumption is simplistic, since not all the data can be

accounted for by mere L1 transfer. A closer and fine-grained inspection of the results

reveals that there are important universal and developmental constraints in the

acquisition of the unaccusative/unergative syntactic structures in L2 English.

The initial high acceptance of VS both with unaccusatives and unergatives by

Macedonian and Spanish learners (Figures 12 and 13) may be argued to be due to

learners (according to the full/access full transfer account) being influenced by their first

language word order flexibility, showing high acceptance rates of postverbal subjects

for both types of verbs (unaccusatives and unergatives).

134

The high acceptance of PP-V-S from the initial stages with both types of verbs might

also indicate that learners are transferring from their L1. Even though this structure is

grammatical in English, it is also grammatical in the learners L1 (Macedonian and

Spanish) with all verbs, which may trigger the overacceptance of the locative inversion

structure in L2 English.

The data however show that both groups accept not only PP-V-S but also there-V-S as

grammatical structures (there/PP-V-S) and reject ungrammatical structures (*Ø/*it-V-S)

with unaccusatives from relatively early stages of acquisition which may not support the

transfer account but shows that learners are sensitive to the grammaticality of the

structures.

High acceptance of *Ø-V-S at initial levels may be considered again a result of L1

transfer, but the fact that all structures are treated similarly at the outset, does not

provide a solid ground for the transfer account (see section 7.1.3.4 below).

7.1.3.4 Reasons for lack of L1 transfer

There is subtle evidence in the results which indicates that learners are not transferring

wholesale from their L1. Such evidence, which is about to be discussed, supports H3.

Let us examine several pieces of evidence.

PIECE OF EVIDENCE #1. Spanish and Macedonian are pro-drop languages having

Ø-V-S as a very common structure, as discussed extensively in chapter 2. The fact that

*Ø-V-S is accepted in L2 English (by native speakers of L1 Spanish and L1

Macedonian) at low rates is a possible indication that transfer is not taking place. If

transfer occurred, higher acceptance of *Ø-V-S would have been expected for both

groups of learners. According to the results (Figures 20-23) this structure is

discriminated as ungrammatical (both with unaccusatives and unergatives) from

relatively early stages of development, even though it is completely plausible in

learners‟ L1s (Macedonian and Spanish). Additionally, if transfer occurred, *Ø-V-S

would have been more accepted than *it-V-S, given the fact that *it-V-S is not a

possible syntactic structure in either Spanish or Macedonian. The results show that this

is not the case and that both structures decrease simultaneously as proficiency increases,

hence the lack of L1 transfer effects, which supports H3.

135

PIECE OF EVIDENCE #2. Another indication against transfer is the fact that Spanish

learners discriminate between unaccusative VS order vs. unergative VS order, even

though this is unexpected, as heavy and focused subjects in native Spanish are sentence

final (VS), independently of the verb type. Thus, the Unaccusative Hypothesis (lexicon-

syntax interface) is overridden when discursive factors like focus and topic are involved

(syntax-discourse interface). This finding goes against the transfer hypothesis, thus

supporting H3.

PIECE OF EVIDENCE #3. Experimental data show that Macedonians, on the other

hand, appear to prefer in their mother tongue VS with unaccusatives and SV (with

unergatives) in presentational focused context (see 2.2.3.3.2.), while Spanish natives

prefer VS both with unaccusatives and unergatives in such contexts, as stated in the

preceding paragraph. If transfer occurred, we would expect (i) Macedonians to prefer

VS with unaccusatives more than with unergatives but (ii) Spanish to treat them

similarly. Contrary to this expectation, both groups of learners behave alike, thus

confirming that this behavior cannot be accounted for L1 transfer alone, which supports

H3.

PIECE OF EVIDENCE #4. An additional piece of evidence against the no-transfer

position comes from the different acceptance of the preverbal element. Data show

that both groups discriminate grammatical structures (there/PP-V-S) vs. ungrammatical

structures (*Ø/*it-V-S) with unaccusatives from relatively early stages of acquisition,

but all these structures are possible in their L1s (Macedonian and Spanish). Hence, if

transfer was taking place, we would expect learners not to show such an early

sensitivity to the grammatical vs. ungrammatical constructions, which is contrary to

fact. This supports the no-transfer account, thus supporting H3.

7.1.4 DISCUSSION OF H4: DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES AND OSHITA’S (2001)

UNACCUSATIVE TRAP HYPOTHESIS

Our H4 is related to the developmental stages proposed by Oshita (2001) and his

Unaccusative Trap. We predicted that our learners will follow the three stages of the UT

(see section 3.2.4). The obtained results have shown features both rejecting and

supporting these claims.

136

The behavior of our subjects at initial levels is not in accordance with the predictions of

the UT. Oshita claimed that in the first stage all intransitive verbs (unaccusatives and

unergatives) are perceived as unergatives and learners produce only SV, irrespective of

the verb type. Our results show that learners (Macedonian and Spanish) discriminate VS

from the very outset. They seem to be doing the opposite of the UT: VS is accepted

highly with unergatives from initial stages, indicating that learners are somehow

unaccusativizing unergatives, even though they correctly prefer VunacS to VunergS. This

behavior may be due to the nature of the methodology we used. It might have misled

the participants to accept structures which they would not produce if they had to provide

their own utterances. This idea is supported by corpus data which shows that learners

invert only with unaccusatives, never with unergatives (Lozano & Mendikoetxea 2008,

2010, Zobl 1989, Oshita 2004). Another possible interpretation of this kind of behavior

is related to L1 transfer effects. VS structures are very common both in Spanish and

Macedonian and learners may transfer this L1 structure to their L2, accepting VS at the

outset with all types of verbs and in all VS structures. But note that transfer has been

discarded as the privileged source of knowledge in L2 (see preceding section).

The second stage of Oshita states that learners become aware of the syntactically

relevant semantic features of unaccusative verbs, which is in accordance with our data.

Our learners distinguish unaccusatives from unergatives, which is shown in the fact that

learners start accepting grammatical structures (PP/there) and rejecting ungrammatical

ones (*it/*Ø). Both Macedonian and Spanish learners follow similar patterns. They

show their highest sensitivity to UH in intermediate stages, showing the highest

unaccusatives vs unergatives difference (even higher than natives‟). This means that

they have picked up the Unaccusativity rules and, therefore, they are overaccepting the

rule. Later, in advanced stages, such a difference diminishes towards the native norm.

Oshita claims that at the second stage learners understand the internal lexico-syntactic

structure of unaccusatives vs unergatives, hence the acceptance and production of

ungrammatical unaccusative passives and/or *it-V-S. They are trying to find solutions

and to produce VS structures. This is in accordance with our data, which shows that

learners exploit the structures and they start distinguishing the grammatical structures

from the ungrammatical ones.

137

The final stage of Oshita states that unaccusative syntactic structures will be acquired

when unaccusatives will be correctly differentiated from unergatives. Our data support

these claims with the acceptance of the grammatical structures and the rejection of the

ungrammatical ones at higher proficiency levels.

7.2 POSSIBLE PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: TEACHING POSTVERBAL

SUBJECTS IN L2 ENGLISH

Palacios-Martínez and Martínez-Insua (2006) studied native and learner use of

existential there-be-NP of the type shown in (98)

(98)

a) ..think that there are more disadvantages than there are advantages

thus they are likely to reject..

b) Throughout the first scenes, especially, there is a repetition of

“rien” perhaps reflecting..

Its usage was studied among Spanish learners of English and a native group of English

speakers and it was hypothesized that these two groups will differ in the frequency of

use, complexity, polarity concord and pragmatic value. The results showed that Spanish

learners use there-be-NP constructions more frequently than natives, which may be

related to its early introduction in the language learning process and the ability of

learners to memorize them as formulaic chunks. They recommended that pedagogical

instruction about these constructions might help their proper acquisition. This is a study

examining inversion with be and our empirical study studies inversion with

unaccusatives.

Considering the fact that postverbal subject constructions of the type XP-V-S are not

part of any L2 English course book, as we have shown in 7.1.3.2, it is understandable

that learners are prone to producing *it/*Ø-V-S ungrammatical structures (passive

unaccusatives or ungrammatical postverbal structures), which are so common in

learners‟ written and spoken production. Positive evidence (i.e., input) about different

subtypes of intransitive verbs and the specific syntactic structures allowed by

unaccusative verbs should be explained in formal instruction settings, that is, in the

classroom. Teachers might introduce a group of presentational verbs apart from be and

138

explain their specific meaning. The pragmatic meaning of existential and presentational

constructions should also be explained. Additionally, the most common mistakes

produced in XP-V-S constructions should be described so that learners will be able to

understand and properly acquire the structure. However, as was indicated throughout

the dissertation there seems to be a developmental pattern. Therefore, it is unclear

whether learners would acquire these structures if they were taught. According to the

Teachability Hypothesis (Pienemann, 1988) learners should be taught grammatical

structures they are ready to acquire. If the learner is at the second developmental stage

of acquisition of a certain structure and the teacher teaches a structure corresponding to

a fourth developmental stage the learner may go forward to the third stage but will not

jump directly to the fourth stage. Therefore learners should be taught structures they are

ready to acquire. Instruction cannot change the natural order of acquisition. It may

change the speed of acquisition (to provoke faster acquisition of L2 structures) but not

the course.

7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In the next subsections we will discuss some potential avenues of future research on the

L2 acquisition of unaccusativity.

7.3.1 POSTVERBAL SUBJECTS WITH ‘BE’ (EXPL + BE + NP-SUBJECT)

A research on the production of postverbal subjects with the verb be is one suggestion

for future study. In native English be is a more common verb for the production of

there-V-S and locative inversion constructions than the intransitive unaccusative verbs

of existence and appearance, which have been the focus of this dissertation. As

explained by Biber et. al. (1999), the verb be forms 95% of existential there

constructions and half of the locative inversion constructions, while unaccusative verbs

of existence and appearance represent only a small fraction of inverted structures. We

suggest that the acquisition of expletive+be+NP-subject should be studied in order to

observe the possible developmental stages for the acquisition of this structure and

understand under which interface conditions (lexicon-syntax, syntax-discourse, syntax-

phonology) they are produced and accepted in L2 English.

139

7.3.2 THE EFFECTS OF WEIGHT AND FOCUS ON POSTVERBAL SUBJECTS

Another possible suggestion for future research would be to study the influence of

weight and focus on the postverbal subject. Our study dealt with the lexicon-syntax

interface and the UH, since weight and information status were controlled for in the

experiment (i.e., the postverbal subject was always long and focus). Further on we could

focus on the influence of the End Weight and End Focus principle on the acquisition of

postverbal subjects by Macedonian L2 learners of English.

140

8 CONCLUSION

Previous research has shown that learners are sensitive to the Unaccusative Hypothesis

(UH) and produce postverbal subjects with a subtype of intransitive verbs, namely,

unaccusative verbs of existence and appearance but not with another type of

intransitives (unergatives). Unaccusativity (which is contrained at the lexicon-syntax

interface) is one of the three conditions allowing the production of postverbal-subject

constructions of the type XP-V-S in English (locative inversion like PP-V-S and

existential there constructions like there-V-S), which are the focus of this empirical

study. The other two conditions necessary for subject inversion in English require the

subject to be new information (focus) (syntax-discourse interface) and long (heavy)

(syntax-phonology interface).

Two groups of learners of L2 English (one with L1 Macedonian and the other with L1

Spanish) participated in a contextualized acceptability judgement test to measure their

knowledge of postverbal-subject structures of the type XP-V-S. Results indicate that the

Macedonian and Spanish participants in our study observed the conditions for the

acceptance of postverbal subjects in English. Namely, they accepted VS with

unaccusatives more than with unergatives when the subject is focus and heavy, thus

observing the UH at the lexicon-syntax interface and the constraints at the other two

interfaces (syntax-discourse and syntax-phonology).

These results imply that Macedonian and Spanish learners of L2 English accept VS

under the same conditions as English natives do. But, in spite of this, learners produce

(as attested in previous empirical studies) and accept (as reported in this study)

structurally impossible VS constructions with a preverbal element of the type *it-V-S

and *Ø-V-S, which are a very common type of error found in L2 English. Hence,

acceptance of both grammatical (PP-V-S / there-V-S) and ungrammatical structures

(*it-V-S / *Ø-V-S) were examined in this study in order to check the possibilities for L1

transfer or developmental factors in the course of acquisition of XP-V-S structure in L2

English. It was shown that learners reject the *Ø-V-S structure at initial levels, which

implies that L1 transfer alone cannot account for the data because this structure is very

common in L1 Macedonian and Spanish. Additionally, the L1 transfer

141

hypothesis was also rejected for PP-V-S (locative inversion), which is possible with

both types of verbs (unacusatives and unergatives) in English, the same as in L1

Macedonian and Spanish, due to the fact that learners distinguish grammatical PP-V-S

and there-V-S from ungrammatical *it-V-S and *Ø-V-S from early stages. They also

accept grammatical PP-V-S both with unaccusatives and unergatives, while there-V-S is

accepted only with unaccusatives, which implies that learners are aware of the

grammaticality of the structures in L2 English. The structure *it-V-S was rejected at

higher levels, which indicates that learners follow certain developmental stages in the

acquisition of VS order throughout which they become aware of the postverbal position

of the subject of unaccusatives. Due to the fact that in English the subject position has to

be occupied by an overt element learners insert expletive it in subject position. They

produce the ungrammatical it*-V-S as a possible solution for this syntactic encoding

problem.

The rarity of the XP-V-S construction in native English implies that its knowledge in L2

English cannot be derived from the input alone. Additionally, this construction is not

included in any formal instruction of L2 English, hence instruction canot be accounted

for its acquisition.

To sum up, it can be concluded that the syntactic knowledge of Macedonian and

Spanish learners of L2 English for the production of XP-V-S structures is universally

constrained at the three interfaces (i) the verb is unaccusative - UH (lexicon syntax

interface); (ii) the subject is focus (syntax discourse interface) and, (iii) the subject is

heavy (syntax phonology interface). The acceptance of ungrammatical structures (it-V-S

and *Ø-V-S), which is developmentally temporary, may be due to failure to properly

map the UH knowledge onto the suitable syntactic structure.

142

9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to express my enormous gratitude to Prof.

Cristobal Lozano, my thesis supervisor, who selflessly shared with me his

knowledge, expertise and research experience. Prof. Lozano has been greatly

interested and prepared to patiently explain and clarify all the questions I had

regarding the topic throughout the whole MA thesis preparation period. I thank

Prof. Lozano for all the time he dedicated to help me complete successfully this

MA project, for all the useful pieces of advice regarding the study I received, for

all the instructions on how to conduct the study successfully, for all the support

and encouragement, for the professional and friendly manner of communication

which gives confidence that the research can be completed successfully; for his

preparedness to help me whenever I was not certain about things, for his

excellent guidance through the conduct of research and the whole dissertation

writing procedure.

Prof. Lozano immediately became the role model for me of a successful

researcher in the field. He should serve an example of an excellent professor

and supervisor. I consider myself lucky to have had Prof. Lozano to be my

supervisor. THANK YOU

I would also like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Cristobal Lozano for allowing me

to use the Spanish natives L2 English data obtained in the EASI research study

and the method and instrument used for this study, conducted by Prof. Cristobal

Lozano himself and Prof. Amaya Mendikoetxea from Universidad Autonoma de

Madrid.

I thank Prof. Sonja Kitanovska from the FON University in Skopje, Macedonia

for helping us gather more participants for the IUSAJ research by distributing

the online test among her group of postgraduate students.

I thank Prof. Ana–Lazarova Nikovska from the FON University in Skopje for

giving us useful information about references on related topics.

143

I would like to thank the foreign language teaching school “Next Level” and the

Student Service Centres “Traveo” in Kavadarci, Macedonia and “Kouzon

Student Service Centre” in Skopje for helping us gather more participants by

distributing the test among their L2 English students.

I thank all the volunteer participants who took part in this study for their time

and willingness to help us gather the necessary data for this research. The

contribution of every single participant was of utmost importance for us and was

considered extremely valuable. This research was conducted successfully due to

the volunteer participation of every single case which is greatly appreciated.

My enormous thank you goes to all of my friends who showed their unselfish

willingness to help me gather as many cases as possible by participating in the

study and by distributing the online test to their friends and acquaintances. I

could not be more grateful for that.

Last but definitely not least, my wholehearted thank you to my family for being

always supportive and giving me the strength and encouragement to do my best

throughout the research and dissertation writing period.

144

10 REFERENCES

Andersen, R. W. (1978). An implicational model for second language research.

Language Learning, 28, (pp.221-282).

Baker, M. (1988): Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.

Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Balcom, P. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and

unaccusativity. Second Language Research, 13(1), (pp.1-9).

Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. D. (1974). Is there a “natural sequence” in adult

second language learning? Language Learning, 24, (pp.235-243).

Bialystok, E. (2001). On the Reliability of Robustness, A Reply to DeKeyser. SSLA, 24,

(pp.481–488).

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Word order and

related syntactic choices (chapter 9). In Longman Grammar of Spoken and

Written English (pp. 896-964). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Bloom, L. and Lahey, M. (1978). Language Development and Language Disorders,

New York: John Wiley.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burrow, J.A. and Turville-Petre, T. (2001). A Book of Middle English, second edition:

Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Casielles-Suarez, E. (2009). The Syntax-Information Structure Interface: New York:

Routhledge.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MASS: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MASS.: MIT Press.

145

Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners'errors. IRAL, V(4), (pp.161-170).

Domínguez, L., & Arche, M. J. (2008). Optionality in L2 grammars: The acquisition of

SV/VS contrast in Spanish. In H. Chan, H. Jacob, & E. Kapia (Eds.), BUCLD

32: Proceddings of the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language

Development (pp. 96-107). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974b). Natural sequences in child second language

acquisition. Language Learning, 24, (pp. 37-53).

Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Fathman, A. (1975). Language background, age and the order of acquisition of English

structures. In M. K. Burt & H. C. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL ‟75: New directions

in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 33-43).

Washington, DC: TESOL.

Friedman, V. A. (1993). Macedonian. In: Comrie B. & Corbett, G. C. (eds.),The

Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. (pp. 249-305).

Haeberli, E. (2007). The development of subject-verb inversion in middle English and

the role of language contact. GG@G (Generative Grammar in Geneva) 5 (pp.

15-33).

Hawkins, R. (2001). Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers

Haegman, L., & Gueron, J. English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers

Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second language.

Language Learning, 26, (pp.321-351).

Hertel, T. J. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of

Spanish word order. Second Language Research, 19(4), (pp.273-304).

146

Heycock, C. and Kroch, A. (1993). Verb Movement and the Status of Subjects:

Implications for the Theory of Licencing. Groninger Arbeiten zur

Germanistischen Linguistik Nr. 36, (pp.75-102).

Hirakawa, M. (1999). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs by speakers of

English and Chinese. In K. Kanno (Ed.), The Acquisition of Japanese as a

Second Language (pp. 89-114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G.K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English

Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ioup, G. (1995). Evaluating the Need for Input Enhancement in Post-Critical Period

Language Acquisition. In D. Singleton and Z. Lengyel (Eds.), The Age Factor in

Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters (pp. 95-123)

Ju, M. K. (2000). Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of

conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

22, (pp. 85-111).

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New

York : Pergamon Press.

Krashen, D.S (1995). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the classroom.

London: Prentice Hall International.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures: Ann Harbor, Michigan: University of

Michingan Press.

Lazarova-Nikovska, A. (2003). „On Interrogative Sentences in Macedonian: A

Generative Perspective.‟2003. RCEAL Working Papers in English and Applied

Linguistics 9, (pp.129-59).

Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley &

Sons Inc.

Lightbown, M.P., & Spada, N. (2001). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical

Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MASS: MIT Press.

147

Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the

negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), (pp.126-141).

Lozano, C. (2002). Knowledge of expletive and pronominal subjects by learners of

Spanish. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 135/6, (pp.37-60).

Lozano, C. (2006a). Focus and split-intransitivity: The acquisition of word-order

alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research 22(2) (pp.145-

187).

Lozano, C. (2006b). The development of the syntax-discourse interface: Greek learners

of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax in

Romance Languages (pp. 371-399). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lozano, C. (2008). The Acquisition of Syntax and Discourse: Saarbrüken: VDM Verlag.

Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish

and Italian learners of L2 English: a corpus analysis. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, &

M. B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus

Research (pp. 85-125). Amsterdam: Rodopi

Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A. (2010). Postverbal subjects in L2 English: A corpus-

based study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), (pp. 475-497).

Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2011): Acquisition at the interfaces in L1 Spanish –

L2 English: From corpus data to experimental data. Paper presented in EUROSLA 21,

University of Stockholm.

Mendikoetxea, A. (2006). Unergatives that „become‟ unaccusatives in English

locative inversion: a lexical-syntactic approach. In C. Copy y L-Gournay (eds.)

Points de Vue sur l‟Inversion. Cahiers de Recherche en Grammaire Anglaise de

l‟Énonciation. Tome 9. Paris: Editions Orphys. (pp. 133-155).

Milenkovska, S. (2002a) Linearizacija i referencijalna karakteristika na nominativnite

(subjektnite) imenski sintagmi (Linearization and referential characteristics of

148

the nominative/subject noun phrases). Makedonski Jazik: Institut za Makedonski

Jazik Krste Misirkov (Macedonian Language: Institute for Macedonian

Language), (pp.123-129)

Milenkovska, S. (2002b) Linearizacija i referencijalna karakteristika na imenskata

sintagma vo akuzativen odnos (Linearization and referential characteristics of

the noun phrases in acusative position). Slavic Studies (Magazine published by

the Slavic studies department at the Faculty of Philology ”Blazhe Koneski”, 10,

(pp. 247-256).

Minova-Gjurkova, L. (2000). Sintaksa na Makedoskiot Standarden Jazik (Syntax of

Standard Macedonian Language). Skopje: Magor

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories. London:Hodder

Arnold

Oshita, H. (2000). What is happened may not be what appears to be happening: a corpus

study of 'passive' unaccusatives in L2 English. Second Language Research,

16(4), (pp. 293-324).

Oshita, H. (2001). The unaccusative trap in second language acquisition. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 23, (pp. 279-304).

Oshita, H. (2004). Is there anything there when there is not there? Null expletives and

second language data. Second Language Research, 20(2), (pp.95-130).

Palacios-Martínez, I., & Martínez-Insua, A. (2006). Connecting linguistic description

and language teaching: native and learner use of existential there. International

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), (pp.213-231).

Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In

Berkeley Linguistics Society, 4, (pp.157-189).

Phinney, M. (1987). The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. In T

Roeper & E. Williams (eds.), Parameter setting, (pp.221–238). Dordrecht:

Reidel.

Pienemann, M. (1988). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech

processing. AILA Review, 5(1), (pp.40-72).

149

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar

of the English language. London: Longman.

Rankin, T. (2011). The transfer of V2: Inversion and negation in German and Dutch

learners of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, (pp.1-20).

Reynolds, D. (1995). Repetition in non-native speaker writing. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 17 (pp.185-209).

Rubin, J. (1987). "Learner Strategies: Theoretical Assumptions. Research History and

Typology." In A.Wenden and J. (eds.). Learner Strategies in Language

Learning. (pp.15-30).

Rutherford, W. (1989). Interlanguage and pragmatic word order. In S. M. Gass & J.

Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp.

163-182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, (pp.205-214).

Scovel, T. (2000). A Critical Review of the Critical Period Research. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics 20, (pp.213-223).

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, X(3),

(pp.209-231)

Singleton, D. (1995). Introduction: A Critical Look at the Critical Period Hypothesis in

Second Language Acquisition Research. In D. Singleton and Z. Lengyel (Eds.),

The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters. (pp.1-29).

Singleton, D., and Ryan, L. (2004). Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-

native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9(1), (pp.22-47).

Sorace, A.,& Filiaci, F., (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian.

Second Language Research 22, (pp.339–368).

150

Sussex, R & Cubberley, P. (2006). The Slavic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Topolinska Z. (1995). Makedonskite dijalekti vo Egejska Makedonija: Sintaksa I del.

(Macedonian Dialects in Aegean Macedonia: Syntax I part.): Skopje:

Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite (Skopje: Macedonian

Academy of Science and Arts).

Yuan, B. (1999). Acquiring the unaccusative/unergative distinction in a second

language: evidence from English-speaking learners of L2 Chinese. Linguistics,

37(2), (pp.275-296).

Venovska-Antevska, S. (1995). Zborored na Makedonskiot Standarden Jazik (Word

Order in Standard Macedonian Language), Literaturen Zbor (Literary Word)5-6,

(pp.63-69).

Ward, G., Birner, B. J., & Huddleston, R. (2002). Information Packaging. In R.

Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English

Language (pp. 1365-1444). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wasow, T. (1997). Remarks on Grammatical Weight. Language Variation and Change,

9 (pp.81-105).

Wasow, T. (1997). End Weight from the Speaker‟s Perspective. Journal of

Psycholinguistic Research, 26/3 (pp.347-361).

Wasow, T., & Arnold, J. (2003). Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In G.

Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation

(pp.119-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, L. (1991). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, (pp.133-161).

White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

White, L. (2009). Grammatical Theory: Interface and L2. In W. C. Ritchie and T.

Bhatia (Eds.), The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. (pp.49-65)

Bingley (United Kingdom): Emerald.

151

White, L. (2011). Second Language Acquisition at the Interfaces, Lingua 121. (pp.577-

590).

Wilson, R., & Dewaele, J.M. (2011) The use of web questionnaires in second language

acquisition and bilingualism research. Second Language Research 26,1 (pp.103–

123).

Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2

acquisition. In S. M. Gass & J. Shachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on

Second Language Acquisition (pp.203-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

152

11 APPENDICES

In the appendices we will present all the experimental material used in the data

collection, as well as the statistical outputs and tables.

11.1 MAIN EXPERIMENTAL TEST: CONTEXTUALISED ACCEPTABILITY

JUDGEMENT TEST (ONLINE VERSION)

In this section we present the experimental tests (online version) that we used to collect

data online about the acceptability of VS with unaccusatives and unergatives. This is the

key test of this dissertation and will be presented according to the L1 of the participants:

English natives (Study on the Acquisition of English Syntax - SAES), L1 Spanish-L2

English learners (Estudio sobre la Adquisición de la Sintaxis del Inglés - EASI) and L1

Macedonian –L2 English learners (Istrazuvanje za Usvojuvanje na Sintaksata na

Angliskiot Jazik - IUSAJ).

The software used to administer the main experimental test was LimeSurvey, which is a

computer application for the design of online questionnaires and experiments. This

software is hosted in the servers at the Universidad de Granada and has been extensively

used worldwide to collect data. See further details in footnote 12, page 96.

11.1.1 MAIN EXPERIMENTAL TEST FOR ENGLISH NATIVES (SAES)

Study on the Acquisition of English Syntax (SAES) English version

Welcome:

We are investigating how Spanish speakers learn English grammar. For comparative purposes, we also need English native speakers like you to participate in this study. This

153

study is part of a larger research project on the acquisition of English grammar, conducted at the Universidad de Granada and the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (for more info

click here).

Participating is very simple. All you need to do is to decide whether some English sentences seem grammatically acceptable to you.

Your data will be anonymous and will be treated confidentially.

There are 37 questions in this survey.

A note on privacy This survey is anonymous.

The record kept of your survey responses does not contain any identifying information about you unless a specific question in the survey has asked for this. If you have responded

to a survey that used an identifying token to allow you to access the survey, you can rest assured that the identifying token is not kept with your responses. It is managed in a

separate database, and will only be updated to indicate that you have (or haven't) completed this survey. There is no way of matching identification tokens with survey

responses in this survey.


You have completed 0% of this survey

0%

100%

PREGUNTAS INICIALES SOBRE EL APRENDIZAJE Por favor, conteste a las siguientes preguntas sobre su historial de aprendizaje en inglés.

*Please state your sex (male/female):

Female

Male

http://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/woslac/

154

Please state your age (years):

Only numbers may be entered in this field

*Please state your mother tongue: Choose one of the following answers

English

Another language



0%

100%

INSTRUCTIONS On the next page you will see some English sentences.

The first part of the sentence provides a bit of a context. The second sentence is the one you have

to judge.

Judging is very simple: 1 if you think that the sentence is totally ungrammatical and 5 if you think it is totally grammatical. You can choose intermediate values, depending on your judgement.

Remember: we are interested in your first reaction.

*For example: Consider the following sentence :

Many students in Spain study only before the exam... ...because they like don't to study during the year.

1 2 3 4 5

155

Choose:

HELP: You have to judge the second sentence "because they like

don't to study during the year" on the 1 to 5 scale.



0%

100%

ENGLISH SENTENCES This is the beginning of the test. Please rate the following sentences:

* Nowadays, if you work as a policeman in Spain, you can easily

get into difficult situations, but... ... I think that it exist many more risky and dangerous jobs.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* In a very important meeting about the world crisis, the world

leaders were waiting for somebody to give a solution… …so there talked the president of the United States.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

156

* Winter finishes around February or March and then the spring

begins because the birds start singing... …and appear the first flowers that grow in the gardens.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* The new building has a shopping centre and some offices. You

can find the shopping centre on the ground floor, … ... but on the top floor work the bosses of important

companies like Microsoft.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* In 2004 there were some terrible terrorist attacks in Madrid.

So, … … some politicians think that it began a new period in

Spanish history.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* The manager of Real Madrid decided that the football match

with Real Valladolid was not important… …so there played only those football players who were very

young.

1 2 3 4 5

157

Choose:

* The Industrial Revolution was a period between the 18th and

the 19th century. Almost every aspect of human life was influenced …

...and came many important changes in the life of people.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* It was a very big conference about medicine. Most talks were

in rooms 1, 2 and 3, … … but in room 4 spoke a very important doctor from Oxford

University.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* Even though we live in a democratic country with plenty of

opportunities,... ... I believe that there exist unlucky people who are

extremely poor.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* The economic crisis is affecting everybody. A lot of workers

are unemployed. The result is… … that work only the people who have a stable job.

158

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* In 1666 a small bakery burned in the centre of London by

accident… …and from this place began a great fire that destroyed the

city.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* Yesterday we were at school doing an exam. The teacher told

us to be silent… …but it talked a boy who complained about the exam

questions.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* For a while, it seemed that nobody in the meeting was going

to say anything about the corruption in the British Government…

...However, there spoke a woman with a very strong Irish accent.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

*

159

Dictionaries often give an unusual definition of some words. For example, think about the word “cool”.

... In my dictionary appears a very interesting definition for this word.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* I was at a funeral yesterday. Everybody got very emotional …

…because talked the wife of the man who had died.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* The house was very dirty. All the windows were closed, the

rooms were dark.... …and from the kitchen came a horrible smell of burning oil.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* There was a basketball competition at school, but John could

not participate… …because played only the children who were 10 years old.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* In 1789 France was a country with a lot of poor people who

160

were unhappy, … …so there began a new revolution called “The French

Revolution”.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* My American friend, Paul, thinks that in Spain people are very

lazy and… …that it work only the people who are very ambitious.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* Nowadays, it is very dangerous to walk alone at night in a big

city... ...because in those cities exist many dangerous criminals

who could kill you.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* Spain was not a democratic country for many years, but when

democracy arrived… …there appeared a great variety of new social problems.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

*

161

After the Spanish civil war, the country was so poor that there were no toys for children, so...

…I think that it played only the children of people who were rich.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* In the conference several speakers talked about the economic

crisis. They all met later for dinner … …and spoke the president of the Economic Society of

America.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* Some historians believe that 1940 is a very important year …

…because began a terrible war called the 'Second World War'.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* In the 1970’s AIDS was an unknown illness. At the end of the

1980’s it was better known... …but it came discrimination against people infected by the

illness.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

162

*A lot of university students have recently complained about the 'Bologna process', but...

...some experts say that exist some students who support it.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* When I was at school, there was a special playing area, …

…but in this area played only the boys and girls who behaved well.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* After several hours of discussion about work conditions,

everybody thought the meeting had finished... ...but it spoke a very angry man who started shouting.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* Nowadays, people think that teachers do not work too much,

but the fact is that... ... there work only those teachers who are motivated.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* Tourists are always interested in visiting the Houses of

163

Parliament in London … … because in that place talk the most important politicians

of the United Kingdom.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* The economic crisis in the 1970’s affected the financial markets first. Then it affected a lot of companies and

business, … ... so there came a dramatic increase of 45% in

unemployment.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

* Malaria is one of the most common infectious diseases. In the

1980s people were optimistic… …because it appeared a new medicine that was effective

against malaria.

1 2 3 4 5

Choose:

Please, if you wish, write any final comment or remark on the test (doutbs, opinions, problematic areas, etc.)

(This is an optional question)

164

11.1.2 MAIN EXPERIMENTAL TEST FOR L1 SPA-L2 ENG LEARNERS (EASI)

EASI (Estudio sobre Adquisición de la Sintaxis del Inglés)

Bienvenido/a.

Dentro del proyecto de investigación OPOGRAM (Opcionalidad y Pseudo-

Opcionalidad en Gramáticas nativas y no nativas), financiado por el Ministerio de Innovación y Ciencia, estamos estudiando cómo aprenden inglés los hablantes

nativos de español.

Participar en el estudio es muy sencillo. El estudio es anónimo, está disponible "online" y solo tienes que decidir si unas oraciones te suenan mejor que otras (unos 15 minutos aprox.). Sólo pueden participar hablantes de español

que sepan inglés (cualquier nivel).

Al finalizar, recibirás un certificado de participación en el experimento.

Posteriormente publicaremos los resultados globales del experimento en esta página web. Si quieres saber más sobre nosotros y nuestro trabajo de

investigación, consulta la página web (WOSLAC).

En primer lugar, te haremos algunas preguntas sencillas sobre su historial de

aprendizaje del inglés.

Hay 45 preguntas en esta encuesta.

Nota sobre la privacidad Esta encuesta es anónima.

Los registros que contienen sus respuestas a la encuesta no contienen ninguna

identificación suya a menos que una pregunta específicamente así lo haga. Si responde a

esta encuesta utilizando una contraseña que le da acceso al cuestionario, puede estar

seguro que la misma no se asocia a ninguna de sus respuestas. Ésto se administra en una

tabla de datos separada, que sólo se actualiza para indicar que ha completado o no la

encuesta, pero sin establecer vínculo alguno con la tabla donde se almacenan sus


165

respuestas, por lo que no hay manera de asociar una respuesta con la persona que la hizo.


Usted ha completado 0% de esta encuesta

0%

100%

PREGUNTAS INICIALES SOBRE EL APRENDIZAJE Por favor, conteste a las siguientes preguntas sobre su historial de aprendizaje en inglés.

*Por favor, escriba su DNI para verificar que usted ya ha hecho el Oxford Placement Test:

*Indique su sexo:

Femenino

Masculino

Indique su edad (años):

Sólo se aceptan números en este campo

Indique el nombre de su universidad o colegio (si actualmente no está estudiando, ponga "ninguno").

166

¿Cuánto tiempo lleva aprendiendo inglés? (aproximadamente en años)

Sólo se aceptan números en este campo

Si usted ha estado alguna vez en un país de habla inglesa, indique los paises y la duración de la estancia. (Si nunca lo ha estado, ignore esta pregunta)

*Indique su lengua materna:

Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

Español

Otra lengua

*¿Cuál es la lengua materna de su padre? Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

Español

Inglés

Otra lengua

*¿Cuál es la lengua materna de su madre? Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

Español

Inglés

Otra lengua

167

*¿Qué idiomas habla usted en casa? Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

Español

Español y otra(s) lengua(s)

*Indique cuál cree usted que es su dominio aproximado del inglés:

Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

Avanzado alto (C2)

Avanzado bajo (C1)

Intermedio alto (B2)

Intermedio bajo (B1)

Principiante alto (A2)

Principiante bajo (A1)

EASI (Estudio sobre Adquisición de la Sintaxis del Inglés) UAM


0%

100%

INSTRUCCIONES En la página siguiente, usted verá una serie de oraciones en inglés.

La primera parte de la oración proporciona algo de contexto. La segunda parte es la que usted

tiene que valorar.

La valoración es muy sencilla: 1 si cree que la estructura de la oración no está bien, y 5 si cree que su estructura está bien. Usted puede elegir valores intermedios, dependiendo de lo que usted

piense sobre su estructura. O sea, a mayor puntuación, mejor estructuralidad oracional, según su opinión.

168

RECUERDE: esto no es un examen. Nos interesan todas sus respuestas y también su primera

reacción.

*Por ejemplo: Considere la siguiente oración a modo de prueba:


1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

Ayuda: usted tiene que valorar la segunda oración "because they like don't to study during the year" en la

escala del 1 al 5.



0%

100%

ORACIONES EN INGLÉS Aquí comienza el test. Por favor, juzgue las siguientes oraciones:

* Nowadays, if you work as a policeman in Spain, you can

easily get into difficult situations, but... ... I think that it exist many more risky and dangerous jobs.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

169

* In a very important meeting about the world crisis, the

world leaders were waiting for somebody to give a solution…

…so there talked the president of the United States.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* Winter finishes around February or March and then the

spring begins because the birds start singing... …and appear the first flowers that grow in the gardens.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* The new building has a shopping centre and some offices. You can find the shopping centre on the ground floor, …

... but on the top floor work the bosses of important companies like Microsoft.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:



Spanish history.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

170

* The manager of Real Madrid decided that the football

match with Real Valladolid was not important… …so there played only those football players who were

very young.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* The Industrial Revolution was a period between the 18th and the 19th century. Almost every aspect of human life

was influenced … ...and came many important changes in the life of people.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* It was a very big conference about medicine. Most talks

were in rooms 1, 2 and 3, … … but in room 4 spoke a very important doctor from

Oxford University.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:



extremely poor.

1 2 3 4 5

171

Elija:



1 2 3 4 5

Elija:



city.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* Yesterday we were at school doing an exam. The teacher

told us to be silent… …but it talked a boy who complained about the exam

questions.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:



...However, there spoke a woman with a very strong Irish

172

accent.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* Dictionaries often give an unusual definition of some words.

For example, think about the word “cool”. ... In my dictionary appears a very interesting definition for

this word.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* I was at a funeral yesterday. Everybody got very emotional

… …because talked the wife of the man who had died.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:


rooms were dark.... …and from the kitchen came a horrible smell of burning

oil.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* There was a basketball competition at school, but John

173

could not participate… …because played only the children who were 10 years old.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:



Revolution”.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* My American friend, Paul, thinks that in Spain people are

very lazy and… …that it work only the people who are very ambitious.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* Nowadays, it is very dangerous to walk alone at night in a

big city... ...because in those cities exist many dangerous criminals

who could kill you.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

*

174

Spain was not a democratic country for many years, but when democracy arrived…

…there appeared a great variety of new social problems.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* After the Spanish civil war, the country was so poor that

there were no toys for children, so... …I think that it played only the children of people who

were rich.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* In the conference several speakers talked about the

economic crisis. They all met later for dinner … …and spoke the president of the Economic Society of

America.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* Some historians believe that 1940 is a very important year

… …because began a terrible war called the 'Second World

War'.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

175



illness.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:



1 2 3 4 5

Elija:



1 2 3 4 5

Elija:



1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

176

* Nowadays, people think that teachers do not work too

much, but the fact is that... ... there work only those teachers who are motivated.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:


Parliament in London … … because in that place talk the most important politicians

of the United Kingdom.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:



unemployment.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

* Malaria is one of the most common infectious diseases. In

the 1980s people were optimistic… …because it appeared a new medicine that was effective

against malaria.

1 2 3 4 5

Elija:

177

Por favor, si lo desea, escriba cualquier comentario u observación que desee hacer con respecto al cuestionario (dudas, opiniones, áreas problemáticas del cuestionario,

etc.)

Esta pregunta es opcional.

11.1.3 MAIN EXPERIMENTAL TESTS FOR L1 MACED-L2 ENG (IUSAJ)

IUSAJ

Pocituvani,

Ova istrazuvanje nareceno “IUSAJ” (Istrazuvanje za Usvojuvanje na Sintaksata na Angliskiot Jazik) go proucuva nacinot na koj govoritelite na makedonski jazik kako majcin jazik go

usvojuvaat angliskiot jazik. Ovaa studija e del od istrazuvackiot proekt OPOGRAM (Opcionalnost I Psevdo-Opcionalnost vo Gramatikite na Majcin I Nemajcin Jazik) na

Avtonomniot Univerzitet vo Madrid i Univerzitetot vo Granada (poveke informacii za ovoj proekt mozete da najdete ovde).

Ucestvoto vo ova studija e mnogu ednostavno. Istrazuvanjeto e anonimno, dostapno e

“online” i moze da ucestvuvaat samo govoriteli na makedonski jazik kako majcin jazik, koi ucat ili imaat poznavanje od angliski jazik (koe bilo nivo).

Ova testiranje se sostoi od dva dela:


178

1. PRASALNIK ZA USVOENO ZNAENJE. Prviot del e prasalnik koj se odnesuva na vaseto usvoeno znaenje od angliski jazik. Ednostavno, treba samo da odlucite koja recenica vi zvuci dobro a koja ne (ne obrnuvajte vnimanie na zborovite vo recenicata tuku samo na strukturata). Nema tocni ili netocni odgovori. Vazno e samo vaseto mislenje za strukturata

na recenicite.

2. TEST ZA ODREDUVANJE NA GRAMATICKO NIVO. Vtoriot test go odreduva vaseto poznavanje na gramatika na angliski jazik. Rezultatite se doverlivi, ke vi bidat dostapni

samo vas i ke gi dobiete vo sandaceto na vasata elektronska posta. Programata isto taka vi kazuva I koi delovi od angliskata gramatika mozete da gi podobrite.

Vo prodolzenie sledi prasalnikot za usvoeno znaenje.

There are 45 questions in this survey.

A Note On Privacy This survey is anonymous.

The record kept of your survey responses does not contain any identifying information about you unless a specific question in the survey has asked for this. If you have responded

to a survey that used an identifying token to allow you to access the survey, you can rest assured that the identifying token is not kept with your responses. It is managed in a

separate database, and will only be updated to indicate that you have (or haven't) completed this survey. There is no way of matching identification tokens with survey

responses in this survey.

IUSAJ UGR


0%

100%

PRASANJA ZA VASETO PRETHODNO IZUCUVANJE NA ANGLISKI JAZIK Ve molime odgovorete gi slednive prasanja povrzani so vaseto prethodno izucuvanje na angliski

jazik.

*Ve molime vnesete ja adresata na vasata elektronska posta na koja ke vi

bidat isprateni rezultatite od testot:

179

*Pol:

Женски

Машки

Vozrast (godini):

Onl nu bers ma be entered in this field

Vnesete broevi

Navedete go imeto na vasiot univerzitet ili uciliste (dokolku vo momentot ne studirate navedete “ne studiram”).

¿Kolku vreme imate uceno angliski jazik? (prosecno vo godini)

Only numbers may be entered in this field

Vnesete broevi

Dokolku imate prestojuvano vo nekoja zemja od anglisko govorno podracje navedete kade i kolku vreme.

(Dokolku nikogas ne ste prestojuvale, prodolzete na slednoto prasanje).

*Navedete go vasiot majcin jazik:

Choose one of the following answers

Makedonski

Drug jazik

180

Odberete edna od slednive opcii

*¿Koj e majciniot jazik na vasiot tatko? Choose one of the following answers

Makedonski

Drug jazik


*¿Koj e majciniot jazik na vasata majka?


Makedonski

Drug jazik


*¿Na koj jazik zboruvate doma? Choose one of the following answers

Makedonski

Drug jazik


*

Navedete go vaseto mislenje za vaseto nivo na poznavanje na angliskiot jazik:


Napredno visoko (C2)

Napredno nisko (C1)

181

Sredno visoko (B2)

Sredno nisko (B1)

Osnovno visoko (A2)

Osnovno nisko (A1)


IUSAJ UGR


0%

100%

INSTRUKCII

Na slednata stranica ke vidite redosled od recenici na angliski jazik.

Prviot del od recenicata se odnesuva na kontekstot. Vie treba da go ocenite vtoriot del.

Ocenuvanjeto e mnogu ednostavno: odberete 1 dokolku mislite deka strukturata na recenicata ne e dobra i 5 dokolku mislite deka strukturata e dobra. Mozete da odberete i sredni vrednosti, vo

zavisnot od vaseto mislenje za toa kolku dobro e sostavena recenicata (zaradi toa, ne obrnuvajte vnimanie na zborovite tuku samo na strukturata).

ZAPOMNETE: ova ne e test. Ne interesiraat site vasi odgovori i vasata prvicna reakcija na recenicite.

*

*Na primer:Slednata recenica vi pokazuva na koj nacin se ocenuvaat recenicite vo prasalnikot

182


1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

Pomos: treba da ja ocenite slednava recenica "because they

like don't to study during the year" na skala od 1 do 5.

IUSAJ UGR


0%

100%

RECENICI NA ANGLISKI Ovde pocnuva testot. Ve molime ocenete gi slednive recenici:

* Nowadays, if you work as a policeman in Spain, you can easily

get into difficult situations, but... ... I think that it exist many more risky and dangerous jobs.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* In a very important meeting about the world crisis, the world

leaders were waiting for somebody to give a solution… …so there talked the president of the United States.

183

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* Winter finishes around February or March and then the spring

begins because the birds start singing... …and appear the first flowers that grow in the gardens.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* The new building has a shopping centre and some offices. You

can find the shopping centre on the ground floor, … ... but on the top floor work the bosses of important

companies like Microsoft.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:



Spanish history.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* The manager of Real Madrid decided that the football match

with Real Valladolid was not important…

184

…so there played only those football players who were very young.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* The Industrial Revolution was a period between the 18th and

the 19th century. Almost every aspect of human life was influenced …

...and came many important changes in the life of people.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* It was a very big conference about medicine. Most talks were

in rooms 1, 2 and 3, … … but in room 4 spoke a very important doctor from Oxford

University.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:



extremely poor.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

185



1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:



city.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* Yesterday we were at school doing an exam. The teacher told

us to be silent… …but it talked a boy who complained about the exam

questions.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:



...However, there spoke a woman with a very strong Irish accent.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

186

* Dictionaries often give an unusual definition of some words.

For example, think about the word “cool”. ... In my dictionary appears a very interesting definition for

this word.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* I was at a funeral yesterday. Everybody got very emotional …

…because talked the wife of the man who had died.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:


rooms were dark.... …and from the kitchen came a horrible smell of burning oil.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* There was a basketball competition at school, but John could

not participate… …because played only the children who were 10 years old.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

187



Revolution”.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* My American friend, Paul, thinks that in Spain people are very

lazy and… …that it work only the people who are very ambitious.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* Nowadays, it is very dangerous to walk alone at night in a big

city... ...because in those cities exist many dangerous criminals

who could kill you.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* Spain was not a democratic country for many years, but when

democracy arrived… …there appeared a great variety of new social problems.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

188

* After the Spanish civil war, the country was so poor that there

were no toys for children, so... …I think that it played only the children of people who were

rich.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* In the conference several speakers talked about the economic

crisis. They all met later for dinner … …and spoke the president of the Economic Society of

America.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* Some historians believe that 1940 is a very important year …

…because began a terrible war called the 'Second World War'.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:



illness.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

189



1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:



1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:



1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* Nowadays, people think that teachers do not work too much,

but the fact is that... ... there work only those teachers who are motivated.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

190


Parliament in London … … because in that place talk the most important politicians of

the United Kingdom.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:



unemployment.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

* Malaria is one of the most common infectious diseases. In the

1980s people were optimistic… …because it appeared a new medicine that was effective

against malaria.

1 2 3 4 5

Odberete:

Ve molime, dokolku sakate, napisete nekakov komentar za prasalnikot (nejasnosti, mislenje, problematicni delovi i slicno)

Ova prasanje e izborno

191

11.1.4 RANDOMIZATION OF SENTENCES IN THE MAIN EXPERIMENTAL TEST

In order to avoid order-of-presentation effects, which are typical in experimental tests in

psychology and language acquisition research, the stimuli (sentences) presented to

participants in the main experimental test were randomized so as to minimize these

effects. We also intended to randomize the order of presentation for each participant,

but the software used (LimeSurvey) did not allow this.

ORDER OF DESIGN: ORDER OF PRESENTATION:

1 unac-exist-it 1

2 unac-exist-there 18

3 unac-exist-zero 7

4 unac-exist-pp 24

5 unac-appear-it 9

6 unac-appear-there 26

7 unac-appear-zero 15

8 unac-appear-pp 32

9 unac-begin-it 2

10 unac-begin-there 23

11 unac-begin-zero 12

12 unac-begin-pp 17

13 unac-come-it 30

14 unac-come-there 8

15 unac-come-zero 19

16 unac-come-pp 16

17 unerg-talk-it 27

18 unerg-talk-there 10

19 unerg-talk-zero 21

20 unerg-talk-pp 4

21 unerg-work-it 6

22 unerg-work-there 25

23 unerg-work-zero 31

24 unerg-work-pp 11

25 unerg-play-it 13

26 unerg-play-there 3

27 unerg-play-zero 28

28 unerg-play-pp 29

29 unerg-speak-it 22

192

30 unerg-speak-there 20

31 unerg-speak-zero 74

32 unerg-speak-pp 5

11.2 OPT (OXFORD PLACEMENT TEST)

The Oxford Placement Test was administered to both L1 Spa-L2 Eng and L1 Maced-

L2Eng learners in an online format.

Oxford Placement Test 1

Grammar Test PART 1

Look at these examples. The correct answer has been marked.

i. In warm climates people sitting outside in the sun. [INSERT SCAN OF

ANSWER SHEET]

a) like b) likes c) are liking

ii. If it is very hot, they sit the shade.

a) at b) in c) under

Now the test will begin. Mark the correct answers on the answer sheet.

1. Water at a temperature of 100ºC.

a) is to boil b) is boiling c) boils

2. In some countries very hot all the time.

a) there is b) is c) it is

3. In cold countries people wear thick clothes warm.

a) for keeping b) to keep c) for to keep

4. In England people are always talking about .

a) a weather b) the weather c) weather

5. In some places almost every day.

a) it rains b) there rains c) it raining

6. In deserts there isn‟t grass.

a) the b) some c) any

193

7. Places near the Equator have weather even in the cold season.

a) a warm b) the warm c) warm

8. In England time of year is usually from December to February.

a) coldest b) the coldest c) colder

9. people don‟t know what it‟s really like in other countries.

a) The most b) Most of c) Most

10. Very people can travel abroad.

a) less b) little c) few

11. Mohammed Ali his first world title fight in 1960.

a) has won b) won c) is winning

12. After he an Olympic gold medal he became a professional boxer.

a) had won b) have won c) was winning

13. His religious beliefs change his name when he became champion.

a) have made him b) made him to c) made him

14. If he lost his first fight with Sonny Liston, no one would have been surprised.

a) has b) would have c) had

15. He has travelled a lot as a boxer and as a world-famous personality.

a) both b) and c) or

16. He is very well known the world.

a) all in b) all over c) in all

17. Many people he was the greatest boxer of all time.

a) is believing b) are believing c) believe

18. To be the best the world is not easy.

a) from b) in c) of

19. Like any top sportsman Ali train very hard.

a) had to b) must c) should

20. Such is his fame that people always remember him as a champion.

a) would b) will c) did

21. The history of is a) aeroplane b) the aeroplane c) an aeroplane

194

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

short one. For many centuries men

to fly, but with

success. In the 19th century a few people

succeeded in balloons. But it wasn‟t until

the beginning of the century that anybody

able to fly in a machine

was heavier than air, in other words, in

we now call a „plane‟. The first people to achieve

„powered flight‟ were the Wright brothers. was

the machine which was the forerunner of the jumbo jets

that are common sight today.

They hardly have imagined that in 1969,

more than half a century later,

a man walking on the moon.

Already is taking the first steps towards the stars.

Space satellites have now existed around

half a century and we are dependent them for all

kinds of . Not only

being used for scientific research in

space, but also to see what kind of weather .

By 2008 there have been satellites in space for fifty

years and the „space superpowers‟ will be massive

space stations built. When these completed

it will be the first time astronauts will be

able to work in space in large numbers. all that,

in many ways the most remarkable flight all was

of the flying bicycle, which the world saw

on television, across the Channel from England to

France, with nothing a man to power it. As the

bicycle-flyer said, „It‟s the first time what hard work

it is to be a bird!‟

a) quite a

a) are trying

a) little

a) to fly

a) this

a) were

a) who

a) who

a) His

a) such

a) could

a) not much

a) will be

a) a man

a) since

a) from

a) informations

a) are they

a) is coming

a) would

a) having

a) will be

a) when

a) Apart

a) of

a) it

a) flying

a) apart

a) I realize

b) a quite

b) try

b) few

b) in flying

b) next

b) is

b) which

b) which

b) Their

b) such a

b) should

b) not many

b) had been

b) man

b) during

b) of

b) information

b) they are

b) comes

b) must

b) making

b) are

b) where

b) For

b) above

b) that

b) to fly

b) but

b) I‟ve realized

c) quite

c) had tried

c) a little

c) into flying

c) last

c) was

c) what

c) what

c) Theirs

c) so

c) couldn‟t

c) no much

c) would be

c) the man

c) for

c) on

c) an information

c) there are

c) coming

c) will

c) letting

c) will have been

c) that

c) Except

c) at

c) that one

c) fly

c) than

c) I am realizing

Grammar Test PART 2

195

51. Many teachers their students should learn a foreign language.

a) say to b) say c) tell

52. Learning a second language is not the same learning a first language.

a) as b) like c) than

53. It takes to learn any language.

a) long time b) long c) a long time

54. It is said that Chinese is perhaps the world‟s language to master.

a) harder b) hardest c) more hard

55. English is quite difficult because of all the exceptions have to be learnt.

a) who b) which c) what

56. You can learn the basic structures of a language quite quickly, but only if you an effort.

a) are wanting b) will to c) are willing to

57. A lot of people aren‟t used grammar in their own language.

a) to the study b) to study c) to studying

58. Many adult students of English wish they their language studies earlier.

a) would start b) would have started c) had started

59. In some countries students have to spend a lot of time working their own.

a) on b) by c) in

60. There aren‟t easy ways of learning a foreign language in your own country.

a) no b) any c) some

61. Some people try to improve their English by the BBC World Service.

a) hearing b) listening c) listening to

62. with a foreign family can be a good way to learn a language.

a) Live b) Life c) Living

63. It‟s no use to learn a language just by studying a dictionary.

a) to try b) trying c) in trying

64. Many students of English take tests.

a) would rather not b) would rather prefer not c) would rather not to

65. Some people think it‟s time we all a single international language.

a) learn b) should learn c) learnt

196

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

Charles Walker is a teacher at a comprehensive school in Norwich.

He the staff of the school in 1998

and there ever since.

Before to Norwich, he taught in Italy and in Wales, and

before that he a student at Cambridge University. So far

he in Norwich for as long as he was in Wales, but he likes

the city a lot and like to stay there for at least another two

years, or, he puts it, until his two children

grown up a bit. He met his wife, Kate, in 1992

while he abroad for a while,

and they got married in 1996. Their two children, Mark

and Susan, both born in Norwich.

The Walkers‟ boy, is five,

has just started at school, but sister

at home for another couple of years,

because she is nearly two years than him.

Charles and Kate Walker to live in the country,

but now that they have children, they into the city.

Charles wanted a house the

school get to work easily.

Unfortunately one the two of them really wanted was

too expensive, so they buy one a bit further away.

By the time the children to secondary school,

Charles and Kate hope will be in Norwich,

the Walkers living there for at least fifteen years.

They can‟t be sure if they ,

but if they , their friends won‟t be too surprised.

a) has joined

a) has been working

a) move

a) has been

a) isn‟t

a) should

a) how

a) have

a) was to live

a) are

a) who

a) his

a) shall stay

a) younger

a) are used

a) have moved

a) next

a) in order

a) the

a) must

a) go

a) that

a) will have been

a) stay

a) don‟t

b) joined

b) worked

b) to move

b) was

b) wasn‟t

b) would

b) which

b) will have

b) was living

b) were

b) which

b) their

b) stays

b) more young

b) use

b) move

b) near

b) for

b) a

b) should

b) will go

b) which

b) have been

b) do stay

b) didn‟t

c) joins

c) works

c) moving

c) was being

c) hasn‟t been

c) could

c) as

c) will be

c) had been living

c) have been

c) he

c) her

c) will be staying

c) the younger

c) used

c) moved

c) close

c) to

c) that

c) had to

c) will have gone

c) what

c) will be

c) will stay

c) won‟t

Look at the following examples of question tags in English. The correct form of the tag has been marked.

i. He‟s getting the 9.15 train, ?

a) isn‟t he b) hasn‟t he c) wasn‟t he

ii. She works in a library, ?

197

a) isn‟t she b) doesn‟t she c) doesn‟t he [INSERT SCAN OF ANSWER

SHEET]

iii. Tom didn‟t tell you, ?

a) hasn‟t he b) didn‟t he c) did he

iv. Someone‟s forgotten to switch off the gas, ?

a) didn‟t one b) didn‟t they c) haven‟t they

Now, on the answer sheet, mark the correct question tag in the following 10 items:

91. John‟s coming to see you, ?

a) hasn‟t he b) wasn‟t he c) isn‟t he

92. It‟s been a long time since you‟ve seen him, ?

a) hasn‟t it b) isn‟t it c) haven‟t you

93. He‟s due to arrive tomorrow, ?

a) won‟t he b) isn‟t he c) will he

94. He won‟t be getting in till about 10.30, ?

a) isn‟t he b) is he c) will he

95. You met him while you were on holiday, ?

a) didn‟t you b) weren‟t you c) haven‟t you

96. I think I‟m expected to pick him up, ?

a) aren‟t I b) don‟t I c) are you

97. No doubt you‟d rather he stayed in England now, ?

a) didn‟t you b) wouldn‟t you c) shouldn‟t you

98. Nobody else has been told he‟s coming, ?

a) is he b) has he c) have they

99. We‟d better not stay up too late tonight, ?

a) didn‟t we b) have we c) had we

100. I suppose it‟s time we called it a day, ?

a) didn‟t we b) isn‟t it c) don‟t

11.3 PILOT STUDY ON MACEDONIAN NATIVES‟ INTUITIONS ON

UNACCUSATIVITY

198

In the following sections we list the pilot study used to test Macedonian native

speakers‟ sensitivity to SV/VS distribution with unaccusatives and unergatives, as

described in section 2.2.3.3.2, page 72. This is followed by the raw data.

11.3.1 PILOT STUDY ON MACEDONIAN NATIVES: THE TEST

We will include the test instructions and stimuli followed by their English translation.

Understandably, the online version of test contained only the Macedonian stimuli and

can be accessed at the following link:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=tiJgNC795kZwR8bjk5GieA#e

dit

Збороред во македонски реченици

Word order in Macedonian sentences

ИНСТРУКЦИИ : Почитувани,

Ова е краток експеримент кој истражува кој збороред им

звучи поприродно на говорителите на Македонски јазик како

мајчин јазик. Подолу има 16 реченици за кои ни треба вашето

мислење. Треба да ги прочитате речениците и да одберете

еден од двата дадени одговори без да мислите кој одговор е

точен. Двете опции се точни но нам ни треба вашето мислење

кој одговор ви звучи ПОПРИРОДНО. Пред да започнете со

прашалникот Ве молиме впишете ја Вашата емаил адреса и

податоци за возраст. По завршувањето на тестот само

кликнете на копчето SUBMIT и ние автоматски ке ги добиеме

вашите одговори.

Ви благодариме на времето одвоено за овој експеримент.

INSTRUCTIONS: Dear participants

This is a short experiment studying which word order sounds

more natural to native speakers of Macedonian. We have

listed 16 sentences below and we need your opinion about

them. Please read the sentences and choose one of the two

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=tiJgNC795kZwR8bjk5GieA#edit

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=tiJgNC795kZwR8bjk5GieA#edit

199

given answers without thinking which one is correct. Both

answers are correct but we need your opinion on which one

of them sounds more NATURAL. Before you start doing the

questionnaire please write your email address and age

information in the designated space. After you finish the

test click on the SUBMIT button and we will automatically

receive your answers.

Thank you for your time.

1. neutral context – unaccusatives / COME

Вчера на факултетот имаше предавања по граматика. Ти

присуствуваше, но Ана неможеше да дојде. Таа ти се јави

денес и те праша: “Што се случи вчера на предавањата?” Ти

ќе одговориш:

1) Нов професор дојде (SV)

2) Дојде нов професор (VS)

Yesterday there were lectures on grammar at the faculty.

You attended the lectures but Ana was not able to come. She

called you today and asked: “What happened yesterday at the

lectures”? You reply:

1) A new professor came (SV)

2) Came a new professor (VS)

2. presentational context – unaccusatives / EXIST

Гледаш документарец за некои натприродни суштества во

Трансилванија. Доаѓа твојата сестра и прашува: “Постои ли

нешто чудно во Трансилванија?“ Ти одговараш:

200

1) вампири постојат (SV)

2) постојат вампири (VS)

You are watching a documentary about supernatural creatures

in Transilvania. Your sister comes and asks: “Does anything

weird exist in Transilvania?” You answer:

1) vampires exist (SV)

2) exist vampires (VS)

3. presentational context – unergatives / WORK

На гости доаѓа твојата пријателка Сања која забележува дека

твојата градина е многу убаво средена и прашува: Кој

работеше во градинава? Ти одговараш:

1) Една сосетка работеше (SV)

2) Работеше еден сосетка (VS)

Your friend Sanya comes to visit you and she makes a

comment about your beautifully arranged garden by asking:

Who worked in the garden? You answer:

1) A neighbor worked (SV)

2) Worked a neighbor (VS)

4. neutral context – unaccusatives / BEGIN

Гледаш вести со семејството и почнувате загрижено да

разговарате за некоја вест која штотуку ја слушнавте. Доаѓа

твојата мајка и прашува: “Што се случи“? Ти одговараш:

1) почна војна (VS)

2) војна почна (SV)

201

You are watching the news with your family and you start

talking worriedly about some news you have just heard.

Your mother enters and asks: “ What happened?” You answer:

1) began a war (VS)

2) a war began (SV)

5. presentational context – unergatives / PLAY

Твојата ќерка доаѓа дома од училиште и веднаш забележува

дека некој си играл со нејзината омилена кукла додека таа

не била дома. Веднаш прашува: “Кој си играше со куклата“?

Ти одговараш:

1) едно девојче си играше (SV)

2) си играше едно девојче (VS)

Your daughter comes back from school and notices that

someone has been playing with her favourite doll while she

was not at home. She asks immediately: “Who played with the

doll”? You answer:

1) a girl played (SV)

2) played a girl (VS)

6. neutral context – unaccusatives / APPEAR

Гледаш хорор филм со Весна и заѕвонува нејзиниот телефон.

Таа излегуваш од собата и се враќа по завршувањето на

разговорот. Во меѓувреме испушти еден дел од филмот и

прашува: “Што се случи“? Ти одговараш:

1) се појави дух (VS)

2) дух се појави (SV)

You are watching a horror film with Vesna when her

telephone rings. She goes out of the room and she comes

202

back after she has finished the conversation. She missed

one part of the film and asks: “What happened”? You answer:

1) appeared a ghost (VS)

2) a ghost appeared (SV)

7. neutral context– unergatives / SPEAK

Вчера разговараше со твојата пријателка Марта и и кажа

дека ќе одиш на некоја прес-конференција. Се видовте денес

и таа те праша: “ Што се случи вчера на прес-

конференцијата?“ Ти одговараш:

1) една поп-ѕвезда зборуваше (SV)

2) зборуваше една поп-ѕвезда (VS)

You talked to your friend Marta yesterday and you told her

you were going to go at a press conference. Today you saw

her and she asked: “ What happened at the press

conference?” You answer:

1) a pop-star spoke (SV)

2) spoke a pop-star (VS)

8. presentational context – unaccusatives / COME

Ти си на забава со твојата пријателка Тања. Таа оди да си

земе пијачка и во меѓувреме на забавата доаѓа некој

непознат човек. Тања се враќа, забележува дека некој дошол

и прашува: “Кој дојде“? Ти одговараш:

1) еден човек дојде (SV)

2) дојде еден човек (VS)

You are at a party with your friend Tanya. She goes to get

a drink and in the meantime there comes an unknown man.

203

Tanya returns, notices that someone has come and asks: “Who

came”? You answer:

1) a man came (SV)

2) came a man (VS)

9. neutral context – unaccusatives / EXIST

Твојата пријателка сака да знае што е актуелно во

политичката состојба во Македонија и те прашува: “Што се

случува во политиката во Македонија?“. Ти одговараш:

1) корупција постои (SV)

2) постои корупција (VS)

Your friend would like to know something more about the

political situation in Macedonia and she asks: “What is

happening in Macedonian politics?”. You reply:

1) corruption exists (SV)

2) exists corruption (VS)

10. neutral context – unergatives / CRY

Синоќа те разбуди едно дете кое почна да плаче на улицата и

после тоа неможеше да заспиеш. Ова утро пријателката го

забележува твоето ненаспано лице и прашува: “ Што се

случи“? Ти одговараш:

1) плачеше едно дете (SV)

2) едно дете плачеше (VS)

Last night you were awaken by a child who started crying in

the street and you could sleep afterwards. This morning

your friend notices your sleepy face and asks:” What

happened”? You answer:

204

1) a child cried (SV)

2) cried a child (VS)

11. neutral context – unergatives / WORK

Гледаш репортажа за тешкиот живот во Индија. Доаѓа твојата

мајка и прашува: “ Што се случува во фабриките во Индија?“

Ти одговараш:

1) деца работат (SV)

2) работат деца (VS)

You are watching a reportage about the difficult life

conditions in India. Your mother comes and asks: “What is

happening in the factories in India?” You answer:

1) children work (SV)

2) work children (VS)

12. presentational context – unaccusatives /

APPEAR

Додека разговарате со пријателката некој ѕвони на вратата.

Одиш да отвориш и се враќаш со изненаден израз на лицето.

Пријателката прашува: Кој се појави на вратата? Ти

одговараш:

1) еден просјак се појави (SV)

2) се појави еден просјак (VS)

While you are talking with your friend someone rings the

bell. You go to open the door and you come back with a

surprised look on your face. Your friend asks: “ Who

appeared at the door”? You answer:

1) a beggar appeared (SV)

205

2) appeared a beggar (VS)

13. neutral context – unergatives / PLAY

Твојата мајка доаѓа дома без да знае дека претходно сте

имале гости кои имаат мало дете. Гледа доста работи

оставени на подот и прашува: “Што се случи“?Ти одговараш:

1) едно дете си играше (SV)

2) си играше едно дете (VS)

Your mother comes home without knowing that previously you

had guests who have a small child. She sees a lot of things

left on the floor and she asks : “What happened”? You

answer:

1) A child played (SV)

2) played a child (VS)

14. presentational context – unergatives / SPEAK

Твојот колега Марко неможеше да присуствува на состанокот

за финансиската состојба на фирмата и те прашува: “Кој

зборуваше на состанокот?“ Ти одговараш:

1) еден економист зборуваше (SV)

2) зборуваше еден економист (VS)

Your colleague Marko was not able to attend the meeting

about the financial situation of the company and he asks.

“Who spoke at the meeting?” You answer:

1) an economist spoke (SV)

2) spoke an economist (VS)

15. presentational context – unaccusatives / BEGIN

206

На една домашна забава забележуваш како повеќето од

присутните момци седнуваат пред телевизорот. Ана го

збаележува истото и те прашува: “Што мислиш дека почна на

телевизија“? Ти одговараш:

1) натпревар почна (SV)

2) почна натпревар (VS)

At a home party you notice how most of the present men

suddenly sit in front of the TV. Ana notices the same thing

and asks you: “What do you think began on the TV”? You

answer:

1) a match began (SV)

2) began a match (VS)

16. presentational context – unergatives / CRY

Одиш на кино да изгледаш некој филм. При крај на филмот

една жена која седи близу до тебе почна да плаче. По

завршувањето на филмот ја среќаваш Ана која исто така го

гледала филмот и слушнала како некој плаче. Таа прашува: “

Кој плачеше “? Ти одговараш:

1) плачеше една жена (VS)

2) една жена плачеше (SV)

You go to the cinema to watch a film. Towards the end of

the film a woman who sits close to you starts to cry. After

the end of the film you meet Ana who also watched the film

and heard someone crying. She asks: “ Who cried”? You

answer:

1) cried a woman (VS)

2) a woman cried (SV)

207

ДОКОЛКУ ИМАТЕ НЕКОЈ КОМЕНТАР ЗА ТЕСТОТ ВЕ МОЛИМЕ ВПИШЕТЕ ГО

ВО ПРАЗНИТЕ МЕСТА ПОДОЛУ.

ВИ БЛАГОДАРИМЕ ЗА УЧЕСТВОТО.

IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ABOUT THE TEST PLEASE WRITE IT IN

THE EMPTY SPACE BELOW.

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING.

11.3.2 PILOT STUDY ON MACEDONIAN NATIVES: RAW DATA

This first chart (overleaf) shows the results for the analysis on four verbs per condition.

208

EM

AIL

neu

tral_

un

ac_co

me

neu

tral_

un

accu

sati

ves_b

eg

in

neu

tral_

un

accu

sati

ves_ap

pear

neu

tral_

un

accu

sati

ve_exis

t

neu

tral_

un

erg

ati

ves_sp

eak

neu

tral_

un

erg

ati

ves_cry

neu

tral_

un

erg

ati

ves_w

ork

neu

tral_

un

erg

ati

ves_p

lay

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

accu

sati

ves_co

me

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

accu

sati

ves_b

eg

in

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

accu

sati

ves_ap

pear

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

accu

sati

ves_exis

t

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

erg

ati

ves_sp

eak

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

erg

ati

ve_cry

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

erg

ati

ves_w

ork

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

erg

ati

ve_p

lay

CO

MM

EN

T

Возраст

neu

tral_

un

ac

neu

tral_

un

erg

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

ac

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

erg

neu

tral_

un

ac(%

)

neu

tral_

un

erg

(%)

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

ac(%

)

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

erg

(%)

7/13/2011 20:45:41 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV SV VS VS VS VS SV SV VS SV SV 25

7/13/2011 20:46:02

nikola.mladenovski@yahoo.

com VS VS SV VS SV VS VS SV VS VS VS SV SV SV SV SV 19

7/14/2011 14:08:49 [email protected] VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS

последната реченица,

имаш испуштено буква 29

7/14/2011 15:02:21 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV VS SV VS SV SV SV SV 24

7/14/2011 15:42:11 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV 29

7/14/2011 15:49:59 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV 27

7/14/2011 16:11:00 [email protected] SV VS SV SV SV VS VS SV SV VS VS VS SV SV SV SV

46

go

7/14/2011 16:24:00 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS 24

7/14/2011 16:50:12 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV SV 34

7/14/2011 16:55:07

sasodimitrovski1982@yahoo

.com VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV SV VS SV SV SV 29

7/14/2011 17:15:47 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV SV VS SV SV SV SV VS 29

7/14/2011 17:36:30 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS 26

7/14/2011 17:40:19 VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS 28

7/14/2011 17:54:56 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS 29

7/14/2011 17:55:14 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS 29

7/14/2011 17:57:28 [email protected] VS VS SV VS VS VS SV VS VS VS SV SV VS SV VS VS 29

7/14/2011 17:59:41 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV VS SV VS SV SV SV SV SV 26

7/14/2011 18:06:01

[email protected]

om VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV VS SV VS SV SV VS VS 25

7/14/2011 18:15:59 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS 29

7/14/2011 18:25:35 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV VS SV SV SV SV 19

7/14/2011 18:29:42 [email protected] VS SV VS SV VS SV VS VS SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV 28

7/14/2011 18:31:55 [email protected] VS VS SV SV VS SV SV VS VS VS SV SV VS SV SV VS 28

7/14/2011 18:42:34 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS 10

7/14/2011 18:43:08

vasko_boskov2006@yahoo.

com SV VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS SV VS SV SV VS VS 19

7/14/2011 19:19:53 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS

28

go

7/14/2011 20:04:15 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS 22

7/14/2011 20:05:16 [email protected] VS VS VS VS SV SV VS SV VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV 30

7/14/2011 20:14:34 [email protected] VS VS SV VS VS SV VS SV SV VS SV VS SV SV SV SV 18

7/14/2011 20:45:18 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV VS SV VS VS VS SV SV SV SV SV Fala 28

7/14/2011 21:02:06

[email protected]

om VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV VS 22

7/14/2011 21:06:19

[email protected]

m VS SV SV SV VS VS SV SV SV SV SV SV VS SV SV SV 29

7/14/2011 21:11:44

aleksandardimov10@yahoo.

com VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS 21

7/14/2011 21:14:25 [email protected] VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS SV SV VS VS SV VS SV SV 21

7/14/2011 21:17:11 [email protected] VS VS SV VS VS VS SV VS VS VS SV VS SV SV SV VS 21

7/14/2011 22:01:57

[email protected]

om VS SV VS VS VS VS SV VS VS SV SV VS SV SV SV SV 22

7/14/2011 22:13:18

aleksandra_filipova@hotmail

.com VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS SV SV VS 18

7/14/2011 22:26:21 [email protected] SV VS SV SV SV VS SV SV SV SV SV SV SV VS SV SV 35

7/14/2011 22:28:44 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV

Голем дел од

прашањата ги користам

и двата одговори во 27

7/14/2011 23:52:29 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS 37

7/15/2011 5:01:23

biljana_katmeroska@yahoo.

com VS VS VS VS VS SV SV VS VS VS SV VS VS SV VS SV 25

7/15/2011 9:35:55 SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV

7/15/2011 10:43:14 [email protected] VS VS SV VS VS SV SV SV VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV 31

7/15/2011 12:15:59 [email protected] VS VS VS VS SV SV VS VS SV VS SV VS SV SV SV SV

7/15/2011 12:24:48 [email protected] VS SV SV VS VS VS SV VS SV VS VS VS VS SV SV SV 28

7/15/2011 12:31:42 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV VS VS VS VS VS SV SV VS

29

go

di

ni

7/15/2011 14:29:48 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS SV SV SV VS SV SV SV SV 24

7/15/2011 14:53:19

[email protected]

om VS VS SV VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS 25

7/15/2011 15:12:28 VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS SV VS VS VS SV SV

7/17/2011 8:40:50

[email protected]

m VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV SV SV VS SV VS VS 17

7/18/2011 13:08:16

[email protected].

mk VS VS VS VS SV SV SV VS VS VS SV VS SV SV SV SV 29

7/18/2011 13:29:17

[email protected]

m VS VS VS VS VS SV SV VS VS VS SV SV VS SV VS VS 29

7/18/2011 13:32:44

gordana.ciplakovska@pumpi

.com.mk VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS SV 27

7/18/2011 14:23:26 [email protected] VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV SV VS SV VS SV VS SV SV 31

7/18/2011 18:21:42 [email protected] VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS SV VS SV SV VS SV SV SV 23

7/18/2011 18:29:07 [email protected] SV SV SV VS SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV

7/18/2011 18:58:11 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS 20

7/18/2011 18:59:12 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV 29

7/18/2011 19:41:29 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV VS SV VS VS SV VS SV 30

7/18/2011 21:29:49 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV VS VS SV SV SV SV 29

7/18/2011 23:51:18 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS SV SV SV VS SV SV SV SV 22

7/19/2011 1:27:41 SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS

7/20/2011 0:21:43 [email protected] VS VS VS SV VS SV VS VS VS SV VS VS VS SV SV SV 29

SV 6 6 14 8 11 27 28 26 23 16 27 17 27 45 42 36 34 92 83 150 13,7 37,1 33 60

VS 56 56 48 54 51 35 34 36 39 46 35 45 35 17 20 26 214 156 165 98 86,3 62,9 67 40

This second chart shows the results of the version on three verbs per condition.

209

Here

we h

ave 3

verb

s p

er

co

nd

itio

n:

AP

PE

AR

(u

nac)

an

d S

PE

AK

(u

nerg

) h

ave

been

eli

min

ate

d a

s t

hey a

re t

he w

eakest

can

did

ate

s i

n t

heir

co

nd

itio

n

EM

AIL

neu

tral_

un

ac_co

me

neu

tral_

un

accu

sati

ves_b

eg

in

neu

tral_

un

accu

sati

ve_exis

t

neu

tral_

un

erg

ati

ves_cry

neu

tral_

un

erg

ati

ves_w

ork

neu

tral_

un

erg

ati

ves_p

lay

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

accu

sati

ves_co

me

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

accu

sati

ves_b

eg

in

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

accu

sati

ves_exis

t

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

erg

ati

ve_cry

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

erg

ati

ves_w

ork

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

erg

ati

ve_p

lay

CO

MM

EN

T

Возраст

neu

tral_

un

ac

neu

tral_

un

erg

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

ac

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

erg

neu

tral_

un

ac(%

)

neu

tral_

un

erg

(%)

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

ac(%

)

pre

sen

tati

on

al_

un

erg

(%)

7/13/2011 20:45:41 [email protected] VS VS VS SV SV VS VS VS SV VS SV SV 25

7/13/2011 20:46:02

nikola.mladenovski@yahoo.

com VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS SV SV SV SV 19

7/14/2011 14:08:49 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS

по

сл 29

7/14/2011 15:02:21 [email protected] VS VS VS SV SV SV SV VS VS SV SV SV 24

7/14/2011 15:42:11 [email protected] VS VS VS SV VS SV VS VS VS VS SV SV 29

7/14/2011 15:49:59 [email protected] VS VS VS SV SV SV VS VS VS VS SV SV 27

7/14/2011 16:11:00 [email protected] SV VS SV VS VS SV SV VS VS SV SV SV

46

go

d.

7/14/2011 16:24:00 [email protected] VS VS VS SV VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS 24

7/14/2011 16:50:12 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV 34

7/14/2011 16:55:07

sasodimitrovski1982@yahoo

.com VS VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV SV SV SV 29

7/14/2011 17:15:47 [email protected] VS VS VS SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV VS 29

7/14/2011 17:36:30 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS 26

7/14/2011 17:40:19 VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS 28

7/14/2011 17:54:56 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS 29

7/14/2011 17:55:14 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS 29

7/14/2011 17:57:28 [email protected] VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS SV SV VS VS 29

7/14/2011 17:59:41

[email protected]

m VS VS VS SV SV SV VS SV SV SV SV SV 26

7/14/2011 18:06:01

[email protected]

om VS VS VS SV SV SV SV VS VS SV VS VS 25

7/14/2011 18:15:59 [email protected] VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS 29

7/14/2011 18:25:35 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV VS SV SV SV 19

7/14/2011 18:29:42 [email protected] VS SV SV SV VS VS SV SV SV SV SV SV 28

7/14/2011 18:31:55 [email protected] VS VS SV SV SV VS VS VS SV SV SV VS 28

7/14/2011 18:42:34 [email protected] VS VS VS SV SV SV VS VS VS VS VS VS 10

7/14/2011 18:43:08

vasko_boskov2006@yahoo.

com SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS 19

7/14/2011 19:19:53 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS

28

go

7/14/2011 20:04:15 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS SV VS 22

7/14/2011 20:05:16 [email protected] VS VS VS SV VS SV VS VS VS SV SV SV 30

7/14/2011 20:14:34 [email protected] VS VS VS SV VS SV SV VS VS SV SV SV 18

7/14/2011 20:45:18 [email protected] VS VS VS SV VS SV VS VS SV SV SV SV

Fal

a 28

7/14/2011 21:02:06

[email protected]

om VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS SV SV VS 22

7/14/2011 21:06:19

[email protected]

m VS SV SV VS SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV 29

7/14/2011 21:11:44

aleksandardimov10@yahoo.

com VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS 21

7/14/2011 21:14:25 [email protected] VS VS SV VS VS VS SV SV VS VS SV SV 21

7/14/2011 21:17:11 [email protected] VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS SV SV VS 21

7/14/2011 22:01:57

[email protected]

om VS SV VS VS SV VS VS SV VS SV SV SV 22

7/14/2011 22:13:18

aleksandra_filipova@hotmail

.com VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV VS 18

7/14/2011 22:26:21 [email protected] SV VS SV VS SV SV SV SV SV VS SV SV 35

7/14/2011 22:28:44 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV SV

Го

ле

м 27

7/14/2011 23:52:29 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS SV VS VS 37

7/15/2011 5:01:23

biljana_katmeroska@yahoo.

com VS VS VS SV SV VS VS VS VS SV VS SV 25

7/15/2011 9:35:55 SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV

7/15/2011 10:43:14 [email protected] VS VS VS SV SV SV VS VS VS SV SV SV 31

7/15/2011 12:15:59 [email protected] VS VS VS SV VS VS SV VS VS SV SV SV

7/15/2011 12:24:48 [email protected] VS SV VS VS SV VS SV VS VS SV SV SV 28

7/15/2011 12:31:42 [email protected] VS VS VS SV SV SV VS VS VS SV SV VS

29

go

din

i

7/15/2011 14:29:48 [email protected] VS VS VS VS SV VS SV SV VS SV SV SV 24

7/15/2011 14:53:19

[email protected]

om VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS 25

7/15/2011 15:12:28 VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS VS SV SV

7/17/2011 8:40:50

[email protected]

m VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV SV SV VS VS 17

7/18/2011 13:08:16

[email protected].

mk VS VS VS SV SV VS VS VS VS SV SV SV 29

7/18/2011 13:29:17

[email protected]

m VS VS VS SV SV VS VS VS SV SV VS VS 29

7/18/2011 13:32:44

gordana.ciplakovska@pumpi

.com.mk VS VS VS SV VS VS VS VS VS SV VS SV 27

7/18/2011 14:23:26 [email protected] VS VS VS SV SV SV SV VS VS VS SV SV 31

7/18/2011 18:21:42 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS SV SV SV SV 23

7/18/2011 18:29:07 [email protected] SV SV VS SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV SV

7/18/2011 18:58:11 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS 20

7/18/2011 18:59:12 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV 29

7/18/2011 19:41:29 [email protected] VS VS VS VS VS SV SV VS VS SV VS SV 30

7/18/2011 21:29:49 [email protected] VS VS VS VS SV SV SV SV VS SV SV SV 29

7/18/2011 23:51:18 [email protected] VS VS VS VS SV VS SV SV VS SV SV SV 22

7/19/2011 1:27:41 SV VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS SV VS VS

7/20/2011 0:21:43 [email protected] VS VS SV SV VS VS VS SV VS SV SV SV 29

SV 6 6 8 27 28 26 23 16 17 45 42 36 20 81 56 123 11 43,5 30,1 66,13

VS 56 56 54 35 34 36 39 46 45 17 20 26 166 105 130 63 89 56,5 69,9 33,87

210

11.3.3 PILOT STUDY ON MACEDONIAN NATIVES: OUTPUTS (CHARTS)

The first chart shows the bar chart on the four-verbs-per-condition version.

The second charts shows the bar chart on the three-verbs-per-condition version. Recall

that in this version, we analysed 3 verbs per condition: APPEAR (unac) and SPEAK

(unerg) have been eliminated as they are the weakest candidates in their condition.

11.4 RAW DATA FOR THE MAIN EXPERIMENTAL TEST (FULL TABLES)

In the following subsections we will present the full tables containing all raw data

details for each individual participant and for each stimulus. Note that the letter type is

small so as to be able to fit each table on a page.

211

11.4.1 RAW DATA FOR ENGLISH NATIVES

809

Y2011-0

7-2

0 1

8:5

3:3

12011-0

7-2

0 1

8:4

3:0

9129.1

00.1

85.2

02

Fem

en

ino3

2E

ng

lish

12

11

33

12

34

13

12

31

41

21

33

11

11

12

11

23

12

41

31

31

33

21

31

32

41

11

21

11

31

11

21

21

32,3

1,4

1,8

3,0

1,3

3,3

1,0

1,3

1,0

2,5

0,9

1,8

3,3

811

Y2011-0

7-2

0 2

0:5

9:0

42011-0

7-2

0 2

0:5

2:5

394.1

73.1

19.2

43

Fem

en

ino3

4E

ng

lish

11

22

53

22

44

15

13

51

51

41

55

13

11

34

12

45

1H

i C

ris!!

Very

hap

py t

o h

elp

wit

h y

ou

r stu

dy.

Ho

pe a

ll is

well.

S

usie

x1

43

51

52

53

41

51

52

51

21

41

21

51

21

41

33

43,3

2,3

1,5

4,5

25

1,0

2,3

1,5

4,3

1,0

2,3

6,0

812

Y2011-0

7-2

0 2

1:1

8:4

92011-0

7-2

0 2

1:1

1:4

346.2

22.2

08.1

45

Mascu

lino5

9E

ng

lish

22

33

43

24

44

34

13

31

52

41

23

12

22

33

12

24

32

43

23

33

33

42

42

44

51

31

21

23

41

22

31

32

43,2

2,2

2,5

3,8

33,5

1,0

2,5

2,0

3,3

1,0

1,3

1,8

813

Y2011-0

7-2

0 2

1:4

4:4

12011-0

7-2

0 2

1:3

6:1

986.1

35.1

76.1

0F

em

en

ino4

9E

ng

lish

32

13

42

23

43

33

23

32

53

33

23

23

31

32

22

33

32

33

23

33

32

33

31

33

52

12

33

23

42

23

22

33

42,8

2,6

23,0

33,3

2,3

2,0

2,8

3,3

0,3

1,0

1,3

814

Y2011-0

7-2

0 2

2:4

5:0

22011-0

7-2

0 2

2:3

9:3

9188.2

3.1

85.1

11

Mascu

lino3

1E

ng

lish

51

11

21

11

44

15

13

21

51

41

55

11

11

12

11

11

11

41

51

51

21

41

51

11

51

11

11

11

21

11

21

31

42,4

1,4

13,5

14,3

1,0

1,5

1,0

2,3

1,0

2,0

5,8

816

Y2011-0

7-2

1 0

1:0

8:2

62011-0

7-2

1 0

1:0

2:1

8190.1

48.1

70.1

96

Mascu

lino2

2E

ng

lish

11

12

13

21

32

14

12

31

51

41

24

11

11

25

11

15

11

22

21

42

33

41

41

51

51

11

11

11

11

21

51

21

32,6

1,5

1,5

3,8

1,5

3,5

1,0

1,5

1,0

2,5

1,1

2,3

4,3

817

Y2011-0

7-2

1 0

1:1

9:0

32011-0

7-2

1 0

1:0

9:5

175.4

5.9

.38

Fem

en

ino2

2E

ng

lish

11

11

23

31

41

14

12

11

51

31

24

11

11

13

11

11

1In

th

e d

irecti

on

s,

it m

ay b

e b

ett

er

to in

form

us t

hat

we a

re t

o ju

dg

e t

he s

eco

nd

half o

f th

e s

en

ten

ce o

r th

e last

ph

rase o

r ad

d s

pace b

etw

een

th

e g

iven

an

d t

he ju

dg

ed

sen

ten

ce.

So

me o

f th

e s

en

ten

ces w

ere

hard

to

read

an

yw

ay b

ecau

se t

he g

ram

mar

was in

co

rrect,

wh

ich

is t

he p

oin

t o

f th

e a

ssig

nm

en

t, s

o b

y m

akin

g t

he d

irecti

on

s a

s c

lear

an

d d

irect

as p

ossib

le is b

est.

T

han

k y

ou

.1

11

21

41

13

31

41

11

51

11

11

11

21

31

31

21

41,9

1,6

1,5

2,3

13

1,0

1,8

1,0

2,5

0,4

0,5

2,8

818

Y2011-0

7-2

1 0

2:1

7:1

32011-0

7-2

1 0

2:1

4:1

176.2

6.2

33.1

17

Fem

en

ino2

9E

ng

lish

54

54

43

33

33

43

33

33

34

44

34

43

43

33

35

44

44

33

34

44

33

44

33

43

33

53

44

54

44

34

33

33

33,4

3,6

3,5

3,8

3,5

33,5

4,0

3,5

3,5

-0,2

-0,3

-0,3

819

Y2011-0

7-2

1 0

3:4

5:0

22011-0

7-2

1 0

3:3

6:4

899.1

59.2

12.6

7M

ascu

lino4

3E

ng

lish

12

14

35

14

43

15

15

44

52

41

24

13

23

24

12

44

52

32

25

44

45

42

53

44

51

14

41

21

31

12

41

53

43,6

2,4

3,8

3,8

34

1,0

2,3

2,5

3,8

1,3

1,5

1,0

820

Y2011-0

7-2

1 0

5:4

0:3

42011-0

7-2

1 0

5:1

3:0

697.1

02.1

97.4

4F

em

en

ino6

1E

ng

lish

33

21

23

35

35

24

33

43

43

43

55

34

33

33

33

33

33

53

53

51

43

43

43

35

43

23

33

32

23

33

33

34

33,6

2,9

34,3

34,3

3,0

2,8

3,0

2,8

0,8

1,5

2,5

822

Y2011-0

7-2

1 0

7:5

3:3

22011-0

7-2

1 0

7:3

9:2

3203.2

21.2

50.1

75

Mascu

lino2

8E

ng

lish

11

13

25

43

34

24

34

43

53

43

44

23

44

44

33

45

4I th

ink t

his

was v

ery

in

tresti

ng

becau

se i h

ave n

ever

had

to

ju

dg

e g

ram

mer.

1

44

44

43

45

44

44

53

53

13

43

32

22

43

43

43

33,9

2,9

3,5

4,3

3,5

4,3

2,8

3,0

2,8

3,3

0,9

1,3

1,5

823

Y2011-0

7-2

1 1

0:5

6:3

32011-0

7-2

1 1

0:4

7:2

9109.9

.114.2

36

Mascu

lino5

8E

ng

lish

11

11

44

11

45

15

11

31

51

51

25

11

21

13

11

34

11

51

21

51

34

52

51

41

51

11

31

11

41

11

31

11

42,9

1,6

1,8

4,8

1,3

3,8

1,0

1,0

1,0

3,5

1,3

3,8

5,5

824

Y2011-0

7-2

1 1

1:3

1:4

02011-0

7-2

1 1

1:2

6:5

5192.8

7.7

9.5

1F

em

en

ino4

2E

ng

lish

11

11

51

11

54

15

13

51

51

51

45

11

11

11

11

15

11

41

41

51

51

51

51

51

51

11

11

11

51

11

11

31

52,9

1,6

14,8

14,8

1,0

1,5

1,0

3,0

1,3

3,3

7,5

827

Y2011-0

7-2

1 1

6:2

6:3

72011-0

7-2

1 1

6:2

1:0

0188.8

4.5

1.6

6M

ascu

lino4

7E

ng

lish

31

11

11

11

12

13

12

11

31

21

23

11

11

22

11

22

11

22

21

31

11

21

31

21

31

11

21

11

11

11

21

21

11,7

1,2

12,3

1,3

2,3

1,0

1,3

1,0

1,5

0,5

1,0

2,3

828

Y2011-0

7-2

1 1

7:2

1:5

02011-0

7-2

1 1

7:1

3:2

997.1

00.1

49.5

4M

ascu

lino2

5E

ng

lish

12

24

45

33

13

14

22

22

53

22

32

23

32

44

24

24

32

34

33

24

25

23

42

43

52

22

22

41

42

33

42

23

13,2

2,4

32,8

3,5

3,5

2,0

2,8

2,3

2,8

0,8

0,0

-0,3

830

Y2011-0

7-2

1 2

2:2

5:4

92011-0

7-2

1 2

1:5

9:5

986.1

1.3

3.2

6M

ascu

lino3

6E

ng

lish

21

11

43

21

44

25

14

42

52

31

55

11

21

24

11

53

2It

wo

uld

be u

sefu

l to

have a

su

mm

ary

of

wh

at

the 1

to

5 o

pti

on

s m

ean

ag

ain

on

th

e q

uesti

on

s p

ag

e.

Th

e f

irst

pag

e o

n t

he q

uesti

on

air

e h

as s

en

ten

ces in

Sp

an

ish

(even

th

ou

gh

En

glis

h w

as s

ele

cte

d).

14

25

25

14

33

25

13

15

11

25

11

24

12

24

14

14

2,9

2,3

1,8

3,8

1,5

4,8

1,0

2,0

1,8

4,3

0,7

1,8

5,3

831

Y2011-0

7-2

2 0

0:1

2:5

52011-0

7-2

2 0

0:0

2:0

1129.1

00.1

99.2

16

Fem

en

ino3

7E

ng

lish

51

11

42

33

55

14

13

51

51

41

55

11

22

15

11

34

11

51

51

51

52

42

42

43

51

11

31

11

41

31

51

31

53,1

2,1

1,5

4,5

1,8

4,8

1,0

2,0

1,0

4,3

1,1

2,5

6,0

833

Y2011-0

7-2

2 1

5:2

8:0

32011-0

7-2

2 1

5:1

8:3

281.1

51.1

19.8

4F

em

en

ino5

1E

ng

lish

51

11

12

11

24

15

14

11

51

51

43

11

11

13

11

11

11

41

41

31

12

51

51

11

51

11

11

11

11

11

31

41

22,3

1,4

1,3

3,3

13,8

1,0

1,8

1,0

1,8

0,9

1,5

4,8

834

Y2011-0

7-2

2 1

5:4

3:5

02011-0

7-2

2 1

5:3

7:1

376.6

9.5

6.1

79

Fem

en

ino2

7E

ng

lish

11

11

55

15

55

15

11

11

51

51

51

11

11

11

11

11

11

51

51

11

15

51

51

15

51

11

11

11

51

11

11

11

52,8

1,5

23,0

24

1,0

1,0

1,0

3,0

1,3

2,0

3,0

835

Y2011-0

7-2

2 1

8:1

9:1

02011-0

7-2

2 1

8:0

2:3

882.1

25.1

61.4

7M

ascu

lino2

1E

ng

lish

21

11

14

12

42

14

11

31

51

31

12

11

11

12

11

14

31

21

13

21

34

31

41

42

51

11

11

11

11

11

21

11

42,4

1,3

2,3

2,8

1,3

3,3

1,0

1,0

1,0

2,0

1,1

1,8

2,5

836

Y2011-0

7-2

2 2

1:4

1:3

22011-0

7-2

2 2

1:2

8:2

4184.7

7.1

62.2

01

Fem

en

ino3

4E

ng

lish

23

45

45

45

54

25

24

54

53

52

45

25

32

45

23

45

43

44

44

55

55

53

52

55

52

44

42

32

42

43

52

45

54,3

3,4

3,5

4,8

4,3

4,8

2,0

3,8

3,5

4,5

0,9

1,0

1,8

837

Y2011-0

7-2

3 1

5:0

5:3

62011-0

7-2

3 1

4:5

7:3

592.9

.54.1

0M

ascu

lino4

0E

ng

lish

32

22

34

23

44

33

12

32

24

32

22

42

31

12

22

23

32

41

23

22

34

33

31

33

21

22

22

23

34

24

22

22

42,6

2,4

2,5

3,0

2,3

2,5

2,3

2,0

2,8

2,8

0,1

1,0

0,8

838

Y2011-0

7-2

3 2

1:2

3:4

12011-0

7-2

3 2

1:1

6:0

797.1

00.1

43.2

21

Mascu

lino3

1E

ng

lish

11

11

43

43

55

24

12

41

41

21

25

11

11

34

12

42

41

53

24

51

43

21

41

23

41

11

41

22

41

41

41

21

52,8

2,2

2,3

3,5

23,5

1,0

2,3

1,3

4,3

0,6

1,3

2,8

840

Y2011-0

7-2

5 2

3:0

4:1

02011-0

7-2

5 2

2:4

9:2

682.7

.214.2

15

Fem

en

ino4

3E

ng

lish

31

21

22

13

33

14

12

32

52

21

44

13

22

33

11

23

2I th

ink t

hat

mo

st

of

the issu

es h

ere

were

to

do

wit

h t

en

ses a

nd

ph

rasin

g.

So

me m

ean

ing

was lo

st

du

e t

o s

pelli

ng

err

or.

1

33

42

41

32

22

42

33

51

22

21

11

21

12

31

23

32,8

1,8

1,8

3,0

2,3

41,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

1,0

1,5

3,0

En

g1,5

3,6

2,1

3,3

2,3

3,8

1,9

3,1

3,1

3,6

1,9

4,2

1,6

3,3

2,5

4,6

1,4

1,6

1,7

2,5

1,5

1,8

1,6

3,1

1,5

2,0

1,8

3,1

1,4

2,7

2,0

3,6

En

g2,9

2,1

En

g2,1

3,6

2,1

3,8

En

g1,4

2,0

1,8

3,1

En

g0,8

En

g1,6

En

g3,1

212

11.4.2 RAW DATA FOR L1 SPA – L2 ENG LEARNERS

307/1

74

Y2010-1

1-1

5 1

8:1

1:3

82010-1

1-1

5 1

7:5

1:5

685.6

1.1

0.6

7lu

pi_

dm

x@

ho

tmail.c

om

Fem

en

ino

19

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a6

Read

ing

15 d

ias

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

24

14

25

42

52

15

45

54

54

52

55

54

45

44

25

55

556

a2

42

45

55

45

55

45

55

25

41

45

25

12

54

44

25

45

4,4

3,6

4,8

4,3

3,5

53,3

3,8

3,3

4,0

0,8

0,5

1,0

24/3

06

Y2010-1

1-1

8 1

1:4

8:3

62010-1

1-1

8 1

1:3

4:3

480.5

8.2

05.4

1ern

esto

992@

gm

ail.c

om

Mascu

lin

o23

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a5

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

13

25

54

44

52

44

25

44

53

33

55

45

44

34

42

43

456

a2

32

35

45

54

43

44

43

45

22

44

32

45

44

34

45

55

3,9

3,8

3,8

3,3

44,5

3,3

3,3

4,0

4,5

0,1

0,0

0,0

10/3

45

Y2010-1

1-1

8 2

0:0

5:4

32010-1

1-1

8 1

9:4

6:3

980.3

1.3

7.8

0jo

se13-1

@h

otm

ail.c

om

Mascu

lin

o19

escu

ela

un

ivers

itari

a m

ag

iste

rio

safa

ub

ed

a12

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Pri

ncip

ian

te a

lto

(A

2)

51

15

51

15

55

55

15

55

55

11

55

15

51

15

55

51

556

a2

15

15

55

55

11

55

11

55

11

55

15

55

11

55

55

55

3,5

3,8

23,0

45

2,0

3,0

5,0

5,0

-0,3

0,0

2,0

106/5

5Y

2010-1

1-1

4 1

1:5

4:5

82010-1

1-1

4 1

1:4

2:2

095.6

2.2

6.1

46

mu

rara

ro@

ho

tmail.c

om

Mascu

lin

o28

facu

ltad

filo

so

fia y

letr

as G

ran

ad

a5

Rein

o u

nid

o 4

meses

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

11

11

55

54

15

45

15

51

51

51

55

11

25

54

25

45

557

a2

15

55

55

15

55

25

55

45

11

14

15

45

15

14

25

11

4,3

2,6

45,0

35

1,3

4,0

1,8

3,5

1,6

1,0

3,0

34/7

8Y

2010-1

1-1

4 1

7:1

9:4

72010-1

1-1

4 1

6:5

2:2

679.1

46.6

4.1

77

bele

ncilla

.dilo

cu

@g

mail.c

om

Fem

en

ino

24

Un

ivers

idad

Filo

so

fía y

Letr

as d

e G

ran

ad

a5

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

15

14

43

15

15

12

41

51

22

54

25

54

55

21

43

457

a2

15

55

44

54

42

55

43

35

11

14

21

11

24

15

22

51

4,0

2,1

3,3

3,5

4,5

4,8

1,8

2,0

2,0

2,8

1,9

1,5

0,5

334/2

84

Y2010-1

1-1

7 1

8:4

0:5

62010-1

1-1

7 1

8:2

7:5

681.3

3.1

2.2

28

josem

t.ic

@g

mail.c

omM

ascu

lin

o20

UG

R0E

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Pri

ncip

ian

te a

lto

(A

2)

13

15

55

14

51

54

12

54

42

45

54

35

55

54

42

54

558

a2

31

55

54

55

54

54

54

44

11

45

52

55

31

24

42

55

4,3

3,4

4,5

3,3

4,8

4,5

3,3

1,5

4,0

4,8

0,9

1,8

-1,5

98/1

68

Y2010-1

1-1

5 1

6:5

5:2

42010-1

1-1

5 1

6:4

8:0

9150.2

14.3

6.9

an

gele

s.c

hen

oa@

ho

tmail.c

om

Fem

en

ino

23

UN

IVE

RS

IDA

D D

E G

RA

NA

DA

8R

EIN

O U

NID

O 9

ME

SE

SE

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

11

11

15

15

15

11

15

51

51

51

55

15

55

41

11

51

559

a2

15

45

55

15

55

51

51

55

11

15

11

11

11

11

15

51

3,9

1,8

44,0

3,8

41,0

2,0

2,0

2,0

2,2

2,0

0,3

143/4

05

Y2010-1

1-1

9 2

1:5

2:3

72010-1

1-1

9 2

1:2

4:2

187.2

18.1

90.1

04

po

et_

dre

am

er_

SJ@

ho

tmail.c

om

Fem

en

ino

21

Un

ivers

idad

Au

tón

om

a

14

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

43

12

25

15

33

42

25

53

52

33

34

41

22

53

22

43

558

a2

33

53

54

25

53

22

23

55

21

34

32

42

41

23

25

13

3,6

2,6

3,8

3,3

3,5

3,8

2,8

2,3

2,5

3,0

0,9

1,0

-0,3

198/4

67

Y2010-1

1-2

2 0

9:3

7:3

22010-1

1-2

2 0

9:1

8:4

283.5

9.2

00.8

5K

EV

INA

L34@

GM

AIL

.CO

MF

em

en

ino

32

U.J

aén

6E

EU

U,

UK

, M

alt

a,

Pu

ert

o R

ico

, E

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

11

15

35

22

53

34

42

51

43

41

15

54

52

51

43

55

454

a2

13

51

45

55

54

54

25

24

41

15

13

33

52

31

42

45

3,8

2,9

34,3

4,3

3,5

3,5

2,0

2,8

3,5

0,8

2,3

0,5

45/6

81

Y2010-1

2-0

7 2

3:3

8:3

32010-1

2-0

7 2

3:2

7:4

9201.1

02.1

8.1

60

mari

_m

ulo

r@h

otm

ail.c

om

Fem

en

ino2

2n

ing

un

o5E

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

13

35

21

11

11

11

51

51

11

51

11

15

55

11

11

159

a2

11

55

11

35

51

11

51

15

11

11

11

13

12

15

11

11

2,6

1,4

31,0

2,5

41,0

1,3

1,0

2,5

1,2

-0,3

-0,5

122/7

15

Y2010-1

2-1

5 1

2:5

9:0

52010-1

2-1

5 1

2:5

0:5

362.3

2.1

71.2

5axis

s23@

ho

tmail.c

omM

ascu

lin

o26

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a15

Ing

late

rra,

1 m

es

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

12

34

45

25

45

45

34

53

52

52

45

34

54

53

11

44

455

a2

25

54

45

45

55

55

44

55

33

34

21

44

32

23

14

44

4,5

2,9

3,8

4,8

4,8

4,8

2,3

2,5

3,3

3,8

1,6

2,3

1,0

255/7

88

Y2011-0

1-1

5 1

8:2

7:1

12011-0

1-1

5 1

7:5

3:3

095.1

20.1

94.8

2ale

xb

leed

ing

@h

otm

ail.c

om

Fem

en

ino

21

Un

ivers

idad

de V

allad

olid

13

Wo

rth

ing

(In

gla

terr

a)

21 d

ías

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

11

12

12

22

12

32

52

22

21

52

53

43

23

12

42

456

a2

12

25

42

15

22

42

32

22

31

24

12

11

51

23

12

32

2,6

2,1

2,5

2,0

2,3

3,5

2,5

1,5

2,0

2,5

0,4

0,5

0,8

131/7

78

Y2011-0

1-1

0 2

0:1

6:5

32011-0

1-1

0 1

9:0

0:3

1157.8

8.2

31.3

6ra

ul.m

ora

l@u

va.e

sM

ascu

lin

o33

nin

gu

no

4E

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Pri

ncip

ian

te a

lto

(A

2)

12

31

41

54

24

41

12

22

21

21

23

24

41

42

11

23

254

a2

24

42

23

12

12

41

13

42

13

22

11

44

25

12

12

42

2,4

2,3

1,5

3,0

3,3

1,8

1,3

2,8

2,8

2,5

0,1

0,3

0,0

273/2

82

Y2010-1

1-1

7 1

8:0

2:0

42010-1

1-1

7 1

7:4

5:2

080.2

6.1

62.1

33

no

e.v

alv

erd

e@

ho

tmail.c

om

Fem

en

ino

21

Au

ton

om

a d

e M

ad

rid

13

Esta

do

s U

nid

os 3

sem

an

as

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

12

12

55

42

55

33

14

22

55

51

24

21

25

53

31

24

559

a2

25

52

54

22

55

23

54

25

11

22

11

35

24

53

34

15

3,6

2,7

4,3

4,5

2,8

31,8

2,5

2,8

3,8

0,9

2,0

0,5

A2

1,9

3,4

4,1

4,1

4,1

4,1

3,1

4,4

4,1

3,4

3,8

3,4

3,6

3,1

3,4

4,4

1,9

1,4

2,4

3,9

1,8

2,3

2,9

3,3

2,8

2,6

2,4

3,4

2,4

3,5

3,4

3,2

A2

3,7

2,7

A2

3,4

3,5

3,6

4,1

A2

2,2

2,4

2,8

3,4

A2

0,9

A2

1,1

A2

0,5

257/1

89

Y2010-1

1-1

5 2

1:1

7:4

52010-1

1-1

5 2

1:0

0:0

7217.2

16.6

3.1

40

mari

selo

14@

ho

tmail.

co

mF

em

en

ino

22

ET

SIIT

15

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

11

25

11

51

14

25

21

51

51

51

54

13

14

55

13

13

560

b1

14

55

54

55

15

15

43

15

22

11

13

21

15

15

11

31

3,7

1,9

2,8

4,0

35

1,3

2,8

1,8

2,0

1,8

1,3

3,3

76/3

47

Y2010-1

1-1

8 2

0:0

2:5

72010-1

1-1

8 1

9:5

2:4

580.3

0.1

3.8

jarr

icu

@co

rreo

.ug

r.es

Mascu

lino

23

Gra

nad

a6

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

14

34

55

35

25

25

13

32

53

52

34

23

35

24

21

23

561

b1

45

23

54

43

55

35

53

55

13

22

21

25

23

34

23

32

4,1

2,5

4,8

4,3

3,5

41,8

2,5

2,5

3,3

1,6

1,8

0,0

102/2

60

Y2010-1

1-1

7 0

0:2

7:0

12010-1

1-1

6 2

3:4

4:3

684.7

7.1

40.1

59

mig

uel_

a_m

igu

el@

ho

tmail.

co

mM

ascu

lino

29

UA

M19

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

12

12

24

33

33

34

23

12

32

31

23

31

22

54

33

33

4L

os e

xp

leti

vo

s n

o lo

s d

om

ino

, th

e s

ub

ject

req

uir

em

en

t co

n t

here

no

lo

veo

mu

y c

laro

, la

mayo

ría d

e las f

rases m

e s

uen

an

bie

n la p

rim

era

part

e p

ero

la s

eg

un

da m

e r

ech

ina u

n p

oco

. 62

b1

23

52

43

21

43

24

23

33

21

23

13

32

33

24

33

13

2,9

2,4

33,0

32,5

2,3

2,5

2,0

3,0

0,4

0,5

-0,5

176/1

7Y

2010-1

1-1

3 1

7:0

9:5

72010-1

1-1

3 1

6:4

4:2

188.2

4.8

5.1

0m

ari

_fe

rex@

ho

tmail.

co

mF

em

en

ino

23

Gra

nad

a10

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

52

41

51

15

14

41

11

11

54

22

21

15

21

23

14

564

b1

15

22

52

21

15

14

54

11

45

11

43

14

25

11

21

11

2,6

2,3

34,0

1,5

23,0

3,5

1,0

1,8

0,3

0,5

1,5

304/6

3Y

2010-1

1-1

4 1

2:3

5:1

72010-1

1-1

4 1

2:2

3:5

585.4

9.1

10.1

65

rric

hu

@h

otm

ail.

co

mF

em

en

ino

25

Un

ivers

idad

Au

tón

om

a d

e M

ad

rid

13

Ed

imb

urg

o (

Esco

cia

) 10 m

eses

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

13

11

14

12

24

15

11

21

31

12

22

21

14

44

11

43

5U

n t

est

larg

o,

y m

uch

as p

reg

un

tas c

on

err

ore

s d

el m

ism

o t

ipo

.67

b1

34

42

52

12

41

15

43

23

11

14

21

11

21

14

11

12

2,9

1,6

42,5

23

1,5

1,0

1,0

2,8

1,3

1,5

-0,5

250/4

34

Y2010-1

1-2

0 1

9:3

9:4

52010-1

1-2

0 1

9:2

3:4

979.1

47.4

2.1

71

pili

8a_@

ho

tmail.

co

mFem

en

ino

21

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a13

2 s

em

an

as e

n D

ub

lín (

Irla

nd

a),

2 m

eses e

n L

yth

am

(L

iverp

oo

l-U

K),

9 m

eses e

n G

alw

ay (

IRL

)E

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

11

33

15

44

32

12

44

54

51

51

54

23

55

55

12

45

567

b1

12

55

54

35

55

52

55

45

43

44

12

11

24

15

14

33

4,1

2,7

44,0

4,3

4,3

2,0

3,3

2,3

3,3

1,4

0,8

0,0

231/5

30

Y2010-1

1-2

4 1

3:4

4:1

52010-1

1-2

4 1

3:2

1:3

995.6

2.2

52.1

65

jelo

_47@

ho

tmail.

co

mFem

en

ino

21

Gra

nad

a8

Irla

nd

a,

3 s

em

an

as

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

15

15

45

15

11

13

51

45

52

52

55

55

55

54

21

51

563

b1

51

55

55

54

55

53

51

55

51

55

21

14

51

24

21

51

4,3

2,8

53,0

54,3

3,5

1,0

3,3

3,5

1,5

2,0

-2,8

184/6

44

Y2010-1

2-0

2 1

9:2

0:2

62010-1

2-0

2 1

9:0

5:4

8148.2

15.3

8.3

9d

oxi_

yeti

@h

otm

ail.

co

mF

em

en

ino2

4U

NIV

ER

SID

AD

AU

TÓ

NO

MA

DE

L E

ST

AD

O D

E M

ÉX

ICO

7N

O N

UN

CA

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

15

35

35

45

25

14

55

51

51

55

15

51

55

45

55

5N

o e

nte

nd

í alg

un

as o

racio

nes.

62

b1

15

55

55

55

55

55

15

55

11

55

15

23

13

15

44

54

4,5

3,1

35,0

55

1,8

3,3

3,3

4,3

1,4

1,8

2,0

151/3

4Y

2010-1

1-2

4 1

8:0

4:1

82010-1

1-2

4 1

7:5

8:1

788.8

.158.9

7118591677A

Fem

en

ino1

8U

niv

ers

idad

Au

tón

om

a d

e M

ad

rid

10

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

14

44

53

24

35

24

54

51

22

34

55

31

12

54

42

34

463

b1

45

55

45

45

33

14

24

42

54

13

42

25

32

24

44

13

3,8

3,1

3,3

4,3

3,5

44,0

3,0

1,5

3,8

0,7

1,3

1,5

97/4

3Y

2010-1

2-0

7 1

9:2

4:3

62010-1

2-0

7 1

9:1

8:4

188.1

.12.1

72

2716221

Mascu

lino2

0U

AM

15

Rein

o U

nid

o-

3 s

em

an

as

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

15

24

55

15

45

34

41

45

34

55

33

45

54

51

32

54

365

b1

55

53

33

44

55

54

44

53

42

55

52

35

41

41

31

54

4,2

3,4

4,3

4,3

4,8

3,5

4,0

1,5

4,3

3,8

0,8

2,8

-1,3

B1

2,7

3,9

4,3

3,7

4,6

3,7

3,5

3,5

3,8

4,2

2,9

4,1

3,7

3,5

3,5

3,7

2,9

2,3

2,7

3,3

2,3

2,3

1,8

3,1

2,5

2,8

1,8

3,7

2,3

2,3

2,8

2,4

B1

3,7

2,6

B1

3,7

3,8

3,6

3,8

B1

2,5

2,4

2,3

3,1

B1

1,1

B1

1,4

B1

0,3

186/2

5Y

2010-1

1-1

3 2

0:1

9:3

82010-1

1-1

3 2

0:0

4:4

095.1

9.1

45.2

46

xin

xiy

an

a@

ho

tmail.c

om

Fem

en

ino

23

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a14

Uk (

9m

eses)

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

21

35

33

41

25

24

54

53

31

55

12

53

54

14

54

568

b2

11

55

55

15

53

55

34

35

22

45

14

23

13

34

14

24

3,8

2,8

3,5

3,3

3,5

51,3

3,3

2,8

4,0

1,0

0,0

1,3

175/1

44

Y2010-1

1-1

5 1

3:0

2:5

32010-1

1-1

5 1

2:4

1:1

1213.1

44.3

6.9

5n

fern

an

dez-s

an

ch

ez@

ad

if.e

sF

em

en

ino

27

Nin

gu

no

17

Esta

do

s U

nid

os,

un

mes

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

11

32

55

14

51

15

54

51

32

51

45

11

44

34

21

12

568

b2

11

34

55

25

55

45

42

43

53

11

11

15

11

24

24

15

3,6

2,4

3,8

3,3

3,3

4,3

2,3

2,3

1,3

3,8

1,3

1,0

0,5

152/2

26

Y2010-1

1-1

6 1

8:0

9:2

42010-1

1-1

6 1

7:5

9:2

6213.3

7.1

17.3

3alv

aro

.zu

marr

ag

a@

gm

ail.c

om

Mascu

lin

o24

cseu

la s

alle

14

ing

late

rra 2

meses e

eu

u 2

meses

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

12

23

11

15

55

12

41

51

11

51

45

12

51

51

31

53

568

b2

25

54

55

35

15

52

13

51

42

15

11

11

11

11

31

25

3,6

1,9

2,3

4,5

4,5

32,3

1,3

1,3

3,0

1,6

3,3

0,8

173/2

3Y

2010-1

1-1

3 1

9:3

8:0

02010-1

1-1

3 1

9:1

8:4

0217.2

16.6

3.9

4b

ran

co

_se_p

art

e@

ho

tmail.c

om

Mascu

lin

o25

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a4

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

12

25

14

11

11

31

21

21

11

21

32

15

31

31

12

5E

l err

or

qu

e m

as s

e r

ep

ite c

reo

qu

e e

s e

l d

e e

str

uctu

ra s

intá

cti

ca,

el o

rden

en

de las o

racio

nes d

e in

dic

ati

vo

en

in

glé

s d

eb

en

ten

er

la e

str

uctu

ra S

VO

. L

ueg

o h

ay c

on

str

uccio

nes c

on

"th

ere

" +

un

verb

o q

ue n

o e

s "

to b

e",

y c

reo

qu

e e

s in

co

rrecto

au

nq

ue n

o e

sto

y s

eg

uro

al 100%

. S

alu

do

s.

69

b2

11

32

51

22

51

11

52

42

31

11

11

12

31

11

31

21

2,4

1,5

41,3

2,5

1,8

2,5

1,0

1,3

1,3

0,9

0,3

-3,5

19/1

16

Y2010-1

1-1

5 0

0:5

6:2

22010-1

1-1

5 0

0:0

6:1

295.1

8.1

48.4

3b

elu

zo

n@

co

rreo

.ug

r.es

Fem

en

ino

21

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a14

Irla

nd

a,

9 m

eses;

Rein

o U

nid

o,

2 s

em

an

as;

Malt

a,

3 s

em

an

as

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

11

21

15

21

11

14

11

41

21

21

31

11

11

11

11

12

470

b2

11

13

41

14

52

14

12

12

12

11

11

11

12

11

11

11

2,1

1,1

2,8

1,5

13,3

1,0

1,5

1,0

1,0

1,0

0,0

1,0

280/2

07

Y2010-1

1-1

6 1

2:4

2:1

32010-1

1-1

6 1

2:3

2:4

588.1

3.2

.247

lin

gle

z@

ho

tmail.c

omM

ascu

lin

o26

UA

M15

Ing

late

rra,

cin

co

día

s.

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

15

54

32

55

12

11

42

21

11

42

12

32

32

11

21

172

b2

15

34

12

54

41

32

21

22

11

22

11

15

13

12

11

25

2,6

1,9

22,3

3,3

31,0

1,5

1,5

3,5

0,8

0,8

0,0

63

/104

Y2010-1

1-1

4 2

2:0

2:4

22010-1

1-1

4 2

1:3

9:1

183.5

0.4

5.2

36

marg

uit

uri

@h

otm

ail.c

om

Fem

en

ino

28

UA

M16

Irla

nd

a:

1 a

ño

. U

K:

1 s

em

an

aE

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o a

lto

(C

2)

12

21

32

22

42

24

12

42

42

41

23

12

32

12

11

12

2M

e p

are

ce q

ue la m

ayo

r p

art

e d

e las f

rases t

en

ían

un

a e

str

uctu

ra g

ram

ati

cal m

ás p

rop

ia d

el caste

llan

o q

ue d

el in

glé

s:

la c

olo

cació

n d

e lo

s v

erb

os e

n la f

rase n

o e

ra c

orr

ecta

. N

o h

e t

en

ido

mu

y c

lara

la in

ten

sid

ad

de la v

alo

ració

n (

he d

ud

ad

o e

ntr

e m

arc

ar

1 ó

2,

4 ó

5),

pu

es a

med

ida q

ue h

e id

o c

on

testa

nd

o las p

reg

un

tas,

he m

od

ific

ad

o la p

erc

ep

ció

n d

e la in

ten

sid

ad

de c

orr

ecció

n o

in

co

rrecció

n d

e las f

rases.

73

b2

22

12

23

14

24

34

22

24

12

21

11

23

12

22

12

24

2,5

1,8

22,8

1,8

3,5

1,0

1,8

2,0

2,5

0,7

1,0

2,5

247/1

67

Y2010-1

1-1

5 1

7:0

5:5

62010-1

1-1

5 1

6:4

3:3

579.1

46.2

36.1

24

gig

an

te5@

ho

tmail.c

om

Mascu

lin

o22

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a12

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

12

12

32

33

45

14

44

51

31

42

53

23

22

53

21

43

2H

ay u

n p

rob

lem

a c

on

el cu

esti

on

ari

o:

le p

on

em

os p

un

tuacio

n d

el 1 a

l 5 p

ero

sin

em

barg

o lo

s m

ati

ces q

ue n

os e

mp

uja

n a

po

ner

un

a n

ota

u o

tra n

o s

e t

ien

en

en

cu

en

ta.

En

mi o

pin

ion

, la

pu

ntu

acio

n n

o e

s s

uficie

nte

para

valo

rar

co

n p

recis

ion

nu

estr

o n

ivel d

el in

gle

s,

pu

esto

qu

e e

so

s m

ati

ces d

e lo

s q

ue h

ab

lo s

e o

bvia

n.

73

b2

25

55

23

25

24

24

23

33

41

14

21

13

23

13

24

34

3,3

2,4

23,8

34,3

2,5

2,3

1,5

3,5

0,8

1,5

3,0

51/3

05

Y2010-1

1-1

8 1

1:4

2:3

12010-1

1-1

8 1

1:1

6:2

583.3

6.1

26.1

04

merc

on

fer@

yah

oo

.esFem

en

ino

46

nin

gu

no

35

ing

late

rra,

1 a

ño

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

45

35

52

55

15

15

31

53

52

55

32

25

33

25

51

573

b2

15

35

55

53

55

25

51

25

14

15

25

13

35

33

25

25

3,9

3,1

44,0

34,5

2,0

4,8

1,8

4,0

0,8

-0,8

1,5

303/4

82

Y2010-1

1-2

2 1

6:0

7:3

22010-1

1-2

2 1

5:4

8:2

584.7

6.1

63.5

2kh

ryssy@

ho

tmail.c

omFem

en

ino

23

UG

R5E

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

12

23

55

55

53

15

25

42

52

53

54

33

43

55

32

43

574

b2

23

55

54

34

55

45

33

55

22

24

32

15

35

25

35

35

4,1

3,3

3,8

3,8

4,3

4,8

2,8

3,5

2,0

4,8

0,9

0,3

0,5

293/2

6Y

2010-1

1-1

7 2

1:1

4:2

52010-1

1-1

7 2

1:0

4:0

682.1

58.8

0.2

53

5290036

Fem

en

ino

18

Un

ivers

idad

Au

tón

om

a d

e M

ad

rid

12

Rein

o U

nid

o,

1 m

es

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

23

11

31

21

15

12

43

43

21

53

32

44

45

21

44

2¿

me p

od

ría d

ecir

cu

án

to o

en

qu

é m

ed

ida h

e f

allad

o?

71

b2

11

45

23

34

12

45

44

14

12

34

11

11

33

35

22

22

3,0

2,3

22,5

34,5

1,8

2,0

2,3

3,0

0,8

0,5

2,0

263/4

55

Y2010-1

1-2

1 1

6:4

1:2

42010-1

1-2

1 1

6:2

0:0

987.2

22.2

23.6

0su

nh

a_sea@

ho

tmail.c

om

Fem

en

ino

21

Un

ivers

idad

de V

allad

olid

10

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

, 1 m

es

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

15

15

11

41

15

11

51

51

11

51

41

15

11

51

11

569

b2

11

15

51

55

51

15

51

15

11

11

11

11

41

11

51

14

3,0

1,6

41,0

25

2,8

1,0

1,0

1,8

1,4

0,0

0,0

275/6

33

Y2010-1

2-0

1 1

7:1

6:0

62010-1

2-0

1 1

7:0

2:3

685.6

0.6

6.9

8b

ch

oza@

fun

dacio

nsafa

.es

Fem

en

ino2

7N

ING

UN

O3

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

12

23

14

22

14

12

22

21

21

11

25

22

12

22

12

22

2E

s d

ific

il v

alo

rar

qu

é f

allo

es m

ás im

po

rtan

te q

ue o

tro

...

74

b2

24

22

25

32

41

12

22

22

22

12

12

11

22

12

12

21

2,4

1,6

2,5

3,0

22

1,5

2,0

1,3

1,5

0,8

1,0

0,5

178/6

54

Y2010-1

2-0

3 0

7:0

0:2

42010-1

2-0

3 0

6:4

7:5

1187.1

93.1

38.1

nad

iam

la@

yah

oo

.co

m.m

xF

em

en

ino2

7U

niv

ers

idad

Au

ton

om

a d

el E

do

. d

e M

éxic

o6

Ing

late

rra 3

sem

an

as

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

11

11

11

15

12

11

51

51

21

51

11

15

52

11

11

574

b2

15

55

51

15

12

12

51

15

11

11

11

11

11

12

11

11

2,9

1,1

32,3

24,3

1,0

1,0

1,0

1,3

1,8

1,3

1,5

14/7

64

Y2011-0

1-0

8 0

3:2

9:1

22011-0

1-0

8 0

3:0

4:3

6189.1

36.1

84.8

3ly

tzi0

981@

ho

tmail.c

om

Fem

en

ino

29

nin

gu

no

7in

gla

terr

a 1

5 d

ias

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o a

lto

(C

2)

11

24

53

25

13

14

21

53

41

41

54

21

21

13

23

43

569

b2

13

15

54

45

34

24

13

54

22

34

13

15

22

13

21

11

3,4

2,1

2,5

3,5

34,5

1,8

2,0

1,5

3,3

1,3

1,5

2,5

B2

1,3

2,9

3,1

4,1

3,9

3,2

2,7

4,1

3,5

3,0

2,6

3,7

3,0

2,3

2,7

3,5

2,1

1,9

1,7

2,7

1,3

1,7

1,1

2,7

1,9

2,3

1,6

2,6

2,0

2,3

1,8

3,2

B2

3,1

2,1

B2

2,9

2,8

2,8

3,8

B2

1,8

2,1

1,6

2,8

B2

1,0

B2

0,8

B2

0,9

272/3

69

Y2010-1

1-1

9 1

0:1

5:2

82010-1

1-1

9 1

0:0

1:5

689.1

28.1

71.1

7sh

irka05@

ho

tmail.

co

mF

em

en

ino

25

Un

ivers

idad

Au

tón

om

a d

e M

ad

rid

19

Ing

late

rra -

8 m

eses (

4 v

era

no

s)

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

11

11

11

14

11

11

11

11

51

15

31

13

11

21

14

5H

e e

mp

ezad

o e

l te

st

vie

nd

o q

ue t

od

as las o

racio

nes e

sta

ban

mal d

eb

ido

al su

jeto

, p

ero

lu

eg

o m

e h

a p

are

cid

o q

ue a

lgu

nas s

i q

ue s

on

gra

mati

calm

en

te c

orr

ecta

s,

y m

e h

a d

esp

ert

ad

o d

ud

as s

ob

re e

ste

tip

o d

e o

racio

nes q

ue a

ho

ra t

en

go

qu

e r

ep

asar

po

rqu

e n

o m

e a

cu

erd

o b

ien

!!81

c1

14

11

55

11

15

11

34

11

11

11

11

11

31

11

21

11

2,3

1,2

2,5

4,5

11

1,8

1,0

1,0

1,0

1,1

3,5

2,0

91/9

Y2010-1

1-1

3 1

6:0

7:1

42010-1

1-1

3 1

5:5

2:3

074.1

79.1

01.1

75

josem

an

uelr

od

rig

uezm

ora

@g

mail.

co

mM

ascu

lino

29

Un

ivers

idad

Pab

lo d

e O

lavid

e13

Ing

late

rra (

1 m

es);

Irl

an

da (

1 m

es);

EE

UU

(1 m

es)

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

11

11

51

15

15

15

11

51

51

15

11

15

51

11

55

582

c1

15

51

55

11

15

15

55

15

11

15

11

11

15

11

15

11

3,3

1,8

35,0

23

1,0

3,0

1,0

2,0

1,5

2,0

3,0

39/5

7Y

2010-1

1-1

4 1

2:0

2:4

52010-1

1-1

4 1

1:4

7:3

589.1

41.3

4.1

80

luis

felip

e.f

uen

tes@

estu

dia

nte

.uam

.es

Mascu

lino

20

Un

ivers

idad

Au

tón

om

a d

e M

ad

rid

13

Rein

o U

nid

o (

7 s

em

an

as)

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

12

11

51

11

11

15

11

11

51

15

11

11

11

14

15

182

c1

11

11

15

21

15

11

15

11

11

11

14

11

15

11

15

11

1,8

1,7

14,0

1,3

11,0

3,8

1,0

1,0

0,1

0,3

2,8

37/1

34

Y2010-1

1-1

5 1

1:3

7:3

72010-1

1-1

5 1

1:3

1:1

1217.2

16.8

4.7

5cri

sti

na.g

cia

.v@

gm

ail.

co

mF

em

en

ino

25

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a16

Rein

o U

nid

o,

9 m

eses

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

12

34

43

43

14

13

12

41

31

32

13

44

34

32

44

284

c1

13

33

22

21

43

44

44

34

11

24

12

13

14

14

33

34

2,9

2,4

2,8

3,0

33

1,5

2,5

1,8

3,8

0,6

0,5

0,3

7/4

53

Y2010-1

1-2

1 1

6:3

0:0

02010-1

1-2

1 1

6:1

4:2

081.1

72.2

9.2

3m

iri_

du

ru_2@

ho

tmail.

co

mF

em

en

ino

22

Un

ivers

idad

de V

alla

do

lid15

Ing

late

rra (

2 m

eses),

Esco

cia

(9 m

eses)

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

11

11

11

12

11

12

11

11

21

12

11

11

11

11

12

184

c1

12

11

12

11

12

11

12

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

12

11

1,3

1,1

12,0

11

1,0

1,3

1,0

1,0

0,2

0,8

1,0

265/1

1Y

2010-1

1-1

4 2

1:3

1:3

82010-1

1-1

4 2

1:2

5:3

782.1

58.1

0.1

651133084J

Fem

en

ino

18

Un

ivers

idad

Au

tón

om

a d

e M

ad

rid

12

Ing

late

rra:

1 m

es

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

12

34

35

25

35

24

15

32

52

42

24

23

33

51

42

25

379

c1

25

52

34

43

54

34

35

55

13

22

22

23

22

21

45

33

3,9

2,4

3,3

4,5

4,3

3,5

2,3

3,0

2,3

2,3

1,4

1,5

0,5

270/5

07

Y2010-1

1-2

3 1

4:2

1:1

72010-1

1-2

3 1

4:0

5:0

083.5

0.1

01.2

04

ireri

es@

yah

oo

.es

Fem

en

ino

29

Un

ivers

idad

La S

alle

23

Ing

late

rra (

2 a

ño

s)

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

13

14

53

12

21

12

11

51

21

21

51

11

12

32

11

11

476

c1

31

35

41

45

32

12

21

22

11

11

11

15

11

12

11

12

2,6

1,4

31,3

2,5

3,5

1,0

1,0

1,0

2,5

1,2

0,3

-0,8

28/5

18

Y2010-1

1-2

3 2

0:2

9:4

12010-1

1-2

3 2

0:1

3:0

687.2

22.1

54.5

2la

uri

ta91_m

dc@

ho

tmail.

co

mF

em

en

ino

18

facu

ltad

de f

iloso

fia y

letr

as v

alla

do

lid11

Irla

nd

a 2

1 d

ias

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

12

11

41

12

52

11

14

31

51

32

33

11

24

23

11

23

577

c1

22

23

53

13

13

21

43

25

11

12

21

14

11

13

14

15

2,6

1,9

32,8

1,8

31,3

1,8

1,0

3,5

0,8

1,0

1,0

214/5

23

Y2010-1

1-2

3 2

2:5

0:2

62010-1

1-2

3 2

2:4

0:1

679.1

53.2

07.8

1ag

uad

ob

ele

n@

ho

tmail.

co

mF

em

en

ino

27

Filo

so

fía y

Letr

as,

Valla

do

lid17

Lo

nd

res 4

dia

s,

Ed

imb

urg

o m

es y

med

ioE

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

51

55

51

55

15

55

11

51

55

15

51

15

15

55

55

580

c1

15

11

55

11

55

15

55

15

55

15

55

15

55

15

55

15

3,3

4,0

45,0

13

5,0

5,0

1,0

5,0

-0,8

0,0

3,0

113/6

00

Y2010-1

1-2

8 2

1:1

4:3

72010-1

1-2

8 2

0:5

5:4

888.2

2.2

33.1

37

rflg

lr@

gm

ail.

co

mM

ascu

lino

30

nin

gu

no

15

Rein

o U

nid

o 1

mes,

Irla

nd

a 1

mes

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

12

45

13

22

25

11

22

23

11

52

13

15

13

11

21

180

c1

12

15

12

22

51

15

51

32

11

22

11

24

11

33

11

32

2,4

1,8

31,5

1,8

3,5

1,0

1,0

2,5

2,8

0,6

0,5

0,3

253/5

88

Y2010-1

1-2

7 1

8:1

4:2

02010-1

1-2

7 1

8:0

3:2

687.2

23.2

16.7

6b

elg

ara

th_89@

ho

tmail.

co

mM

ascu

lino

21

Un

ivers

idad

Au

tón

om

a d

e M

ad

rid

10

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

43

42

43

52

15

32

44

52

21

44

23

23

35

22

53

383

c1

12

34

34

34

22

25

33

35

34

45

12

14

24

25

22

35

3,1

3,1

2,3

2,8

2,8

4,5

2,0

3,0

2,5

4,8

0,0

-0,3

2,3

326/7

61

Y2011-0

1-0

7 2

0:0

7:4

72011-0

1-0

7 2

0:0

0:0

584.1

25.1

07.8

0m

issb

an

do

n@

live.c

om

Fem

en

ino

27

UV

A5E

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol y o

tra(s

) le

ng

ua(s

)In

term

ed

io a

lto

(B

2)

12

24

23

23

33

14

12

43

51

31

32

11

13

32

22

32

476

c1

23

33

42

44

33

14

32

35

12

33

12

12

12

12

22

13

3,1

1,8

32,5

2,8

41,3

2,0

1,5

2,5

1,3

0,5

0,8

246/3

04

Y2010-1

1-1

8 1

1:2

3:5

62010-1

1-1

8 1

1:1

0:0

785.5

7.2

46.1

03

el_

san

ch

ez_10@

ho

tmail.

co

mM

ascu

lino

21

Un

ivers

idad

de V

alla

do

lid12

Esta

do

s U

nid

os (

2 m

eses),

In

gla

terr

a (

2 m

eses),

Esco

cia

(9 m

eses)

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

11

15

21

42

15

13

11

51

51

21

11

12

23

12

21

184

c1

12

22

11

11

55

15

21

15

11

12

12

11

12

13

13

14

2,3

1,6

2,3

2,3

1,3

3,3

1,0

2,0

1,0

2,5

0,6

0,3

2,0

C1

1,4

2,8

2,4

2,5

3,1

3,2

2,1

2,2

2,8

3,5

1,5

3,3

3,2

3,2

2,1

3,5

1,5

1,8

1,6

2,6

1,5

1,9

1,2

2,7

1,6

2,6

1,3

2,5

1,9

3,0

1,6

2,8

C1

2,7

2,0

C1

2,6

3,2

22,9

C1

1,6

2,3

1,4

2,7

C1

0,7

C1

0,8

C1

1,4

244/2

04

Y2010-1

1-1

6 0

0:4

3:5

72010-1

1-1

6 0

0:3

0:0

180.3

8.1

35.2

42

azu

rera

inb

ow

@h

otm

ail.

co

mM

ascu

lino

22

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a12

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Inte

rmed

io a

lto

(B

2)

11

31

15

32

55

15

25

51

51

51

52

13

33

42

41

14

587

c2

15

45

52

15

55

35

34

25

23

11

11

11

13

12

45

35

3,8

2,2

3,5

4,0

2,5

52,0

3,0

1,5

2,3

1,6

1,0

3,0

80/2

2Y

2010-1

1-1

3 1

9:2

1:3

82010-1

1-1

3 1

9:0

9:0

790.1

68.1

58.8

7o

bim

bc@

ho

tmail.

co

mFem

en

ino

25

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a13

Ing

late

rra,

un

añ

oE

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o a

lto

(C

2)

12

12

12

22

24

23

13

31

33

41

22

33

32

32

34

35

388

c2

24

32

32

23

24

33

25

23

11

13

14

21

32

32

33

32

2,8

2,2

2,3

3,8

2,5

2,8

2,0

2,5

2,3

2,0

0,6

1,3

1,8

243/4

5Y

2010-1

1-1

4 0

0:2

2:5

92010-1

1-1

4 0

0:1

3:2

083.5

9.2

07.1

12

am

an

dam

ola

s@

co

rreo

.ug

r.es

Fem

en

ino

18

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a12

Rein

o U

nid

o,

2 s

em

an

as

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

21

12

11

22

14

13

11

41

41

23

11

11

14

11

14

1O

pin

o q

ue s

e h

a r

ep

eti

do

excesiv

am

en

te u

n m

ism

o t

ipo

de e

rro

r. E

l te

st

se a

larg

a c

on

pre

gu

nta

s q

ue t

ien

den

a s

er

igu

ale

s las u

nas a

las o

tras,

y d

ud

o q

ue e

sto

ap

ort

e n

uevo

s d

ato

s.

96

c2

12

12

13

11

24

14

14

14

12

11

11

11

11

14

13

12

2,1

1,4

1,3

3,3

12,8

1,0

1,8

1,0

2,0

0,6

1,5

3,8

343/4

14

Y2010-1

1-2

0 1

1:3

3:3

22010-1

1-2

0 1

1:2

5:5

781.3

9.7

3.2

45

batt

osai1

868@

ho

tmail.

co

mM

ascu

lino

25

Un

ivers

idad

de V

alla

do

lid6

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

52

25

41

22

11

14

31

41

51

15

12

14

11

13

24

592

c2

12

11

55

23

55

11

44

14

15

12

13

12

14

11

14

22

2,8

2,0

3,8

4,0

1,3

2,3

1,0

4,0

1,3

1,8

0,8

0,0

1,3

200/4

12

Y2010-1

1-2

0 0

9:2

3:4

82010-1

1-2

0 0

9:1

6:4

588.3

1.2

37.1

88

isab

el.p

ere

z@

cch

s.c

sic

.es

Fem

en

ino

37

cch

s-c

sice

e u

u d

os m

eses

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

12

11

11

15

15

11

51

51

51

15

11

11

41

11

34

186

c2

15

41

15

25

15

15

14

15

11

13

11

11

11

11

11

11

2,9

1,1

14,8

24

1,0

1,0

1,0

1,5

1,8

3,8

5,8

328/7

6Y

2010-1

1-1

4 1

6:4

7:5

32010-1

1-1

4 1

6:2

5:3

487.2

35.8

8.5

7sere

ste

ban

@h

otm

ail.

co

mM

ascu

lino

28

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a7

Ing

late

rra:

Liv

erp

oo

l 9 m

eses,

Oxfo

rd 2

ag

no

sE

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o a

lto

(C

2)

11

14

33

22

35

34

45

42

52

51

55

32

22

54

22

45

3Á

reas p

rob

lem

áti

cas:

Dete

rmin

ar

el g

rad

o d

e g

ram

ati

calid

ad

de las o

racio

nes m

e h

a r

esu

ltad

o m

uy d

ifíc

il p

ues d

esco

no

zco

el cri

teri

o,

otr

o q

ue n

o s

ea W

ord

Ord

er.

El re

gis

tro

no

se s

i h

ab

ía q

ue in

dic

arl

o c

om

o in

ap

rop

iad

o o

no

(it

becam

e e

ven

sti

lted

at

tim

es w

here

it

wasn

't t

hat

necessary

). A

lso

, b

y b

ein

g a

ware

of

the f

act

that

the t

est

is g

eare

d t

ow

ard

a S

pan

ish

au

dic

en

ce y

ou

th

en

beco

me t

oo

self-a

ware

wh

en

an

sw

eri

ng

qu

esti

on

s n

ot

really

th

inkin

g in

En

glis

h a

ny m

ore

. 96

c2

15

55

35

44

35

24

25

25

41

24

12

33

32

24

25

23

3,8

2,7

2,3

5,0

3,3

4,5

2,5

2,5

2,3

3,5

1,1

2,5

4,0

236/5

54

Y2010-1

1-2

5 1

1:0

5:3

62010-1

1-2

5 1

0:5

7:5

787.2

17.1

21.2

43

mart

aflo

resvic

en

te@

ho

tmail.

co

mF

em

en

ino

21

EU

La S

alle

7E

sp

añ

ol

Otr

a len

gu

aE

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol y o

tra(s

) le

ng

ua(s

)P

rin

cip

ian

te b

ajo

(A

1)

51

35

11

51

21

51

14

15

43

15

11

33

13

11

53

11

186

c2

11

11

11

51

11

11

31

14

13

51

53

51

35

31

54

32

1,6

3,1

1,5

1,0

21,8

3,5

3,8

4,0

1,3

-1,6

-2,8

-0,8

209/6

04

Y2010-1

1-2

9 1

2:3

7:4

82010-1

1-2

9 1

2:2

4:0

788.1

1.5

5.6

7n

linn

itt@

gm

ail.

co

mM

ascu

lino

28

SA

FA

Ub

ed

a25

Ing

late

rra,

2 m

eses

Esp

añ

ol

Ing

lés

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol y o

tra(s

) le

ng

ua(s

)A

van

zad

o a

lto

(C

2)

23

23

33

23

43

34

33

53

53

42

53

24

32

32

33

23

489

c2

33

35

43

35

34

34

23

35

32

32

23

33

22

32

33

44

3,5

2,8

33,3

34,8

2,5

2,5

3,3

2,8

0,8

0,8

2,0

276/6

76

Y2010-1

2-0

7 1

7:1

1:3

12010-1

2-0

7 1

6:5

6:3

3189.2

47.4

.34

dels

ea23@

yah

oo

.co

m.m

xF

em

en

ino3

1fa

cu

ltad

de L

en

gu

as U

niv

ers

idad

Au

tón

om

a d

e M

12

Can

ad

á,

un

mes

Esp

añ

ol

Otr

a len

gu

aO

tra len

gu

aE

sp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

51

11

31

11

11

14

11

31

11

13

11

14

11

12

15

186

c2

11

11

13

11

11

11

45

13

15

11

12

11

13

11

14

11

1,7

1,6

1,8

2,5

11,5

1,0

3,5

1,0

1,0

0,1

-1,0

1,3

322/6

77

Y2010-1

2-0

7 1

9:1

8:0

82010-1

2-0

7 1

9:0

3:4

5189.2

47.2

08.6

5aco

sta

man

uel1

2@

ho

tmail.

co

mM

ascu

lino2

9U

niv

ers

idad

Au

ton

om

a d

el E

sta

do

de M

éxic

o12

Esta

do

s U

nid

os 1

añ

o 3

meses

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

41

11

41

11

15

15

11

21

51

15

11

11

11

11

15

190

c2

11

11

15

11

15

15

15

12

14

11

11

11

14

11

15

11

2,1

1,6

14,0

12,3

1,0

3,5

1,0

1,0

0,4

0,5

4,3

157/7

70

Y2011-0

1-0

8 1

7:3

8:0

32011-0

1-0

8 1

7:2

5:4

583.3

5.8

4.6

zm

en

dik

ute

@w

an

ad

oo

.es

Fem

en

ino

34

nin

gu

no

10

UK

1 m

es,

Irla

nd

a 1

mes,

Irla

nd

a 4

meses

Esp

añ

ol

Otr

a len

gu

aE

sp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol y o

tra(s

) le

ng

ua(s

)A

van

zad

o a

lto

(C

2)

11

11

11

11

22

12

11

21

31

21

11

11

11

11

11

12

1M

e e

s d

ifíc

il p

un

tuar

las f

rases q

ue c

reo

in

co

rrecta

s e

n u

na e

scala

del 1 a

l 5 p

orq

ue p

ien

so

qu

e o

so

n c

orr

ecta

s o

in

co

rrecta

s.

96

c2

12

11

11

12

12

12

12

13

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

12

1,4

1,1

11,8

12

1,0

1,0

1,0

1,3

0,4

0,8

1,8

327/7

56

Y2011-0

1-0

7 1

3:4

8:1

32011-0

1-0

7 1

3:3

5:0

983.6

1.2

42.2

18

du

blit

ati

va@

ho

tmail.

co

mF

em

en

ino

24

Un

ivers

idad

de S

ala

man

ca

15

Rein

o U

nid

o (

1 m

es)

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol y o

tra(s

) le

ng

ua(s

)In

term

ed

io b

ajo

(B

1)

11

11

51

53

55

15

11

11

51

51

15

11

15

55

15

53

594

c2

15

51

55

11

15

15

53

35

11

15

15

15

15

15

11

15

3,3

2,5

34,5

2,5

31,0

3,0

1,0

5,0

0,8

1,5

2,0

112/8

01

Y2011-0

1-2

4 1

7:2

7:1

82011-0

1-2

4 1

7:1

5:1

590.1

65.5

6.6

1elis

ab

arb

a@

co

rreo

.ug

r.es

Fem

en

ino

27

Un

ivers

idad

de G

ran

ad

a15

Rein

o u

nid

o (

Ing

late

rra,

3 m

eses,

Gale

s 9

meses ,

Irl

an

da d

el N

ort

e 9

meses)

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Esp

añ

ol

Avan

zad

o b

ajo

(C

1)

11

11

11

11

13

11

11

21

21

11

22

11

12

31

11

12

185

c2

13

32

12

12

11

11

22

12

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1,6

1,0

1,3

2,0

1,5

1,8

1,0

1,0

1,0

1,0

0,6

1,0

1,0

C2

1,2

3,0

2,5

2,2

2,5

3,2

1,9

2,6

2,1

3,6

1,5

3,2

2,4

3,6

1,5

3,8

1,5

2,3

1,5

2,0

1,4

2,2

1,7

1,7

1,5

2,6

1,5

2,0

1,9

3,1

1,8

2,4

C2

2,6

1,9

C2

23,4

1,9

2,9

C2

1,6

2,5

1,7

2,0

C2

0,6

C2

0,8

C2

2,4

213

11.4.3 RAW DATA FOR L1 MACED – L2 ENGLISH LEARNERS

10/3

45

Y2011-0

1-3

0 0

2:4

7:3

32011-0

1-3

0 0

2:3

0:2

779.1

25.1

91.4

8nik

ola

.mla

denovs

ki@

yahoo.c

om

Masculin

o19

Sv.

Kir

il i M

eto

dij

- S

kopje

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

15

24

45

34

23

15

15

41

41

51

42

11

33

32

14

14

353

A2

53

34

32

44

55

35

34

44

12

11

14

14

13

12

15

12

3,8

1,9

43,5

3,5

4,3

1,0

3,5

1,0

2,3

1,9

0,0

0,3

24/3

06

Y2011-0

2-0

4 1

2:1

9:3

22011-0

2-0

4 1

2:0

3:5

577.2

9.1

87.8

zafiro

vanto

nie

@yahoo.c

om

Masculin

o22

FE

IT S

kopje

4M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

22

45

55

32

23

42

21

51

53

52

45

32

55

42

14

55

553

A2

23

44

55

55

55

52

55

25

24

15

24

45

33

32

11

22

4,2

2,8

4,3

4,5

44

2,0

3,0

2,5

3,5

1,4

1,5

0,3

34/7

8Y

2011-0

2-0

4 1

2:5

1:5

32011-0

2-0

4 1

2:4

1:2

193.1

06.1

48.4

0m

ari

na.tra

jkovi

c@

hotm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o24

ne s

tudir

am

10

Macedonia

nO

traM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

11

31

42

53

55

42

25

54

52

55

45

55

55

44

15

55

556

A2

15

44

55

15

25

52

55

35

23

45

55

44

55

24

15

55

3,9

4,0

3,3

5,0

3,3

43,3

4,5

3,8

4,5

-0,1

0,5

2,5

45/6

81

Y2011-0

2-0

4 1

4:5

7:3

12011-0

2-0

4 1

3:3

1:3

689.2

05.4

7.4

3jo

sifovs

kid

ane@

aol.deM

asculin

o21

Fon U

niv

erz

itet-

Ekonom

ski nauki

13

Anglij

a-

10 d

ena

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado b

ajo

(C

1)

13

41

55

51

55

11

55

55

51

51

51

55

11

55

55

15

559

A2

35

55

51

15

55

11

15

15

54

51

15

15

55

15

55

55

3,4

3,9

3,5

4,0

24

4,0

4,8

3,0

4,0

-0,6

-0,8

2,5

98/1

68

Y2011-0

2-0

4 2

2:2

4:1

52011-0

2-0

4 2

2:1

6:3

895.8

6.6

.215

a_m

eshkova

@yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o24

UC

TM

8M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

13

22

33

24

54

54

25

54

45

52

55

54

55

33

43

53

558

A2

34

35

55

25

35

54

53

44

22

45

23

53

52

53

45

45

4,1

3,7

44,3

3,5

4,5

3,3

3,0

4,5

4,0

0,4

1,3

1,3

106/5

5Y

2011-0

2-0

5 1

1:1

1:0

52011-0

2-0

5 1

0:5

6:5

495.8

6.1

2.6

7avv

ocato

232005@

yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o28

ne s

tudir

am

10

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

15

11

52

13

31

51

15

51

53

41

24

11

14

43

55

15

458

A2

51

42

44

15

24

11

45

35

11

11

15

55

11

33

55

13

3,2

2,6

3,8

3,5

2,3

3,3

2,0

3,0

2,5

3,0

0,6

0,5

0,8

122/7

15

Y2011-0

2-0

7 1

7:0

9:5

72011-0

2-0

7 1

6:5

5:4

8213.1

35.1

68.1

95

km

urg

oski@

gm

ail.

comM

asculin

o25

ne s

tudir

am

9U

SA

2 g

od A

vstr

alij

a 3

meseci N

ov

Zela

nd 3

meseci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

13

23

25

52

31

55

42

53

53

54

53

25

55

55

33

54

555

A2

31

55

53

35

55

55

54

25

42

35

43

52

25

35

32

53

4,1

3,5

4,5

3,3

3,8

53,3

3,0

4,0

3,8

0,6

0,3

0,0

131/7

78

Y2011-0

2-0

8 1

6:0

2:3

72011-0

2-0

8 1

5:4

6:5

879.1

26.2

01.8

3la

lkovv

@yahoo.c

om

Masculin

o30

Univ

erz

itet K

iril

i M

eto

dij

8London,

3 m

eseci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

21

14

54

15

45

45

12

55

55

51

55

15

15

15

51

25

553

A2

15

15

55

45

45

15

55

55

11

52

11

45

11

55

52

54

4,1

3,0

3,8

5,0

2,8

52,0

1,3

4,8

4,0

1,1

3,8

3,5

143/4

05

Y2011-0

2-1

4 0

1:1

1:4

92011-0

2-1

4 0

0:5

9:2

477.2

8.7

6.2

3kik

i4ka_sm

ale

y@

hotm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o21

univ

erz

itet sv.

kir

il i m

eto

dij

6M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado b

ajo

(C

1)

11

12

11

22

22

21

11

31

21

31

33

11

31

23

22

21

359

A2

12

23

33

23

13

31

11

22

11

12

12

21

12

13

21

12

2,1

1,5

1,5

2,3

2,3

2,3

1,3

1,5

1,3

2,0

0,6

0,8

0,8

198/4

67

Y2011-0

2-1

7 2

2:4

5:1

32011-0

2-1

7 2

2:2

5:4

878.1

57.4

.115

em

ilija

pavl

ova

@yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o29

"Sv.

Kir

il i M

eto

dij"

-"Justinija

n I

"-S

kopje

10

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

11

15

21

52

55

12

12

51

11

51

55

11

31

54

15

35

157

A2

15

55

15

55

15

32

15

21

11

13

15

12

15

14

12

15

3,3

2,2

15,0

3,8

3,3

1,0

3,3

1,0

3,5

1,1

1,8

3,5

255/7

88

Y2011-0

3-0

1 0

0:0

2:4

22011-0

2-2

8 2

3:5

4:1

378.1

57.0

.89

anic

a5petr

ova

@yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o21

Univ

erz

itet S

v.K

iril

i M

eto

dij

10

US

AM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

23

42

43

45

45

34

22

42

52

33

55

22

34

53

24

34

558

A2

35

55

55

24

33

34

44

55

24

23

34

34

24

23

22

24

4,1

2,9

3,8

4,3

3,8

4,5

2,3

3,5

2,3

3,5

1,2

0,8

1,3

273/2

82

Y2011-0

3-0

5 2

1:5

3:5

62011-0

3-0

5 2

1:4

1:2

677.2

9.6

0.1

88

keti_kejt@

hotm

ail.

comF

em

enin

o21

ne s

tudir

am

0M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

bajo

(B

1)

15

54

55

55

15

55

15

55

55

51

55

11

55

55

15

55

559

A2

55

55

55

45

55

55

55

55

15

55

15

55

15

55

15

11

4,9

3,5

55,0

4,8

51,0

5,0

4,0

4,0

1,4

0,0

0,3

307/1

74

Y2011-0

4-0

4 1

3:3

1:1

52011-0

4-0

4 1

3:1

2:3

595.1

80.1

70.1

79

em

ilija

_ja

neva

@yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o22

Farm

acevt

ski F

akulte

t-S

kopje

62 m

eseci-

U.S

.A.

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

14

42

55

55

55

54

25

53

51

54

55

14

55

55

25

55

3S

meta

m d

eka n

acin

ot za o

cenuva

nje

na p

ravi

lnosta

na r

ecenic

ite e

neja

sen t.e

. ili

recenic

ata

e tocna ili

ne e

.Isto

taka s

meta

m d

eka z

a d

a m

ozete

da g

o o

cenite p

oznava

nje

to n

a a

nglis

kio

t ja

zik

kaj m

akedonskata

popula

cija

,ne tre

ba s

am

o d

a s

e o

gra

nic

uva

te n

a k

onstr

ukcija

ta n

a r

ecenic

ata

tuku i n

z n

ejz

inata

gra

maticka tocnost.S

e n

adeva

m d

eka b

are

m m

alk

u v

i pom

ognav.

So s

reka..

.:)

56

A2

45

55

35

25

55

54

55

55

24

35

45

55

15

15

25

45

4,6

3,8

4,3

5,0

4,3

4,8

2,3

4,8

3,3

5,0

0,8

0,3

1,3

334/2

84

Y2011-0

6-2

8 2

0:5

2:2

82011-0

6-2

8 2

0:3

1:4

762.1

62.2

09.6

8jo

kis

[email protected]

om

Masculin

o25

ne s

tudir

am

8/

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

14

23

52

44

15

53

23

51

51

34

45

22

55

42

34

25

455

A2

45

44

45

35

23

53

55

45

22

12

44

55

24

12

33

21

4,1

2,7

3,8

4,5

44,3

2,8

3,3

2,3

2,5

1,4

1,3

1,0

A2

2,9

3,9

3,9

4,4

4,1

4,1

2,8

4,7

3,4

4,5

3,6

3,1

3,9

4,4

3,4

4,4

1,9

2,6

2,6

3,2

2,2

3,9

3,6

3,9

2,2

3,6

2,4

3,6

2,6

3,4

2,8

3,4

A2

3,8

3,0

A2

3,6

4,2

3,4

4,1

A2

2,2

3,4

2,9

3,5

A2

0,8

A2

0,8

A2

1,4

76/3

47

Y2011-0

2-0

4 1

7:1

3:4

22011-0

2-0

4 1

7:0

3:3

789.2

05.3

9.1

84

trajk

ovs

ki_

tk@

yahoo.c

om

Masculin

o22

FE

IT7

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

13

31

34

25

23

45

33

53

52

44

45

32

55

45

32

35

561

B1

33

44

55

15

44

55

55

55

33

33

42

43

32

25

33

22

4,3

2,9

4,3

4,3

3,8

4,8

3,3

2,5

2,8

3,3

1,3

1,8

1,0

97/4

3Y

2011-0

2-0

4 2

2:1

4:5

42011-0

2-0

4 2

2:0

1:5

992.5

3.1

4.1

88

fcw

izard

@gm

ail.

com

Masculin

o20

Fakulte

t za turi

zam

i u

gostite

lstv

o4

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

bajo

(B

1)

12

14

55

13

42

25

13

41

53

52

53

12

55

45

11

52

467

B1

22

45

43

44

55

55

52

35

11

15

21

25

11

35

13

24

3,9

2,4

43,0

44,8

1,3

1,5

2,0

4,8

1,6

1,5

-0,3

102/2

60

Y2011-0

2-0

4 2

3:4

9:2

12011-0

2-0

4 2

3:4

0:2

289.2

05.3

6.2

53

bunte

_b@

yahoo.c

om

Masculin

o28

ne s

tudir

am

8M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

11

55

15

51

35

55

15

51

55

51

55

15

55

55

15

55

564

B1

15

55

55

55

55

55

55

15

15

15

15

51

15

55

15

53

4,5

3,4

45,0

45

1,0

5,0

4,0

3,5

1,1

0,0

2,0

151/3

4Y

2011-0

2-1

5 2

2:1

2:0

82011-0

2-1

5 2

2:0

1:1

595.8

6.5

0.2

29

anasta

sija

olu

mceva

@yahoo.c

o.u

kF

em

enin

oM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

11

33

53

51

15

13

13

11

11

51

55

15

15

51

55

13

563

B1

15

55

55

31

35

13

53

11

13

11

15

15

15

11

53

51

3,3

2,5

3,5

4,5

2,5

2,5

2,0

4,0

2,0

2,0

0,8

0,5

1,0

176/1

7Y

2011-0

2-1

7 0

0:1

5:3

42011-0

2-1

6 2

3:5

3:4

578.1

57.4

.115

zhiv

ka.g

ruevs

ka@

gm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o22

Univ

erz

itet S

v. K

iril

i M

eto

dij

10

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

bajo

(B

1)

13

44

42

21

53

23

13

45

44

52

25

23

43

52

55

54

564

B1

33

52

55

44

25

43

34

14

14

55

25

24

22

42

53

35

3,6

3,4

3,3

4,3

3,5

3,3

2,5

3,5

3,5

4,0

0,2

0,8

0,8

184/6

44

Y2011-0

2-1

7 0

9:0

1:2

92011-0

2-1

7 0

1:3

7:5

977.2

46.8

7.2

4m

ishela

86@

yahoo.c

omFem

enin

o24

Univ

ers

ité d

'Avi

gnon

8M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado b

ajo

(C

1)

11

32

42

33

35

34

14

51

41

51

45

22

25

34

34

45

561

B1

15

34

55

25

25

24

55

34

13

14

14

34

23

14

34

23

3,8

2,7

3,3

5,0

2,5

4,3

1,8

3,5

1,8

3,8

1,1

1,5

3,5

231/5

30

Y2011-0

2-2

6 1

2:4

0:2

02011-0

2-2

6 1

2:1

1:3

162.1

62.1

64.1

13

anitceto

_d@

yahoo.c

omFem

enin

o21

Univ

erz

itet G

oce D

elc

ev

11

Massachusets

, U

SA

, 4 m

eseci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

24

54

44

25

55

24

23

52

53

53

55

25

45

43

44

33

5S

meta

m d

eka tre

base p

od s

ekoe p

rasanje

da d

adem

e p

rim

er

kako s

meta

m d

eka tre

ba d

a izgle

da r

ecenic

ata

. M

i bese m

nogu tesko d

a g

i ocenam

. 63

B1

45

45

55

45

45

44

53

55

25

23

34

24

22

33

43

55

4,5

3,3

4,5

4,5

4,3

4,8

2,8

3,5

3,0

3,8

1,3

1,0

0,5

250/4

34

Y2011-0

2-2

8 0

1:1

0:4

82011-0

2-2

8 0

0:5

7:4

792.5

3.5

7.4

3vi

kce77kr@

yahoo.c

omFem

enin

o21

Univ

irzitet K

iril

i M

eth

odi, E

konom

ski F

akult

8U

SA

, tr

i pati p

o 4

meseci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

12

12

55

22

55

55

11

31

33

52

52

41

54

55

14

55

567

B1

25

55

52

23

55

55

45

23

11

15

24

55

42

35

11

15

3,9

2,9

44,3

3,5

42,0

2,0

2,5

5,0

1,1

2,3

0,8

257/1

89

Y2011-0

3-0

1 1

3:3

6:0

12011-0

3-0

1 1

3:1

7:2

792.5

3.4

8.2

38

sanja

_ta

sevs

ka1988@

yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o22

Sv

,,K

iril

i M

eto

dij"

-S

kopje

8A

nglij

a (

2 p

ati p

o 3

nedeli)

i U

SA

(3 m

eseci)

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

11

23

22

52

35

34

34

52

23

44

54

44

44

54

44

44

361

B1

15

55

34

35

24

44

44

22

32

24

44

32

45

34

44

43

3,6

3,4

2,5

4,3

3,5

43,8

3,8

3,0

3,3

0,1

0,5

2,3

304/6

3Y

2011-0

4-0

1 1

9:4

2:4

72011-0

4-0

1 1

9:3

1:4

179.1

25.2

49.8

1la

zaro

va.v

@gm

ail.

comF

em

enin

o26

Sv.

Kir

il i M

eto

dij

12

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nP

rincip

iante

alto

(A

2)

32

11

52

11

31

11

11

51

51

31

22

12

21

11

11

11

561

B1

21

12

52

15

23

21

11

15

11

11

11

15

11

11

11

23

2,2

1,4

2,5

1,8

1,3

3,3

1,0

1,0

1,3

2,5

0,8

0,8

1,3

B1

2,0

3,9

4,1

4,2

4,7

4,1

2,9

4,2

3,4

4,6

3,7

3,9

4,2

3,7

2,4

3,9

1,5

2,8

1,8

3,6

2,1

3,5

2,8

3,8

2,1

2,8

2,6

3,5

2,8

3,0

3,1

3,4

B1

3,7

2,8

B1

3,6

4,1

3,3

4,1

B1

2,1

3,0

2,6

3,6

B1

0,9

B1

1,1

B1

1,3

14/7

64

Y2011-0

2-0

3 1

5:3

6:0

52011-0

2-0

3 1

5:0

9:0

277.2

8.1

07.8

1ve

sna.m

itresk

a@

pum

pi.com

.mk

Fem

enin

o29

ne s

tudir

am

9A

nlij

a-e

den m

ese

cM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanza

do b

ajo

(C

1)

11

11

32

41

25

35

11

51

51

31

12

11

14

25

12

45

569

B2

15

21

52

15

23

15

45

15

11

14

12

33

14

15

11

12

3,0

2,0

33,8

1,3

41,0

2,0

1,5

3,5

1,0

1,8

3,5

19/1

16

Y2011-0

2-0

3 2

2:4

3:3

12011-0

2-0

3 2

2:3

1:5

189.2

05.2

2.1

85

kris

.petr

ova

@yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o21

Sv.

Kir

il i M

eto

dij

Sko

pje

11

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanza

do b

ajo

(C

1)

11

35

55

55

55

55

14

55

54

51

55

14

24

55

32

55

471

B2

15

55

45

55

55

25

45

55

13

55

12

55

15

45

34

45

4,4

3,6

3,5

5,0

4,3

51,5

3,5

4,5

5,0

0,8

1,5

2,3

51/3

05

Y2011-0

2-0

4 1

4:2

0:0

32011-0

2-0

4 1

4:0

9:0

977.2

8.9

7.6

0eftim

ovs

ka_nata

sa@

yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o31

ne s

tudir

am

10

US

A-

1 m

onth

, U

K-1

month

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanza

do a

lto (

C2)

11

11

11

51

15

11

11

11

11

51

55

11

11

15

15

55

172

B2

15

15

15

11

15

11

15

11

11

15

15

11

15

15

11

11

2,3

2,0

15,0

12

1,0

3,0

1,0

3,0

0,3

2,0

5,0

63/1

04

Y2011-0

2-0

4 1

5:3

7:4

92011-0

2-0

4 1

5:2

0:0

777.2

8.1

54.2

45

dafina@

kouzo

n.c

om

.mk

Fem

enin

o30

ne s

tudir

am

12

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanza

do a

lto (

C2)

12

13

35

21

55

24

12

51

52

32

55

25

45

45

22

35

571

B2

25

45

55

35

53

44

55

15

11

13

22

23

22

25

22

55

4,1

2,5

4,3

4,5

34,8

1,8

1,8

2,5

4,0

1,6

2,8

2,0

152/2

26

Y2011-0

2-1

6 1

2:3

1:0

02011-0

2-1

6 1

2:1

7:1

877.2

8.1

05.1

27

mark

o@

kouzo

n.c

om

.mk

Masc

ulin

o24

Euro

pean U

niv

ers

ity20

US

A-4

m, M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanza

do a

lto (

C2)

11

15

55

13

55

15

15

52

52

52

55

24

25

35

24

15

570

B2

15

35

55

55

55

25

55

35

11

21

24

15

21

25

25

45

4,3

2,7

45,0

3,3

51,8

2,8

2,3

4,0

1,6

2,3

2,8

173/2

3Y

2011-0

2-1

6 2

3:1

7:2

92011-0

2-1

6 2

3:0

8:1

689.2

05.3

3.1

9ka

teri

na_m

akr

esk

a@

hotm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o25

Evr

opsk

i U

niv

erz

itet -

magis

ters

ki s

tudii

10

Anglij

a 3

nedeli

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanza

do a

lto (

C2)

11

13

45

24

55

54

34

51

52

32

53

23

33

45

35

53

569

B2

15

45

53

35

53

34

33

45

31

15

25

54

22

25

34

35

3,8

3,3

3,5

3,5

3,5

4,8

2,5

3,0

2,8

4,8

0,6

0,5

1,3

175/1

44

Y2011-0

2-1

6 2

3:3

5:4

62011-0

2-1

6 2

3:2

6:5

0187.1

05.1

3.2

00

cve

tanka

_gj@

yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o30

ne s

tudir

am

2M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

12

31

24

44

55

35

24

42

53

52

45

14

54

35

21

55

568

B2

25

34

55

14

45

55

45

45

23

25

21

32

14

35

24

45

4,1

3,0

3,8

5,0

3,3

4,5

1,8

3,0

3,0

4,3

1,1

2,0

2,5

178/6

54

Y2011-0

2-1

7 0

0:4

3:2

22011-0

2-1

7 0

0:0

5:0

977.2

9.2

09.1

88

cukn

eva

vesn

a@

yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o27

Sv.

Kir

il i M

eto

dij

Sko

pje

12

Anglij

a 5

mese

ci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanza

do b

ajo

(C

1)

11

11

53

32

55

15

11

31

31

51

35

11

31

24

11

32

570

B2

15

23

55

13

35

35

12

23

11

13

11

15

13

14

11

15

3,1

1,9

2,5

4,3

23,5

1,0

1,5

1,0

4,3

1,1

2,8

3,3

186/2

5Y

2011-0

2-1

7 0

3:5

6:3

52011-0

2-1

7 0

3:4

4:4

495.1

80.1

55.6

1m

agde_petk

ovi

c@

hotm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o25

uki

m m

ake

donija

15

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

11

14

55

31

14

15

11

51

41

45

55

14

35

14

41

43

568

B2

14

15

55

45

54

35

53

14

11

14

51

15

13

14

41

41

3,8

2,4

44,0

2,3

4,8

2,8

1,5

1,8

3,5

1,4

2,5

2,5

247/1

67

Y2011-0

2-2

7 1

8:1

4:2

82011-0

2-2

7 1

8:0

6:2

677.2

9.1

50.7

3sa

sedim

kov@

hotm

ail.

com

Masc

ulin

o23

ne s

tudir

am

10

Flo

rida 2

mese

ci, V

irgin

ia 4

mese

ci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanza

do a

lto (

C2)

11

23

35

24

34

43

12

51

11

21

14

11

11

12

11

43

374

B2

14

11

34

35

52

13

13

41

12

14

11

43

12

12

12

13

2,6

1,9

2,5

3,3

2,3

2,5

1,0

1,8

1,8

3,0

0,8

1,5

1,0

263/4

55

Y2011-0

3-0

2 1

1:0

4:4

12011-0

3-0

2 1

0:5

1:5

579.9

9.5

6.6

6dra

gana_m

itova

@yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o21

Univ

erz

iet G

oce D

elc

ev

11

US

A -

4 m

ese

ci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanza

do a

lto (

C2)

31

13

42

45

53

25

23

54

53

52

45

33

55

55

23

43

468

B2

13

54

45

35

25

55

53

55

21

44

23

24

34

35

23

35

4,1

3,1

34,0

4,5

4,8

2,3

2,8

3,0

4,5

0,9

1,3

1,3

275/6

33

Y2011-0

3-0

6 2

2:5

0:3

02011-0

3-0

6 2

2:3

6:1

779.1

25.2

38.2

14

e_st

oja

novs

ka@

hotm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o27

ne s

tudir

am

6M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

11

12

55

32

12

14

12

51

22

41

11

11

11

11

12

15

169

B2

12

11

11

25

54

14

15

22

11

11

12

15

13

21

12

11

2,4

1,6

23,0

1,5

31,0

2,0

1,3

2,0

0,8

1,0

2,5

280/2

07

Y2011-0

3-0

9 1

4:1

7:2

12011-0

3-0

9 1

4:0

5:0

077.2

9.1

51.4

7off

ice@

slogain

tern

atio

nal.c

om

Masc

ulin

o26

Ne s

tudir

am

8M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanza

do b

ajo

(C

1)

43

34

45

45

55

55

24

54

52

52

54

33

54

35

33

35

472

B2

35

35

44

45

55

55

45

55

23

43

23

54

34

25

34

35

4,5

3,4

44,8

4,3

52,5

3,5

3,5

4,3

1,1

1,3

1,5

293/2

6Y

2011-0

3-1

2 2

2:0

1:4

82011-0

3-1

2 2

1:4

1:5

289.2

05.2

0.1

41

dija

na_va

landovo

@hotm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o17

ne s

tudir

am

6M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

14

35

54

51

55

44

35

55

44

45

52

54

53

55

44

54

570

B2

45

55

52

55

44

54

34

14

33

55

54

45

55

45

45

45

4,1

4,4

43,8

44,5

4,3

4,3

4,3

5,0

-0,4

-0,5

0,3

303/4

82

Y2011-0

3-2

9 0

1:5

2:5

22011-0

3-2

9 0

1:4

5:1

195.1

80.2

13.2

35

radm

ila_11@

yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o23

Univ

ers

ity o

f S

ts.

Cyri

l and M

eth

odiu

s14

US

A 1

year

Macedonia

nO

traM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanza

do a

lto (

C2)

11

53

34

21

45

11

13

14

11

51

15

12

51

11

15

13

172

B2

15

11

15

31

45

51

13

11

15

41

15

13

12

11

13

24

2,4

2,3

1,8

4,5

2,5

11,0

3,8

2,0

2,3

0,2

0,8

1,3

B2

1,5

4,5

2,7

3,7

3,9

4,1

2,9

4,3

4,0

4,2

3,1

4,1

3,1

4,1

2,7

3,7

1,5

1,9

2,3

3,5

1,9

2,7

2,6

3,8

1,7

3,3

2,0

4,1

2,1

2,8

2,7

3,8

B2

3,5

2,7

B2

3,1

4,2

2,9

3,9

B2

1,8

2,7

2,4

3,8

B2

0,9

B2

1,6

B2

2,2

7/4

53

Y2011-0

1-2

9 1

2:0

0:5

42011-0

1-2

9 1

1:3

6:3

095.8

6.8

.227

sanja

sim

onovi

k@

gm

ail.

com

Faculty

of

Philo

logy

10

US

A 4

month

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

12

21

23

22

23

23

24

42

22

32

33

22

22

23

23

33

384

C1

23

23

33

14

33

23

23

22

22

23

23

22

22

23

24

22

2,6

2,3

2,5

3,0

1,8

32,0

2,8

2,0

2,5

0,3

0,3

1,8

28/5

18

Y2011-0

2-0

4 1

2:1

7:4

72011-0

2-0

4 1

2:1

0:5

295.8

6.8

.73

ngerg

eva

@yahoo.c

omF

em

enin

o18

SO

U 'D

obri

Daskalo

v'9

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado b

ajo

(C

1)

11

15

21

44

51

15

11

51

51

11

51

11

11

15

11

11

177

C1

11

15

11

55

11

15

11

45

11

11

11

12

14

15

11

15

2,4

1,8

11,0

2,8

51,0

1,8

1,0

3,3

0,7

-0,8

2,3

37/1

34

Y2011-0

2-0

4 1

3:2

3:5

02011-0

2-0

4 1

2:5

7:5

289.2

05.3

5.1

29

d.todoro

vska@

yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o24

Faculty

of

Philo

logy "

Bla

ze K

oneski"

- S

kopje

12

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

11

23

55

44

54

54

34

54

51

51

54

24

41

55

22

55

5I

thin

k that th

e p

roble

m in these s

ente

nces in g

enera

l is

the u

se o

f "i

t",

"there

" and "

pla

cin

g the v

erb

at th

e b

egin

nin

g o

f th

e s

ente

nce inste

ad a

t th

e e

nd".

83

C1

14

55

54

35

55

44

15

45

32

45

12

55

24

15

24

45

4,1

3,4

34,5

44,8

2,0

3,0

3,5

5,0

0,7

1,5

2,3

39/5

7Y

2011-0

2-0

4 1

3:2

3:1

92011-0

2-0

4 1

3:1

1:3

992.5

3.3

6.2

54

dark

oo_i@

yahoo.c

om

ne s

tudir

am

8M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

11

11

12

21

54

24

13

32

53

52

44

13

42

35

21

54

5m

alk

u n

eja

sen,inaku v

o r

ed

83

C1

14

34

54

13

25

44

24

15

11

25

21

21

12

35

23

35

3,3

2,4

2,5

4,3

2,3

41,5

1,8

2,5

4,0

0,8

2,5

3,5

91/9

Y2011-0

2-0

4 1

9:3

8:4

02011-0

2-0

4 1

9:2

9:0

477.2

9.4

3.3

9i.dala

s@

hotm

ail.

com

Masculin

o31

ne s

tudir

am

0U

SA

, 1 g

odin

aM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nIn

term

edio

alto

(B

2)

21

12

23

34

52

24

21

31

31

41

42

12

22

32

22

23

382

C1

12

34

32

23

34

24

23

43

21

12

12

22

13

12

21

25

2,8

1,9

2,3

2,8

2,8

3,5

1,5

1,8

1,5

2,8

0,9

1,0

1,3

113/6

00

Y2011-0

2-0

6 0

4:5

2:0

12011-0

2-0

6 0

4:3

9:5

278.1

57.6

.10

igor_

spasovs

ki@

hotm

ail.

com

Masculin

o29

Univ

erz

itet S

v. K

iril

i M

eto

di

20

SA

D-

1 m

esec

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

32

44

52

22

53

24

25

52

33

43

24

33

43

24

34

43

478

C1

23

22

44

45

24

44

33

23

24

24

34

25

32

34

35

35

3,2

3,4

2,8

3,5

33,5

2,8

3,8

2,5

4,5

-0,2

-0,3

1,3

214/5

23

Y2011-0

2-2

1 2

1:0

4:2

22011-0

2-2

1 2

0:5

2:5

878.1

57.4

.115

tanja

.dim

itro

vska@

yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o26

ne s

tudir

am

16

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado b

ajo

(C

1)

11

15

55

51

55

45

45

55

44

55

55

55

52

55

54

55

580

C1

15

55

55

55

55

55

25

14

41

55

54

45

55

45

55

55

4,3

4,5

3,3

5,0

44,8

4,8

3,8

4,5

5,0

-0,3

1,3

2,5

246/3

04

Y2011-0

2-2

7 1

6:4

8:0

22011-0

2-2

7 1

6:3

8:0

589.2

05.5

7.1

13

jord

evs

tefa

n@

yahoo.c

om

Masculin

o21

""S

s.

Cyri

l and M

eth

odiu

s"

12

US

A 7

meseci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

51

21

55

15

51

15

15

11

51

51

11

11

11

15

11

15

184

C1

11

11

11

11

55

15

15

55

12

11

11

15

11

15

15

15

2,5

2,1

23,0

23

1,0

2,3

1,0

4,0

0,4

0,8

2,0

253/5

88

Y2011-0

2-2

8 2

3:4

8:5

12011-0

2-2

8 2

3:2

0:1

392.5

3.3

0.1

71

mark

ovs

ki.vi

kto

[email protected]

om

Masculin

o21

Evr

opski U

niv

erz

itet na R

epublik

a M

akedonija

10

Nov

Zela

nd,

5 g

odin

iM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

11

11

13

11

31

13

15

41

54

41

42

11

34

35

31

55

282

C1

11

34

22

14

34

33

45

15

11

15

11

11

11

45

35

13

2,9

2,2

2,5

3,0

24

1,5

2,0

1,8

3,5

0,7

1,0

2,5

326/7

61

Y2011-0

6-2

4 2

0:1

6:1

52011-0

6-2

4 2

0:1

4:1

077.2

9.2

53.9

6nata

shapetr

evs

ka@

gm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o27

mashin

ski fa

kulte

t11

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

32

23

22

32

33

32

23

32

33

32

33

23

42

33

23

33

277

C1

23

33

23

33

23

42

23

23

22

23

23

32

23

33

23

33

2,7

2,6

23,0

32,8

2,0

2,8

2,8

2,8

0,1

0,3

0,8

265/1

1Y

2011-0

3-0

2 1

7:0

4:1

12011-0

3-0

2 1

6:5

5:4

077.2

9.1

13.1

71

sera

fim

ovs

ka.jana@

gm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o13

o.u

. m

irce a

cev

5M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado b

ajo

(C

1)

22

22

22

22

32

22

22

22

22

52

55

22

22

25

22

22

290%

od r

ecenic

ite d

obija

2 b

idejk

i bea g

ram

aticki nelo

gic

ni.

78

C1

22

25

25

22

25

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

25

22

23

2,6

2,3

23,5

22,8

2,0

2,0

2,0

3,0

0,3

1,5

2,3

270/5

07

Y2011-0

3-0

3 2

3:3

4:1

92011-0

3-0

3 2

3:1

5:4

589.2

05.2

0.1

41

limbam

k@

gm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o29

ne s

tudir

am

12

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

11

24

24

53

45

44

14

52

43

41

34

12

31

44

21

24

4O

dgovo

rite

odnosno o

cenuva

nje

to o

d 1

do 5

e m

n g

enera

lno.

80

C1

15

43

44

45

44

34

14

34

12

22

11

42

15

34

24

24

3,6

2,5

2,5

4,3

3,5

41,3

3,0

2,8

3,0

1,1

1,3

2,3

272/3

69

Y2011-0

3-0

4 1

5:4

1:3

02011-0

3-0

4 1

4:5

6:3

579.1

25.1

91.2

31

despin

apoposka@

rocketm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o25

12

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

11

11

15

11

15

13

15

11

11

51

15

14

15

11

25

15

579

C1

15

11

55

11

55

13

55

11

11

11

15

11

11

11

25

41

2,9

1,8

45,0

11,5

1,3

3,0

1,8

1,0

1,1

2,0

1,5

C1

1,3

3,0

2,7

3,5

3,2

3,3

2,5

3,5

3,2

4,1

2,8

3,7

2,2

3,7

2,5

3,6

1,8

1,7

2,0

3,0

1,8

2,3

2,3

2,7

1,8

2,7

2,2

4,0

2,2

3,6

2,5

3,9

C1

3,0

2,5

C1

2,5

3,5

2,6

3,6

C1

1,9

2,6

2,3

3,4

C1

0,5

C1

0,9

C1

2,0

80/2

2Y

2011-0

2-0

4 1

7:5

3:3

22011-0

2-0

4 1

7:3

8:2

992.5

3.3

6.2

54

kik

ica_del@

yahoo.c

omFem

enin

o25

ne s

tudir

am

12

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

33

44

53

54

45

34

23

33

33

42

34

24

42

43

33

34

486

C2

35

43

44

43

34

44

24

43

24

33

23

35

25

33

33

44

3,6

3,3

34,3

43,3

2,3

3,8

3,3

3,8

0,4

0,5

0,5

112/8

01

Y2011-0

2-0

6 0

0:2

7:1

32011-0

2-0

6 0

0:1

6:1

179.1

25.1

89.1

42

em

a_m

ak@

yahoo.c

omFem

enin

o26

Ne s

tudir

am

8A

nglij

a 4

godin

iM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

11

11

54

13

54

31

11

11

51

11

45

11

11

21

11

15

186

C2

14

24

15

11

41

11

15

35

11

11

11

35

11

11

11

15

2,5

1,6

1,8

3,8

1,8

2,8

1,0

1,0

1,5

3,0

0,9

2,8

3,0

157/7

70

Y2011-0

2-1

6 1

5:2

9:1

32011-0

2-1

6 1

5:1

4:5

877.2

9.1

33.1

64

jasjo

vanova

@yahoo.c

o.u

kF

em

enin

o31

ne s

tudir

am

12

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

13

52

51

13

55

14

13

21

41

31

44

11

11

45

11

45

1D

ali

navi

stina tre

ba s

am

o d

a s

e z

em

a v

o p

redvi

d r

edosle

dot na z

boro

vite

vo r

ecenic

ata

ili

i pra

viln

ata

, odnosno n

epra

viln

ata

upotr

eba n

a o

dre

deni zboro

vi i u

potr

eba n

a d

rugi zboro

vi n

am

esto

niv

?92

C2

35

44

14

22

13

14

15

34

15

14

11

15

11

15

13

15

2,9

2,3

1,5

4,3

2,5

3,5

1,0

2,5

1,0

4,8

0,6

1,8

3,8

200/4

12

Y2011-0

2-1

8 0

9:4

3:1

72011-0

2-1

8 0

9:3

5:2

362.1

62.1

21.1

94

nik

olo

vskam

eri

@gm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o33

Univ

erz

itet S

v.K

iril

i M

eto

di

12

Anglij

a,

3 m

eseci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

12

51

52

11

53

14

14

32

42

42

55

22

21

45

23

55

286

C2

23

45

25

13

24

24

15

14

15

25

23

15

21

25

24

25

3,0

2,9

1,8

4,3

24

1,8

3,3

1,8

5,0

0,1

1,0

4,5

209/6

04

Y2011-0

2-2

0 2

0:4

5:3

02011-0

2-2

0 2

0:2

5:5

278.1

57.4

.115

sasodim

itro

vski1

982@

yahoo.c

om

Masculin

o28

Univ

erz

itet S

v. K

iril

i M

eto

dij

12

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

11

31

55

41

53

15

12

21

41

41

24

22

11

14

11

22

188

C2

13

12

14

12

54

15

12

14

13

12

11

15

24

14

12

25

2,4

2,3

23,3

13,3

1,3

2,5

1,3

4,0

0,1

0,8

3,5

236/5

54

Y2011-0

2-2

6 2

2:3

4:2

02011-0

2-2

6 2

2:2

4:3

379.1

25.2

48.1

13

mis

s_m

ari

ja@

yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o22

ne s

tudir

am

12

US

A -

7 m

eseci; C

anada -

3 m

eseci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado b

ajo

(C

1)

44

24

42

34

54

23

13

42

42

52

44

24

33

45

34

54

586

C2

44

44

54

44

25

33

34

44

12

25

24

24

23

25

33

45

3,8

3,1

3,5

4,3

3,8

3,8

2,0

3,0

2,5

4,8

0,8

1,3

0,8

243/4

5Y

2011-0

2-2

7 1

5:0

4:5

12011-0

2-2

7 1

4:5

1:4

077.2

8.5

.65

babid

aholm

s@

yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o14

Peta

r P

op A

rsov

7M

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado b

ajo

(C

1)

12

35

53

35

53

35

13

52

53

21

53

11

11

25

11

45

194

C2

23

25

13

55

32

15

15

55

13

24

11

35

13

35

13

15

3,3

2,6

1,8

3,3

3,3

51,0

2,5

2,3

4,8

0,7

0,8

3,3

244/2

04

Y2011-0

2-2

7 1

6:0

8:0

92011-0

2-2

7 1

5:5

1:3

977.2

8.2

18.2

45

ivj0

00555@

gm

ail.

comM

asculin

o22

Kir

il i M

eto

dij

Skopje

91 g

odin

a U

SA

i U

K z

aedno

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado b

ajo

(C

1)

12

22

43

23

52

24

13

33

53

42

44

23

42

25

24

54

3?? ?

?????? ?

???? ?

????? ?

? ?

? ?

???? ?

???????? ?

? ?

?????? ?

?????????.

???????? ?

? ?

??? ?

?? ?

? ?

? ?

???? ?

? ?

???? ?

??????? ?

???????..

...

86

C2

22

24

34

23

34

44

24

35

12

35

24

24

22

35

23

35

3,2

3,0

2,5

3,5

2,8

41,8

2,8

2,8

4,8

0,2

0,8

2,3

276/6

76

Y2011-0

3-0

8 1

8:3

5:3

22011-0

3-0

8 1

8:2

5:3

977.2

8.1

1.1

43

bra

nkic

aiv

anova

@gm

ail.

com

Fem

enin

o31

ne s

tudir

am

12

Am

eri

ka-6

meseci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado b

ajo

(C

1)

21

13

33

33

25

44

34

31

53

53

45

32

32

44

34

35

385

C2

15

44

35

33

35

34

25

35

31

13

34

43

33

34

34

22

3,6

2,9

2,3

5,0

3,3

43,0

3,0

2,5

3,0

0,8

2,0

3,5

322/6

77

Y2011-0

6-2

4 1

4:0

4:4

22011-0

6-2

4 1

4:0

0:0

995.8

6.2

2.1

3ta

tjana@

trave

o.c

om

.mk

Fem

enin

o29

ne s

tudir

am

10

uk 3

meseci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

51

12

12

11

22

12

11

21

21

21

12

11

11

12

11

12

191

C2

12

11

12

22

22

12

12

12

11

11

11

11

11

12

11

12

1,6

1,1

1,3

2,0

1,3

1,8

1,0

1,0

1,0

1,5

0,4

1,0

1,3

327/7

56

Y2011-0

6-2

5 2

1:0

1:4

62011-0

6-2

5 2

0:5

4:5

377.2

9.2

53.9

6m

ilena.c

vetk

ova

@yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o24

Filo

zofs

ki fa

kulte

t12

Am

eri

ka ,

5 m

eseci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado b

ajo

(C

1)

22

22

23

32

23

32

23

32

32

32

22

23

22

22

22

22

295

C2

23

22

22

23

33

22

22

23

22

22

22

32

23

22

23

32

2,3

2,3

2,3

2,5

22,5

2,0

2,5

2,5

2,0

0,1

0,0

0,8

328/7

6Y

2011-0

6-2

5 2

2:5

1:3

02011-0

6-2

5 2

2:3

6:1

746.2

17.6

9.1

67

sonja

georg

ieva

@yahoo.c

om

Fem

enin

o28

ne s

tudir

am

8E

ngla

nd 5

month

sM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

11

41

13

31

55

25

15

21

52

51

55

33

54

33

35

14

495

C2

15

35

45

12

35

55

44

15

14

11

15

21

33

23

35

35

3,6

2,7

34,8

2,5

4,3

2,0

4,3

2,0

2,5

0,9

0,5

3,5

343/4

14

Y2011-0

7-0

9 0

1:4

6:2

12011-0

7-0

9 0

1:2

4:5

192.5

3.3

3.5

2iv

_oko@

yahoo.c

om

Masculin

o25

Prv

Pri

vate

n U

niv

erz

itet -

FO

N13

Am

eri

ka,

4 m

eseci

Macedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nM

acedonia

nA

vanzado a

lto (

C2)

42

32

25

13

45

23

13

41

11

42

45

21

13

41

14

15

288

C2

25

44

25

24

54

13

35

31

13

11

24

22

21

11

13

14

3,3

1,9

34,8

2,5

31,5

2,8

1,3

2,0

1,4

2,0

2,3

C2

1,9

3,8

2,8

3,6

2,3

4,0

2,3

2,8

3,0

3,5

2,2

3,5

1,8

4,0

2,6

3,8

1,3

2,8

1,6

2,8

1,6

2,6

2,2

3,6

1,8

2,4

1,9

3,5

1,8

2,9

2,2

4,2

C2

3,0

2,5

C2

2,3

3,8

2,5

3,5

C2

1,7

2,7

2,0

3,5

C2

0,6

C2

1,2

C2

2,5

214

11.5 CHARTS FOR THE MAIN EXPERIMENT (CHART OUTPUTS)

In this section we will present all the bar charts and the trend charts from the raw

results. A selection of these charts has been used in the Results chapter in this

dissertation. Charts will be presented according to L1: L1 Spa-L2 Eng and L1 Maced-

L2 Eng. The English natives are shown in each learner chart.

11.5.1 CHARTS FOR THE MAIN EXPERIMENT: L1 SPA – L2 ENG LEARNERS

215

11.5.2 CHARTS FOR THE MAIN EXPERIMENT: L1 MACED – L2 ENGLISH

LEARNERS

11.6 EMAIL: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

In this appendix we will list the emails that were sent to all speakers inviting them to

participate in the main online experiment: SAES for the English natives, EASI for the

Spanish natives and IUSAJ for the Macedonian natives.

216

11.6.1 PARTICIPATE IN SAES (INVITATION FOR ENGLISH NATIVES)

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Study on the Acquisition of English Syntax (SAES)

-- online participation

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:16:13 +0200

To: [deleted list of recipients]

Dear friends and colleagues:

I have a little favour to ask you. We're conducting a pilot

study on how Spanish speakers learn English grammar. For

technical reasons, we need a group of English native

speakers to participate in the study.

If you are not a native speaker of English, please forward

this email to natives who might be interested in

participating.

If you are a native speaker of English I would be very

grateful if you could spend a few minutes to complete the

online questionnaire. It is very simple: you just have to

judge whether you like some English sentences or not.

Please, forward this message to other English native

speakers who could be interested. Thank you!

LINK:

http://test.ugr.es/limesurvey/index.php?sid=83934&lang=en

http://test.ugr.es/limesurvey/index.php?sid=83934&lang=en

217

11.6.2 PARTICIPATE IN EASI (INVITATION FOR L1 SPANISH-L2 ENGLISH

LEANERS)


Subject: PARTICIPE EN "EASI" (Estudio sobre la Adquisición

de la Sintaxis del Inglés)

Date: 12 Feb 14:45:41 +0100

PARTICIPE EN "EASI" (Estudio sobre la Adquisición de la

Sintaxis del Inglés)

¿QUÉ ES "EASI"? "Easi" un proyecto de investigación de

la Universidad de Granada y la Universidad Autónoma de

Madrid en el que estamos estudiando cómo los hablantes

nativos de español aprenden inglés.

¿CÓMO PARTICIPO? Participar en el estudio es muy

sencillo. El estudio está disponible "online" y usted

simplemente tendrá que decidir si unas oraciones le suenan

mejor que otras. Puede participar cualquier hablante de

español que sepa (o esté aprendiendo) inglés, de cualquier

nivel.

¿QUÉ OBTENGO POR PARTICIPAR? Una vez concluida la

prueba de nivel, usted podrá conocer GRATUITAMENTE su nivel

gramatical en inglés (A1, A2, B1, etc). Además, el programa

le indicará especificamtamente qué aspectos gramaticales

puede usted mejorar. Finalmente, le enviaremos un

218

certificado de participación sellado por la Universidad

Autónoma de Madrid.

PARA PARTICIPAR, vaya al siguiente enlace:

http://test.ugr.es/limesurvey/index.php?sid=68427&lang=es

11.6.3 PARTICIPATE IN IUSAJ (INVITATION FOR L1 MACEDONIAN-L2

ENGLISH LEANERS)


Asunto: Doznajte go vaseto nivo na angliski jazik i

ucestvuvajte vo istrazuvanjeto IUSAJ

Desde: [email protected]

Fecha: 2011.02.24 10:07 pm

A: [email protected]

Prioridad: Normal

DALI SAKATE DA GO DOZNAETE VASETO NIVO NA POZNAVANJE NA

GRAMATIKA NA

ANGLISKIOT JAZIK

ZEMETE UCESTVO VO ISTRAZUVANJETO IUSAJ (Istrazuvanje za

Usvojuvanje na

Sintaksata na Angliskiot Jazik)

** ¿”STO E IUSAJ”

IUSAJ (Istrazuvanje za Usvojuvanje na Sintaksata na

Angliskiot Jazik) e

istrazuvacki proekt na Univerzitetot vo Granada i

Avtonomniot Univerzitet

vo Madrid koj proucuva kako govoritelite na makedonski

jazik go usvojuvaat

angliskiot jazik.

** ¿KAKO DA UCESTVUVAM?

Ucestvoto e mnogu ednostavno. Istrazuvanjeto e dostapno

“onlajn” i vie

samo treba da odlucite koja recenica vi zvuci dobro a koja

ne. Moze da

http://test.ugr.es/limesurvey/index.php?sid=68427&lang=es

219

ucestvuvaat samo govoriteli na makedonski jazik kako majcin

jazik koi ucat

ili imaat poznavanje od angliski jazik (bilo koe nivo).

ZABELESKA:ZA DA BIDAT VALIDNI VASITE REZULTATI TREBA DA GI

RESITE DVATA

TESTA I NA SEKOJ TEST DA JA VPISETE ISTATA EMAIL ADRESA.

** ¿STO DOBIVAM SO MOETO UCESTVO? Po zavrsuvanjeto na

testot za

odreduvanje na nivo na angliskiot jazik ke dobiete

informacija za vaseto

nivo na angliski jazik (A1, A2, B1 itn.) Dopolnitelno,

programata

vi ukazuva koi gramaticki aspekti mozete da gi podobrite.

Otkoga ke gi dobieme vasite rezultati ke vi ispratime na

email elektronski

sertifikat za ucestvo.

** ZA DA UCESTVUVATE prodolzete na sledniov link:

http://test.ugr.es/limesurvey/index.php?sid=46846&lang=mk

Dopolnitelno, dokolku mozete slobdno prepratete go ovoj

email na vasi

poznajnici koi smetate deka bi sakale da go doznaat nivnoto

nivo na

poznavanje na angliskiot jazik.

Vi blagodaram ucestvoto vo ova istrazuvanje koe e del od

mojot magisterski

trud

So pocit,

Aleksandra Simonovikj

11.7 EMAIL: SEE YOUR RESULTS

In this section we will present the email that was sent to learners stating how they could

check their OPT results after participating in the online test. Obviosly, there is no such

email that was sent to English natives, since they did not participate in the placement

test.

http://test.ugr.es/limesurvey/index.php?sid=46846&lang=mk

220

11.7.1 EMAIL SENT TO L1 SPA-L2 ENG LEARNERS: SEE YOUR RESULTS

This email was only sent to Macedonian group due to the fact that sometimes the

system would not show the OPT results immediately after the test was completed. The

system worked properly for the Spanish participants hence there was not need to send

this email.

11.7.2 EMAIL SENT TO L1 MACED-L2 ENG LEARNERS: SEE YOUR RESULTS

Asunto: IUSAJ rezultati


Fecha: 2011.03.02 3:01 pm


Prioridad: Normal

Pocituvan,

Dokolku ne gi dobivte rezultatite od testiranjeto za IUSAJ

(Istrazuvanje za Usvojuvanje na Sintaksata na Angliskiot

Jazik) vi go prakam linkot na koj ke mozete da gi vidite

vasite rezultati od QPT (Quick

Placement Test) za odreduvanje na nivo na gramatika na

angliskiot jazik.

http://www.wagsoft.com/cgi-bin/showDiagnostics-

gr.cgi?i.dalas%40hotmail.com

Vi blagodaram,

So pocit,

11.8 EMAIL: PLEASE COMPLETE THE OPT

In this section we will list the emails that were sent to participants who took the first

part of the main test (SAES/EASI/IUSAJ) but did not participate in the second part (i.e.,

the Oxford Placement Test, OPT). This email was used to nudge them so that they did

not forget to participate in the OPT.

http://www.wagsoft.com/cgi-bin/showDiagnostics-gr.cgi?i.dalas%40hotmail.com

http://www.wagsoft.com/cgi-bin/showDiagnostics-gr.cgi?i.dalas%40hotmail.com

221

11.8.1 EMAIL SENT TO L1 SPA-L2 ENG LEARNERS: PLEASE COMPLETE THE

OPT


Subject: Estudio "EASI" **** falta el Oxford Placement

Test

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:39:18 +0100

From: Cristóbal Lozano <[email protected]>

Estimado/a participante:

Hemos recibido tus datos del estudio "EASI" (Estudio sobre

la Adquisición de la Sintaxis del Inglés) y agradecemos

enormemente tu participación.

Para que tus datos sean válidos, hemos de recibir el test

de nivel (Oxford Placement Test). Al completar el test, el

software te proporcionará tu nivel de inglés (A1, A2, B1,

B2, C1, C2). Además, también se te indicará los áreas

gramaticales que has de mejorar. Finalmente, te enviaremos

también un certificado de participación impreso, firmado y

sellado por la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, para hacer

constar que has participado en "EASI".

Para hacer el Oxford Placement Test:

http://www.wagsoft.com/OPT/OPT-gr.html

Nota: es imprescindible que introduzcas el mismo email que

introdujiste para EASI. Así, podremos enviarte los

resultados.


222

11.8.2 EMAIL SENT TO L1 MACED-L2 ENG LEARNERS: PLEASE COMPLETE

THE OPT

Asunto: Ve molime resete go testot za odreduvanje na

nivo (OPT)


Fecha: 2011.06.24 1:49 pm


Prioridad: Normal

Pocituvani,

Ve molime resete go testot za odreduvanje na nivo na

angliskiot jazik za

da go doznaete vasiot stepen na poznavanje na angliskiot

jazik i za da

mozeme da gi procesirame vasite rezultati za istrazuvanjeto

“IUSAJ”

(Istrazuvanje za Usvojuvanje na Sintaksata na Angliskiot

Jazik)i da vi

ispraime sertifikat za ucestvo.

ZABELESKA: neophodno e da ja navedete istata e-mail adresa

koja veke ja

napisavte vo vovedniot del na prasalnikot “IUSAJ” za da

mozeme de gi

odredime vasite rezultati.

Za da pocnete so resavanje na Oksford testot za odreduvanje

na

gramaticko nivo kliknete ovde:


Vi blagodarime

11.9 CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION

In this appendix we will list the email that was sent to learners asking them whether

they would like to receive a certificate of participation, plus the actual certificate of

participation that was sent to all those speakers that successfully completed both the


223

online experiment on unaccusatives (SAES/EASI/IUSAJ) and the Oxford Placement

Test.

11.9.1 CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION FOR L1 SPA-L2 ENG LEARNERS


Subject: Estudio "EASI" --- certificado de participación

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:27:06 +0100

From: Cristóbal Lozano <[email protected]>

Estimado/a participante:

Gracias por haber participado recientemente en el estudio

"EASI" (Estudio sobre la Adquisición de la Sintaxis del

Inglés).

Si así lo deseas, podrás recibir un certificado de

participación impreso y sellado por la Universidad Autónoma

de Madrid.

Si estás interesado, responde a este email y envía los

siguientes datos:

Email (el que proporcionaste al hacer el test)

Nombre y apellidos

Dirección postal a donde remitir el certificado impreso

Gracias.

Cristóbal Lozano (Universidad de Granada)

Si deseas conocer más sobre nuestros proyectos de

investigación: http://www.uam.es/woslac

http://www.uam.es/woslac

224

Amaya Mendikoetxea Pelayo,

CERTIFICA

Que [NOMBRE Y APELLIDOS] ha participado el [FECHA] en el estudio

online “EASI” (Estudio sobre la Adquisición de la Sintaxis del Inglés), que se

enmarca dentro el proyecto de investigación OPOGRAM (Opcionalidad y

pseudo-opcionalidad en las gramáticas nativas y no nativas: FFI2008-

01584/FILO), dirigido desde la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid en el

seno del grupo de investigación WOSLAC (www.uam.es/woslac) .

Para lo cual firmo este documento en Madrid a [FECHA].

Fdo: Dra. Amaya Mendikoetxea Pelayo

Departamento de Filología Inglesa (UAM)

Directora del proyecto de investigación




225

11.9.2 CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION FOR L1 MACED-L2 ENG LEARNERS

Asunto: Blagodarnica za ucestvo vo IUSAJ (Istrazuvanje

za Usvojuvanje na Sintaksata na Angliskiot

Jazik)


Fecha: 2011.04.17 8:45 pm


Prioridad: Normal

Pocituvana,

Vi ja prakam prikacena blagodarnicata za ucestvo vo IUSAJ

(Istrazuvanje za

Usvojuvanje na Sintaksata na Angliskiot Jazik).

So pocit,

Aleksandra Simonovikj

226

БЛАГОДАРНИЦА ЗА УЧЕСТВО

вп

Истражуваоетп за Усвпјуваое на Синтаксата на Англискипт Јазик

Ппчитуван учеснику, Ви благпдариме за вашетп учествп и за времетп кпе гп пдвпивте за истражуваоетп ИУСАЈ (Истражуваое за Усвпјуваое на Синтаксата на Англискипт Јазик). Вашите ппдатпци, кпи се дел пд истражуваое за усвпјуваое на втпр јазик спрпведенп пд Автпнпмнипт Универзитет вп Мадрид и Универзитетпт вп Гранада, Шпанија, се чувани сп дпверливпст и ќе бидат упптребени за истражувачки цели.

Вашипт придпнес кпн пвпј прпект е пд пгрпмнп значеое. Благпдарение на дпбрпвплнптп учествп на луде какп вас, веќе гп

имаме првичнипт брпј на ппдатпци пптребни за пва истражуваое.

Дпкплку сакате да дпзнаете ппвеќе инфпрмации за истражувачкипт прпект ппсетете ја веб страницата

http://www.uam.es/ woslac.

Сп ппчит,

Александра Симпнпвиќ

Студент на ппстдиплпмски студии пп применета лингвистика

на Универзитетпт вп Гранада, Шпанија

ппд ментпрствп на

Прпф. Кристпбал Лпзанп Prof. Cristóbal Lozano

Предавач пп применета лингвистика Lecturer in applied linguistics Оддел за англистика Department of English Studies

Универзитет вп Гранада, Шпанија Universidad de Granada (Spain)

Documents

second language acquisition of unaccusative syntax: macedonian