Iranian EFL learners’ knowledge of overt pronoun constraint in English
محورهای موضوعی : Journal of Teaching English Language StudiesSamaneh Afrazi Kalvir 1 , Ramin Rahmany 2
1 - Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch
2 - Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch
کلید واژه: Persian, OPC, Pro-drop - Null-subject languages, Overt/Null pronouns, zero pronoun, EFL`s learners knowledge,
چکیده مقاله :
The present study aims to investigated Iranian L2 speaker`s knowledge of the overt pronounconstraint (OPC) in English. It also aims to examine L2 learners understanding of UniversalGrammar (Chomsky 1981, 1986, 2000, 2001) and if it is common to all languages. Specifically,this study takes a new look at the L2 acquisition of knowledge of the overt pronoun constraint(Montalbetti 1984) by Persian learners of English. The current work examines whether Iranianlearners of English can obtain native-like knowledge of OPC in their sentences. Forty femalelearners of English (intermediate and advanced) completed three tests, a Pet test and an EnglishOPC test with a Persian OPC test at the Kish English Language Institute in Tehran, Iran. Thesecomprised a multiple choice test for English language proficiency (PET test) to determine thelevel of each participant, and a multiple choice OPC test including English and Persian questionsto measure the possible effect of null or overt pronoun structures in sentence construction,evaluating the participants` knowledge of OPC usage. Results from the experiment show that L2speakers can successfully achieve knowledge of the OPC regardless of pronoun position in theirtarget language in both levels. However, the advanced level candidates performed much betteron the OPC construction in the English test than those in the intermediate. There was asignificant dependency between the English language proficiency level and the understanding ofOPC structures. We believe that language proficiency affects the use of OPC in learners ofPersian, suggesting that OPC may not hold true in different situations. The findings of thecurrent study may have suggestions for L2 learners and teachers.
Angluin, D. (1978). Inductive inference of formal languages from positive data. Information and
Control 45.117-35.
Berwick, R. C. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bouchard, D. (1983). On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
Bresnan, J. (1982). Formalism Lexical-Functional theory of grammar, LFG. 384.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1-
59. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). On Nature and Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. Principles and
Parameters in comparative grammar, ed. by Robert Freiden, 417-54. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and
Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
JOURNAL OF TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES, Vol. 3, NO. 4, Spring 2015
72
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Corder, Stephen P. (1967). The significance of learner errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics 5.161-9.
Enç, M. (1986). Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In Dan Isaac Slobin and
Karl Zimmer (Eds.). Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 195-208). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Erguvanlı, T. E. (1986). Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. In D. I.
Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 209-231). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Grimshaw, J., and V. Samek-Lodovici. (1995). Optimal Subjects. University of Massachusetts
Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 18.589-605.
Jaeggli, O. (1980). On some phonologically null elements in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
Judy, T., & Feizmohammadpour, A. (2012). “When Parsing Failures Fail: Referential Subjects
and Anaphora Resolution in Farsi Learners of L2 English.” Poster presented at: Generative
Approaches to Language Acquisition North America 5. October 11-12, 2012; Lawrence, KS.
Judy, T. (2011). L1/L2 parametric directionality matters: More on the Null Subject Parameter in
L2 acquisition. EUROSLA Yearbook 11: 165-190.
Kanno, K. (1998). The stability of UG principles in second-language acquisition: Evidence from
Japanese. Linguistics, 36, 1125-1146.
Kanno, K. (1997). The acquisition of null and overt pronominal in Japanese by English speakers.
Second Language Research, 13(3), 299-321.
Kratzer, A. (1998). More Structural Analogies Between Pronouns and Tenses. SALT VIII. MIT.
Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of grammar. PhD dissertation.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Liceras, J.M., & L. Díaz. (1999). Topic-drop versus pro-drop: Null subjects and pronominal
subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese speakers.
Second Language Research 15.1-40.
Liceras, J.M. (1986). Linguistic theory and second language acquisition: the Spanish nonnative
grammar of English speakers. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
JOURNAL OF TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES, Vol. 3, NO. 4, Spring 2015
73
Lozano, C. (2002). The interpretation of overt and null pronouns in non-native Spanish. Durham
Working Papers in Linguistics, 28. 53-66.
Lubbers Q, M., & Blackwell S. E. (2009). The L2 acquisition of null and overt Spanish subject
pronouns: A pragmatic approach (2010). In Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic
Linguistics Symposium, ed. Joseph Collentine et al., 117-130. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project
Marsden, H. (1998). A study of L1 influence in the L2 acquisition of Japanese with respect to a
‘poverty of the stimulus’ phenomenon. Unpublished MA dissertation. University of Durham.
Manzini, M. R., & K. Wexler. (1987). Parameters, binding theory and learnability. Linguistic
Inquiry 18.413-44.
Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding. On the interpretation of pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Glass, W. R. (1999). Null anaphora in Spanish second language
acquisition: probabilistic versus generative approaches. Second Language Research 15. 220-
249.
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Glass, W. R. (1997). OPC effects on the L2 acquisition of Spanish. In
Pérez-Leroux, A. T. and Glass, W. R. eds. Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of
Spanish, volume 1: Developing grammars. Somervile, MA: Cascadilla Press. 149-165.
Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and surface constraints in generative grammar. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Phinney, M. (1987). The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. In Roeper, Th. and
Williams, E., editors, Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, 221–38.
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null object in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–557.
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: consequences for L2
acquisition research. In J. Archibald., editor, Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic
theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 156-86.
Taraldsen, K. (1978). The scope of wh-movement in Norwegian. Linguistic Inquiry 9.623-40.
Thomas, M. (1991). Universal grammar and the interpretation of reflexives in a second language.
Language, 67(2), 211-239.
Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry 15.103-
29.
Tsimpli, I.T. & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter-resetting in L2? UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics 3, 149–69.
White, L. (2003a). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
