Language Acquisition Research Center, Hunter College

Presentation Schedule

We will be presenting some of our recent work at the following conferences:

Upcoming Presentations

Conference	Date	Location
The Psychonomic Society: Annual Scientific Meeting	November 19-22, 2009	Boston, MA
Knowles, E.R., & Lloyd, M.E. (2009, November). Exploring an Artificial Music Grammar.
Abstract: Recent neuroimaging and behavioral research has suggested a possible overlap in syntax processing mechanisms between music and language (Patel, 2008). Music and language may also share common mechanisms for the learning of syntactical knowledge through statistical probabilities (Saffran, 1999). The present study used an artificial music grammar (Loui & Wessel, 2006) in order to test the ability of non-musician participants to learn a new music grammar as well as to observe a possible interaction between music and language syntax processing. Although participants were able to learn the artificial music grammar, a language task was not affected by errors in the new music grammar as has been found with Western music-syntax errors (Slevc, Rosenberg, & Patel, 2009). Participants may need more exposure to the new music grammar in order gain a more complete representation of the regularities within the grammar.
Second Language Research Forum	October 29-November 1, 2009	East Lansing, MI
Pozzan, L., & Quirk, E. (2009, October). Inversion and non-inversion of main and embedded questions in English SLA.
Abstract: Second language learners of English might fail to perform subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI) in main questions; the source of these errors is contentious and poorly understood. This elicited production study was aimed at determining the effects of L2 input, L1 transfer, and the properties of question type (wh vs. yes/no) and wh-element (what, who, where, why) on SAI in both main and embedded questions. We thus compared advanced learners whose L1s differed (from English and from each other) in terms of wh-movement and SAI: Spanish (which displays SAI in main and embedded questions) and Chinese (which never displays SAI). Moreover, we compared SAI rates for why vs. other wh-words, because why gives rise to low SAI rated in FLA and cross-linguistically. We found a main effect of question type, but no main effect of language and no interaction. Accuracy in main and embedded yes/no questions was at ceiling for both L2-groups. Target-like inversion in main wh-questions was 94% and 86% for Chinese and Spanish speakers, respectively, while non-target inversion was 22% in embedded wh-questions for both groups. As predicted, 63% SAI errors in main wh-questions occurred with why. SAI errors are not due to L1 transfer, as indicated by the lack of a main effect of L1on SAI, and cannot be imputed solely to the L2 input: learners treat question types (yes/no vs. wh) and wh-elements (e.g. why) differently, as indicated by the main effects of question type and with wh-type, although the L2 input doesn’t provide evidence for such distinctions. We argue that SAI errors in embedded questions are due to generalization of SAI from main to embedded contexts. However, SAI does not apply to yes/no questions, similarly to non-standard varieties of English (Hiberno, AAE), where the presence of if in C⁰ blocks SAI.
Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALA) 2009	September 11, 2009	Lisbon, Portugal
Pozzan, L., & Quirk, E. (2009, September). Main and Embedded Questions in English SLA.
Poster: Click here Abstract: Click here