Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T07:32:28.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Subject-to-subject raising and the syntax of tense in L2 Spanish: A Full Access approach*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2012

Catholic University of America
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
University of Florida
Address for correspondence: Gonzalo Campos-Dintrans, Modern Languages and Literatures Department, McMahon 402, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064,


This paper investigates the acquisition of syntax in L2 grammars. We tested adult L2 speakers of Spanish (English L1) on the feature specification of T(ense), which is different in English and Spanish in so-called subject-to-subject raising structures. We present experimental results with the verb parecer “to seem/to appear” in different tenses, with and without experiencers, and with Tense Phrase (TP), verb phrase (vP) and Adjectival Phrase (AP) complements. The results show that advanced L2 learners can perform just like native Spanish speakers regarding grammatical knowledge in this domain, although the subtle differences between both languages are not explicitly taught. We argue that these results support Full Access approaches to Universal Grammar (UG) in L2 acquisition, by providing evidence that uninterpretable syntactic features can be learned in adult L2, even when such features are not directly instantiated in the same grammatical domain in the L1 grammar.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



We would like to thank Sam Epstein and William Davies for their interest and suggestions regarding this paper, the audience at SLRF 2009, where the initial experimental results from this project were originally presented. We also thank Joshua Thoms, for help with data collection, Mike Iverson for help with the statistical analysis, and several anonymous reviewers whose suggestions led to improvements in the analysis presented in the paper. Any and all errors and oversights are inadvertent and entirely our own.


Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ausín, A., & Depiante, M. (2000). On the syntax of parecer (“to seem”) with and without an experiencer. In Campos, H., Herburger, E., Morales-Front, A. & Walsh, T. (eds.), Hispanic linguistics at the turn of the millennium, pp. 155170. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy of interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 117.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. London & New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M., (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, pp. 152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, U. & Gaertner, H.-M. (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language: Chomsky's Minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, pp. 129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. & Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, pp. 133166. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Hong, U. (1995). Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: New evidence from reaction-time experiments. Second Language Research, 11, 5787.Google Scholar
Davies, W., & Dubinsky, S. (2004). The grammar of raising and control: A course in syntactic argumentation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Duffield, N., & White, L. (1999). Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic placement: Converging methodologies. Second Language Research, 15, 133160.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 677758.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D., Pires, A., & Seely, T. D. (2005). EPP in T: More controversial subjects. Syntax: A Journal of Theoretical, Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research, 8 (1), 6580.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D., & Seely, T. D. (2006). Derivations in Minimalism: Exploring the elimination of A-chains and the EPP. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2006). Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammar: A prosodic approach. Second Language Research, 22, 243268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., White, L., & Steele, J. (2003). Missing inflection in L2 acquisition: Defective syntax or L1-constrained prosodic representations? The Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 48 (3–4), 243263.Google Scholar
Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon & Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22 (3), 269301.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. D. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In Hughes, E. & Greenhill, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 257268. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hirata, I. (2006). Coordination, subject raising, and AgrP in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry, 37 (2), 318329.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2003). On control. In Hendrick, R. (ed.), Minimalist syntax, pp. 681. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J., & Newport, S. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 6099.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, H. (2001). Binding of indeterminate pronouns and clause structure in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 597633.Google Scholar
Kitahara, H. (1997). Elementary operations and optimal derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1999). Minimalist analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2005). Problems with supposed counter-evidence to the Critical Period Hypothesis. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43 (4), 287317.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (1996). A Minimalist theory of PRO and control. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1997). The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: Contrasting first and second language development. Second Language Research, 13, 227263Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Glass, W. (1999). Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: Probabilistic versus generative approaches. Second Language research, 15, 220249.Google Scholar
Pires, A. (2006). The Minimalist syntax of defective domains: Gerunds and infinitives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16 (2), 103133.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2008). Why not all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis is equal or problematic: Implications for SLA. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2 (6), 10631088.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 4072.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In Archibald, J. (ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory, pp. 156186. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin & New York: DeGruyterGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. (1996). Experiencers and raising verbs. In Frieidin, R. (ed.), Current issues in comparative grammar, pp. 101120. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1998). The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. (2003). Interrogatives in the Greek/English interlanguage: A Minimalist account. In Mela-Athanasopoulou, E. (ed.), Selected papers on theoretical and applied linguistics, pp. 214–25. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23 (2), 215242.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct access to X′ Theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, pp. 265316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar