The role of crosslinguistic influence in Greek child and adult learners' acquisition of English as a Foreign Language

关于跨语言影响的2L 1研究的焦点一直是句法-语篇界面（Hulk & Muller，2000）。基于儿童获得这种界面（以及它调节的过程）的时间较晚的观察，Hulk和Muller（2000）提出了界面假说。根据这一假设，如果一个双语儿童的第一语言是模糊的（使用两种结构来表达句法-话语界面现象），但她的第二语言是明确的（使用一种结构来表达相同的现象），她会使用两种语言所表现的结构，即使在她的第一语言需要另一种结构的情况下。在此背景下，空主语代词和显性主语代词的分布（属于句法-语篇界面的过程）成为一个富有成果的研究课题，引发了大量的研究。这表明，正如Hulk和Muller（2000）预测的那样，双语儿童使用空代词和显性代词的特点是受到非空主语语言的跨语言影响（只使用显性主语代词）到空主语语言（同时使用显性和空主语代词）（例如Argyri & Sorace，2007;帕拉迪斯& Navarro，2003; Serratrice，Sorace &保利，2004）。事实上，跨语言的影响导致双语参与者在这些研究中产生更多的公开主题在他们的空主题语言比单语发言者的语言。值得注意的是，上述一些研究强调，语言优势可能在跨语言影响中发挥重要作用（Argyri & Sorace，2007）。尽管这些研究具有开创性，但并不涉及大样本，因此无法提供可推广的结果。事实上，Argyri和Sorace（2007）对这一现象进行了为数不多的大规模（r）调查，但包括8岁的参与者，因此无法揭示双语儿童的语言发展在其早期阶段是如何进行的。L2研究跨语言影响的方法是不同的：这一领域的研究者没有把注意力集中在结构问题上，而是假设学习者的第一语言和第二语言之间的特征不匹配是跨语言影响的原因（Tsimpli和Rumsou，1991年）。根据Tsimpli和Tsimplosou（1991）的说法，为了学习他们的语言允许空主语，孩子们还必须学习主语所表达的数字和人称特征必须印在动词上。在获得第一语言的特征后，儿童在学习特征（及其表达）不同的第二语言或外语时可能会遇到困难。在这种情况下，主语代词的分布再次成为研究的主要课题。在这个框架下产生的研究集中在学习非空主语语言（这些特征与名词相关）的无主语语言（人称和数字特征与动词相关）的母语使用者身上。他们认为，特征不匹配的想法能够解释从空到非空主语语言的跨语言影响（例如Prenza，2014;白色，1985）。事实上，根据这些调查，学习者在非空主语语言中产生的空主语比该语言的单语者更多，而熟练程度被视为降低跨语言影响的鲁棒性的重要因素（Prenza，2014）。然而，这些研究包括小，nongeneralisable样本，并侧重于成人学习者，因此，不像2L 1调查，他们不能阐明双语语言发展的过程。这两个研究方向尽管有差异，但它们是相似的。两人都认为跨语言影响在语言发展中是突出的，并且是由于语言的原因而发生的。确切的语言学原因不同-与2L 1研究表明，结构歧义，和L2研究表明，

The focus of 2L1 research on crosslinguistic influence has been the syntax-discourse interface (Hulk & Muller, 2000). Based on the observation that children acquire this interface (and thus, the processes it regulates) late, Hulk and Muller (2000) posited the Interface Hypothesis. According to the hypothesis, if a bilingual child's first language is ambiguous (using two structures to express a syntax-discourse interface phenomenon), but her second language is unambiguous (using one of the structures for the same phenomenon), she would use the structure that both languages manifest, even in contexts where her first language would require the other structure. Under this light, the distribution of null and overt subject pronouns (a process that pertains to the syntax-discourse interface) became a fruitful research topic that gave rise to numerous studies. These suggest that, as Hulk and Muller (2000) predicted, bilingual children's use of null and overt pronouns is characterised by crosslinguistic influence from the non-null-subject language (which uses only overt subject pronouns) to the null-subject language (which uses both overt and null subject pronouns) (e.g. Argyri & Sorace, 2007; Paradis & Navarro, 2003; Serratrice, Sorace & Paoli, 2004). Indeed, crosslinguistic influence caused bilingual participants in these studies to produce more overt subjects in their null-subject language than monolingual speakers of the language. Notably, some of the aforementioned studies emphasised that language dominance might play an important role in crosslinguistic influence (Argyri & Sorace, 2007). Albeit groundbreaking, these studies do not involve large samples and, therefore, cannot provide generalizable results. In fact, Argyri and Sorace (2007) conducted one of the few large(r) scale investigations of the phenomenon, but included eight-year-old participants and, consequently, cannot reveal how bilingual children's language development proceeds in its earliest stages.The approach of L2 research on crosslinguistic influence was different: instead of focusing on structural matters, researchers in the field postulated that feature-mismatch between the learner's first and second language is the cause of crosslinguistic influence (Tsimpli & Roussou, 1991). According to Tsimpli and Roussou (1991), to learn that their language allows null subjects, children must also learn that the number and person features that the subject would otherwise express must be imprinted on the verb. Having acquired their first language's features, children might face difficulties when learning a second or foreign language whose features (and their expression) differs. Under this light, the distribution of subject pronouns became, once again, the main topic of investigation. The studies that were produced under this framework focused on native speakers of a null-subject language (where person and number features are linked to the verb) who were learning a non-null-subject language (where these features are linked to the noun). They suggested that the idea of feature-mismatch was able to explain crosslinguistic influence from the null to the non-null-subject language (e.g. Prenza, 2014; White, 1985). Indeed, according to these investigations, learners produced more null subjects in their non-null-subject language than monolingual speakers of that language, while proficiency was seen as an important factor in decreasing the robustness of crosslinguistic influence (Prenza, 2014). However, these studies included small, non-generalisable samples and focused on adult learners; thus, not unlike 2L1 investigations, they cannot elucidate the process of bilingual language development. The two strands of research are similar despite their differences. Both agree that crosslinguistic influence is prominent in language development and occurs due to linguistic reasons. The precise linguistic reasons differ - with 2L1 research suggesting structural ambiguity, and L2 resea