Yan-Kit Ingrid Leung
email: ileung@essex.ac.uk

Third language acquisition: why it is interesting to generative linguists

The present article reviews three collections of papers edited by Cenoz and colleagues on the topic of third language (L3) acquisition from perspectives including psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and education. Our focus is on psycholinguistics, in particular

I Introduction

Third language (L3) acquisition was once subsumed under the field of second language acquisition (SLA) in which a 'second' language meant any non-native language acquired beyond the first. In recent years, a number of researchers have started to look seriously at the phenomenon of L3/multilingualism as a separate domain of inquiry. Both in Europe and in North America, the study of L3 is rapidly expanding, especially within applied linguistics, applied psycholinguistics, bilingualism and language education. This encouraging trend was marked by the biennial International Conference on Third Language Acquisition and Multilingualism, held for the fourth time in September 2005 in Fribourg and Biel, Switzerland. Notably, linguists who adopt Universal Grammar (UG) theory to address language acquisition have shown growing interest in L3 in the past three years. The volumes reviewed here reflect research conducted in this exciting young field.

Section II of this article summarizes and evaluates the contents of the three books under review. Section III pinpoints two important themes, examining more closely and critically how L3 researchers working within different theoretical frameworks have approached the issues of language selectiveness and cross-linguistic influence.1 I show how findings both included in the books under review as well as those reported elsewhere shed light on these issues. Section IV surveys the very new area of L3 syntax, as an example of what may be gained by looking at L3 from a UG perspective. Section V offers an outlook on the future, presenting topics L3 researchers might pursue. I also speculate about what L3 might gain from its independence from, and interdependence with, its mother field of SLA.

II A review of the three books

1 Cenoz and Jessner, 2000 This is a collection of studies under the broad theme of the status of English as an L3 in Europe. The studies fall into four groups: sociolinguistics (Part I), general issues (Part II), psycholinguistics (Part III) and education (Part IV). In Part I, Charlotte Hoffmann (Chapter 1) and Allan R. James (Chapter 2) look at the issue of language contact in Europe, in particular, the growing dominance of English in relation to multilingualism. Part II deals with general issues pertinent to L3/multilingualism research. It starts off with Jasone Cenoz's state-of-the-art paper (Chapter 3) in which she elucidates differences between second language acquisition and multilingual language acquisition and the link of child bilingualism to L3 acquisition. Jim Cummins's article (Chapter 4) defends his distinction between academic and conversational proficiency in bilingual (and trilingual) education. Philip Herdina and Ulrike Jessner (Chapter 5) discuss the differences between bilingualism and trilingualism and argue for a dynamic model of multilingualism to capture the complex multilingual psycholinguistic system involved.

The three psycholinguistic studies in Part III are more experimental/ empirical in nature. Istvan Kecskés and Tunde Papp (Chapter 6) investigate conceptual fluency adopting one version of the multicompetence view, that is, a common underlying conceptual base. They find that metaphorical density (i.e. proportion of metaphorical expressions produced) in Ln is not connected to that in L1. Ute Schönpflug (Chapter 7) reports on a written word fragment completion study on L1 Polish-L2 English-L3 German; the results demonstrate differential reaction times and error rates for German word completions and for English word completions, pointing to the possibility that the two mental lexicons are represented separately and accessed differentially online. Christine Bouvy (Chapter 8) looks at cross-linguistic transfer from L2 to L3, in the case of L1 French-L2 Dutch or German-L3 English and concludes that transfer as a means of compensation is a feature of performance.

Part IV (Chapters 9 to 13) deals with European education systems and pedagogical issues. The chapters relate to the contexts of Catalonia, the Basque Country, Finland, Friesland and Romania. The final Chapter 14 is an overview and conclusion by the editors summarizing the studies and surveying the future of multilingualism research.

I find the diverse chapters in this volume rather amazing in their presentation of a wide variety of multilingual situations and spoken languages. A few linguistically-and psycholinguistically-relevant issues brought up in the book (such as cross-linguistic influence and online processing in relation to L3 and the multilingual mind), although not rigorously investigated, provide some food for thought for researchers. Those who would like to know more about the sociolinguistics/socio-pragmatics and educational aspects of multilingualism within the context of continental Europe shall find this book a useful reference.

2 Cenoz, Hufeisen and Jessner, 2001 This second volume is more focused. It is a collection of more experimental psycholinguistic studies addressing issues mainly of L3 vocabulary development and tri-/multi-lingual lexical representation and processing. Chapter 1 'The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in L3 acquisition' by Jasone Cenoz presents some evidence that linguistic distance rather than the L2 factor is a stronger predictor for cross-linguistic influence in L3. Chapter 2 'Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition' by Björn Hammarberg reports a case study of an L1 English-L2 German (also Italian and French)-L3 Swedish participant and addresses the issue of the L2 status. It is found that the L1 serves as the predominant external instrumental language fulfilling the pragmatic function in conversation in the initial phases of L3 development, while the principal L2 serves as the predominant external supplier language in L3 lexical construction over the course of acquisition. Some L1-L2 interaction in the production process is also observed. Chapter 3 'Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems in the multilingual mind' by Gessica De Angelis and Larry Selinker, studies two multilinguals in England with reference to two types of interlanguage transfer: morphological and lexical. The authors also make inferences about how the (perceived) similarity of languages in terms of form influences lexical processing. In Chapter 4, 'Lexical transfer in L3 production', Håkan Ringbom posits that meaning-based errors are always L1-derived, while form-based errors could come from either L1 or L2 and are constrained by psychotypology. 2 Chapter 5 'Activation or inhibition? The interaction of L1, L2 and L3 on the language mode continuum' by Jean-Marc Dewaele reports a study involving 25 L1 Dutch-L2 French-L3 English trilingual university students; his findings suggest that the degree of formality of the situation, the status of the interlanguage (L2 or L3), as well as frequency of use of target language outside of the classroom affect the choice of language mode (i.e. which language to use dominantly and how much of the other language(s) to keep active) and performance.

Chapter 6 'Lexical retrieval in a third language: Evidence from errors and tip-of-the-tongue states' by Peter Ecke is an experimental study employing a written translation task on L1 Spanish-L2 English (high intermediate)-L3 German participants. The major finding points to strong L2 influence in translation errors but suppressed L1 and L2 systems in the reflection of L3 tip-of-the-tongue states. Chapter 7 'Plurilingual lexical organization: Evidence from lexical processing in L1-L2-L3-L4 translation' by Anna Herwig proposes a unified network model of the multilingual lexicon from a neurolinguistic perspective. Chapter 8 'Learners of German as an L3 and their production of German prepositional verbs' by Martha Gibson, Britta Hufeisen and Gary Libben reports an L3 German study using a gap-filling written task. The general trend of accuracy results reveals that neither the L2 factor nor linguistic typology plays a role in task performance; this is at odds with what most other L3 studies have found. Chapter 9 'Too close for comfort? Sociolinguistic transfer from Japanese into Korean as an L ജ 3' by Robert J. Fouser addresses the issue of L3 communicative competence by examining the performance of two native speakers of Australian English who are L3/Ln Korean learners with advanced but non-native Japanese background on various elicitation instruments; results suggest a heavy influence from Japanese on L3/Ln Korean. The final chapter, Chapter 10 'New uses for old language: Cross-linguistic and cross-gestural influence in the narratives of non-native speakers' by Eric Kellerman is not about L3 per se. However, it introduces gesture as a future research direction for the investigation of non-native language acquisition/communicative competence, and suggests how it can be used to examine cross-linguistic influence.

Given the volume's central focus on transfer/cross-linguistic influence, I agree with previous reviewers [START_REF] Sanz | Review of Cenoz, Hufeisen and Jessner[END_REF]Odlin, 2004) on its importance for future L3 research. It is indeed difficult to pin down one single determinant of cross-linguistic influence in L3. We are still a long way from a definitive statement about how prior linguistic knowledge plays out in L3 acquisition, and there is still much for L3 researchers to explore.

3 Cenoz, Hufeisen and Jessner, 2003 The articles collected in this third volume are the most theoretical and sophisticated. In lieu of descriptive data, quite a few proposals are put forward. The subject matter is narrowed down to the mental lexicon, covering such 'core' topics as multilingual lexical processing and the neurolinguistics of multilingualism. Both production and experimental studies are included, sometimes providing rigorous data. Chapter 1 'Why investigate the multilingual lexicon', by the editors, is a general introduction. Chapter 2 to 8 centre around the notion of transfer. In Chapter 2 'Lexical processing in bilinguals and multilinguals', Ton Dijkstra attempts to extend his bilingual visual word recognition model (Bilingual Interactive Activation Model) to the multilingual mind and contends that there is a single integrated mental lexicon in which languages are non-selective. Dijkstra views multilingual and bilingual language processing as essentially similar. Chapter 3 'The transferappropriate-processing approach and the trilingual's organization of the lexicon' by Ute Schönpflug looks at factors in the speed and accuracy of word fragment completions in L2 German and L3 English. She finds that the higher the active and/or passive competence in the non-native language, the longer word fragment completion takes, due to more potential (intra-language) competitors in the mental lexicon. Chapter 4 'The nature of cross-linguistic interaction in the multilingual system' by Ulrike Jessner proposes a dynamic model of multilingualism that integrates transfer, interference, code-switching and borrowing. In Chapter 5 'Activation of lemmas in the multilingual mental lexicon and transfer in third language learning', Longxing Wei assumes a single mental lexicon and provides empirical evidence for interlanguage transfer at the lemma level. Chapter 6 'Parasitism as a default mechanism in L3 vocabulary acquisition' by Christopher J. Hall and Peter Ecke presents a powerful parasitic model of vocabulary learning, in which new target words are built into the system via connections to existing representations. L3 is thus 'parasitic' on its hosts, namely L1 and L2. The parasitic model predicts that there will be strong cognate effects in the multilingual mental lexicon. One is eager to see how the model could be augmented to accommodate cases involving languages with distant typology where the degree of similarity of lexical items is smaller or even non-existent. Chapter 7 'Investigating the role of prior foreign language knowledge: Translating from an unknown to a known foreign language' by Martha Gibson and Britta Hufeisen show that learners who have learned more than one foreign language have enhanced metalinguistic skills which improve their translation performance. Chapter 8 'The role of typology in the organization of the multilingual lexicon' by Jasone Cenoz reports a qualitative study on child L1 Spanish-L2 Basque-L3 English that sheds light on the question of language typology in transfer on the level of production: L1 Spanish plays a significant role in (lexical) transfer lapses owing to linguistic typology, while L2 Basque is the dominant source of interactional strategies because Basque is used in classroom interaction. In other words, Cenoz's findings point to both L1 and L2 being a possible default in L3 production.

The next two chapters -Chapter 9 by Johannes Müller-Lancé and Chapter 10 by Carol Spöttl and Michael McCarthy -are on multilingual learning issues. Chapter 11 Rita Franceschini, Daniela Zappatore and Cordula Nitsch conclude from neurolinguistic findings that age of acquisition and fluency but not typological distance result in differential brain activation on the neurological level. Finally, David Singleton in Chapter 12 gives an overview cum critique of all the studies presented and highlights important threads linking the studies with respect to cross-lexical interaction and full integration of mental lexicons, and evaluates the various lexical processing models proposed in the book.

III Two themes in research on multilingual lexical processing

Thus L3/multilingual lexical processing research has identified a number of pertinent issues around the nature of the mental lexicon and the interaction of the different languages. I discuss two prominent interrelated issues in this section:

1) single vs. multiple lexicons and language selective vs. languagenon-selective lexical access;

Yan-kit Ingrid Leung 101

2) typology vs. the 'second language (L2) factor'3 as determinants of source of cross-linguistic influence.

My reading of the literature is that theoretical psycholinguistic model-building papers and some online controlled experimental psycholinguistic studies tend to focus on (1), usually as carry-overs from bilingualism research testing monolingual models in the bi-/tri-lingual mind, with less interest in learning-related matters. On the other hand, descriptive applied psycholinguistic production or code-switching studies concerned with language learning and transfer tend to look at (2).

(Unsurprisingly, this mirrors the broad field of SLA, where generative linguistics contrasts with applied linguistics.) There are of course reverse and even overlap cases. Combining insights from ( 1) and ( 2) would clearly help us better understand the nature and functioning of the multilingual mind on the lexical level.

Single vs. multiple lexicons and selective vs. non-selective lexical access

The issue of language selectiveness in L3 is an extension of bilingualism research in which empirical evidence from psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspectives seems to favour language-non-selective access (cf. [START_REF] Smith | How do bilinguals access lexical information?[END_REF]De Groot, 2002;De Bot, 2004). 4 The issue of storage in bilingualism is now less important i.e. whether there is one single integrated lexicon (e.g. Cook, 1996) or two separate lexicons (Smith, 1997: 148-51;Singleton, 2001) or two subsystems under one big system [START_REF] Paradis | Generalizable outcomes of bilingual aphasia research[END_REF]. The majority of empirical evidence reveals that during bilingual lexical access, even if the two languages are indeed represented differently, both are activated, although perhaps to different degrees (see below). In the trilingualism/multilingualism/L3 lexical processing research reviewed in Section II, Dijkstra (2003) and Wei (2003) argued for a unified lexicon with language non-selectiveness (notice that Dijkstra focused on visual perception whereas Wei dealt with production). Hall and Ecke's (2003) article also implied the same stance but the authors identified different sources of transfer on different levels of representation (compare (2) below). Spöttl and McCarthy (2003) were doubtful of the interpretation of (functionally) independent lexicons. 5 In contrast, Herwig ( 2003) allowed for language selectiveness in the big network system and Schönpflug (2000) saw the possibility that lexicons of different languages in a multilingual mind are presented separately and accessed differentially online.

In addition to these reports, a well-controlled L3 visual perceptual experimental study by [START_REF] Lemhöfer | Three languages, one ECHO: Cognate effects in trilingual word recognition[END_REF] independently lends support to language non-selectiveness. Lemhöfer et al. look at facilitating cognate effects in trilingual processing. In one experiment, they investigated 28 Dutch-English-German trilinguals using a simple German lexical decision task with three types of test items: Dutch-German-English cognates ('triple' cognates), e.g. Hotel, Dutch-German cognates ('double' cognates), e.g. macht (English has a different word), as well as German control words ('monolingual' words without English or Dutch cognates). Participants had to decide whether each German test item was a real word. Multilingual participants responded to German test items faster in the case of Dutch-German cognates, than did German controls (no cognates). This replicated the usual cognate effect, that L1 affects target language word recognition. Responses were even faster when the test item was a 'triple' Dutch-German-English cognate than a 'double' Dutch-German cognate. This demonstrates that English (L2) helps to speed up German (L3) word recognition. These findings point to non-selective lexical access in visual word recognition. That is, all languages that have been previously acquired by a multilingual are activated at the same time during lexical processing. Therefore, it is not the case that only L1 is activated or that L1 has a privileged role to play in L3 processing. The results attest to simultaneous activation and parallel processing as well as interaction amongst all the three languages in a trilingual mind.

Therefore, quite some findings in the bilingualism and L3/trilingualism literature suggest that all languages within a multilingual mind are activated during lexical processing. But are all languages activated to the same degree? Will one language exert a stronger influence than the others? If so, which one? The answer to the last question hinges on one or more factors. Cross-linguistic lexical access and the source and strength of interference may be constrained by variables such as L1 dominance (since the L1 is usually more utilized and has a stronger network), language proficiency (e.g. [START_REF] Goral | Lexical access and language proficiency of trilingual speakers[END_REF], as well as recency of activation. There is also the so-called 'second language (L2) factor'/L2 status (see Hammarberg, 2001 reviewed above and footnote 3), which seems to suggest that all non-native languages are somehow 'grouped' together in the mental space as opposed to the L1, so L2 is likely be accessed faster than L3 and will likely pose a stronger influence than L1. This is very often contrasted with another important factorlinguistic typology -by which either L1 or L2 could transfer, depending on which language is typologically closer to the target language. In what follows, I discuss these two factors, frequently debated in the field of L3.

Typology vs. the 'second language (L2) factor' in cross-linguistic influence or lexical transfer

Most L3 studies with a direct focus on transfer are descriptive. Contrary to what theoretical researchers claim -(see (1) above) -the implicit assumption is that different languages form separate systems in a multilingual mind, or even if languages form a holistic network then language activation is somehow selective. 6Earlier studies on L3 lexical transfer were scant. Research such as [START_REF] Ringbom | Crosslinguistic influence and the foreign language process[END_REF] and [START_REF] Singleton | Mother and other tongue influence on learner French[END_REF] did not set out to explicitly test L1 vs. L2 or typology vs. L2 status. The general conclusion of these studies was that, while all the previously acquired languages potentially affect the development of the L3 system, linguistic typology and psychotypology play a crucial role in determining the 'privileged' source of transfer. Studies that examine the issue more systematically have emerged recently, such as those in the volumes under review. These are mostly descriptive studies of cross-lexical representation, code-mixing and transfer, which employ offline methodologies or production data. Often data do not bear on predictions derived from any theory (although exceptions are Wei, 2003;and Hall and Ecke, 2003). The studies discussed above most pertinent to the theme of typology and transfer are Wei (2003) (which looked at transfer at different representational levels but did not distinguish sources) and Hall and Ecke (2003) (which reported different sources of transfer effects on different representation levels). Cenoz (2001;2003) also found different transfer sources for different functions, where typology seemed to be crucial for lexical transfer, but transfer of interaction strategies might reflect similar contexts of source and target language use rather than typology. Ringbom (2001) contended that form transfer is typology-based while semantic transfer is L1-based. De Angelis and Selinker ( 2001) inferred the role of typology in L3 production. Both Hammarberg (2001) and Ecke (2001) concluded that L2 status was the dominant factor, while Gibson et al.'s (2001) results indicated neither typology nor L2 status constrained transfer behaviour. In short, results are mixed.

Note that these L3 studies are primarily concerned with typologically related languages (with the exception of Fouser, 2001;Wei, 2003). The methodology they adopt and the language combinations involved do not always unambiguously test the distinction between typology and the L2 factor. However, two recent studies by [START_REF] Singleton | Mother and other tongue influence on learner French[END_REF]O'Laoire (2004, 2005) have successfully achieved this. [START_REF] Singleton | Psychotypology and the 'L2 factor' in cross-lexical interaction: an analysis of English and Irish influence in learner French[END_REF] looked at L1 English-L2 Irish (very advanced)-L3 French using two elicitation instruments. They found that L1 English, which is considered typologically closer to French in lexical terms than Irish is, acts as the dominant source of lexical borrowing. They interpreted this result as strong support for (psycho)typology and against the L2 factor. However, Singleton and O'Laoire acknowledged that, unlike English, the participants' L2 Irish, though very advanced, was only a non-native language; thus, L1 English may simply have exerted more influence than L2 Irish. In the 2005 study, therefore, Singleton and O'Laoire looked at bilingual L1 Irish-English participants. They successfully replicated the 2004 results: English but not Irish showed the privileged status in cross-lexical transfer. This is strong testimony to the role of (psycho-) typology in the lexical domain.

Intriguing questions might pop up about future research prospects: what will happen if all the three languages concerned are typologically unrelated? Would the dominant source of transfer be L1 or L2, or random? Would the findings on typology hold equally for other modules, e.g. syntax? What is meant by (psycho)typology for syntactic properties? At this moment, we do not know the answers to these questions. But we do see hope in the flourishing area of multilingual lexical processing. We also see some twilight from the spread of interest in L3 to generative linguistics.

IV Current expanding field of L3 syntax

In the field of theoretical L2 acquisition, i.e. studies adopting linguistic theory, particularly the generative tradition (see Hawkins, 2001a;White, 2003), L3 has been relatively unexplored. Most of the research in this framework has treated L3 acquisition as another case of L2, and dismissed the role of intermediary languages in Ln development entirely. There were, however, some rare early studies that touched on the issue of L3. [START_REF] Zobl | Prior linguistic knowledge and the conservatism of the learning procedure: grammaticality judgements of unilingual and multilingual learners[END_REF] and [START_REF] Klein | Second vs. third language acquisition: is there a difference?[END_REF], for instance, compared unilinguals and multilinguals in the acquisition of various grammatical properties. However, neither experiment was designed to have a uniform group of L3 learners with a similar linguistic background. In the last two or three years, a few generative non-native language acquisition studies have arisen that explicitly aimed to deal with L3, including [START_REF] Lozano | Universal Grammar and focus constraints: the acquisition of pronouns and word order in non-native Spanish[END_REF] on L2 vs. L3 Spanish null subject related properties, [START_REF] Flynn | The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: comparing adults' and children's patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses[END_REF] on child vs. adult L3 acquisition of English restrictive relative clauses by Kazakh-Russian bilingual speakers, García [START_REF] Mayo | Placeholders in the English interlanguage of bilingual (Basque/Spanish) children[END_REF] on placeholders is and he in Basque-Spanish bilingual children's L3 English, and my own work [START_REF] Leung | L2 vs. L3 initial state: A comparative study of the acquisition of French DPs by Vietnamese monolinguals and Cantonese-English bilinguals[END_REF]2006a;2006b; to appear) on L1 Cantonese-L2 English-L3 French morphosyntax and on a related issue of verbal morphology in L1 Cantonese-L2 English-L3 Spanish. [START_REF] White | Gender agreement in L2 Spanish: evidence against failed features[END_REF] also put some emphasis on the issue of L3 in their investigation of gender and number features in Spanish interlanguage grammars.

A growing number of dissertations and conference papers have emerged since 2005 on L3 from the generative linguistic perspective. The majority analyse the source of transfer in L3. 7 These recent works testify to the increasing interest of generative SLA researchers in the domain of L3. It is indeed encouraging.

One might naturally ask: why is L3 of interest to generative researchers? Are they not concerned only about sameness? Researchers working on L3 or multilingualism are a different breed: they are concerned with linguistic differences (hence cross-linguistic influence). This reaction that some universalists -even those working on second language acquisition -are only interested in sameness is in fact quite common amongst people outside generative SLA; for a comment regarding certain L2 analyses done within the UG framework, see Odlin, 2003: 461. To answer this question, let us assume that one of the most fundamental concerns of L3 researchers is cross-linguistic influence. Transfer has been shown in generative SLA to be mutually compatible with universalist inquiries. In other words, it is possible to look at transfer while embracing UG. In fact, transfer has been seriously investigated in a few very prominent models in the UG/SLA field: in a series of articles published in the 1990s, [START_REF] Schwartz | Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage[END_REF]1996) proposed the Full Transfer Full Access model, [START_REF] Vainikka | Direct access to X Ј -theory: evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German[END_REF]1996) proposed the Minimal Trees Hypothesis, and Eubank (1993/94;1994) proposed the Valueless Features Hypothesis, capturing the relationship between emergence/development of functional categories and the role of L1. Hawkins and colleagues (e.g. Hawkins and Chan, 1997;[START_REF] Franceschina | Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals[END_REF][START_REF] Hawkins | Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers[END_REF][START_REF] Hawkins | Accounting for English article interpretation by L2 speakers[END_REF], with their Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (recently known as the Representational Deficit Hypothesis), have also argued for persistent L1 influence owing to critical period effects to explain certain Yan-kit Ingrid Leung 107 7 Amongst others, there is [START_REF] Jin | The role of L1 and L2 in L3A[END_REF] on L1 Mandarin Chinese-L2 English-L3 Norwegian subjects and objects; [START_REF] Koster | Verb positioning in L3 German: roles of the first and second languages[END_REF] on L1 Dutch-L2 English-L3 German verb positioning; [START_REF] Foote | Semantic transfer in L3 acquisition: the role of typology[END_REF] on semantic transfer of aspect involving multilinguals who speak one or more Romance languages; Chin (2005) on L3 Japanese and L3 Spanish aspect; Bayona (2005) on the issue of transfer in L3 Spanish middle and impersonal constructions; [START_REF] Youhanaee | The acquisition of psych verbs by Arabic-Persian bilinguals[END_REF] on the acquisition of psych verbs in L3 English by Arabic-Persian bilinguals; Na [START_REF] Na Ranong | The status of null subjects and null objects in L1 Thai-L2 English-L3 Chinese interlanguage grammars[END_REF] on L1 Thai-L2 English-L3 Mandarin Chinese null subjects and null objects as well as Jaensch (in progress) on the acquisition of German DPs by Japanese-English bilinguals with differing L2 and L3 proficiency levels.

fossilization problems in adult L2 grammars. All these were attempts to incorporate the element of transfer in UG/SLA research, although of course the concept itself was used and interpreted differently than in some applied linguistics approaches. Transfer in the UG/SLA tradition was meant to reflect the subtle influence of abstract L1 properties in L2 syntactic representations, despite surface facts that might not reveal obvious transfer patterns (compare White, 1992, who argued 15 years ago that parameter resetting is not simply a new name for old contrastive analysis problems; and Lardiere, to appear, who has refined the notion of L1 influence from parameter resetting to feature re-assembly).

Whether transfer is framed as the importation of subtle L1 properties, failure of parameter resetting, representational deficit or featural mapping problems, it is a misconception that generative SLA researchers are only concerned with sameness. There are generative SLA researchers who are interested in both theory building and learning-related issues such as age effects and prior linguistic influence, who would like to investigate both universal constraints as well as parameterized properties. Even hard-core SLA generativists focus on both sameness and differences in the domain of L2 (e.g. [START_REF] Snape | The acquisition of the English determiner phrase by Japanese and Spanish learners of English[END_REF]; see also Hawkins, 2001b) and in the domain of L3 [START_REF] Lozano | Universal Grammar and focus constraints: the acquisition of pronouns and word order in non-native Spanish[END_REF]. Of course, there are SLA researchers who adopt generative linguistic theory to particularly target differences, such as [START_REF] Flynn | The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: comparing adults' and children's patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses[END_REF] and [START_REF] Leung | L2 vs. L3 initial state: A comparative study of the acquisition of French DPs by Vietnamese monolinguals and Cantonese-English bilinguals[END_REF]2006a;2006b; to appear) discussed above.

Notoriously, Chomsky is only interested in the pure cases of monolingualism (Cook and Newson, 2007). Therefore, we need to ask the question from a different angle: to generativists who really are only interested in sameness, what can L3 offer? This is a very difficult question. The answer depends on whether one believes that the link between (generative) linguistic theory and SLA is a 'two-way street' (see [START_REF] Huebner | Second language acquisition: litmus test for linguistic theory[END_REF][START_REF] Rutherford | Linguistics and SLA: the two-way street phenomenon[END_REF], a heated issue which seems no longer to be asked. But it needs to be asked, in order to evaluate what multilingualism can offer generative linguists. If one accepts that SLA could contribute to linguistic theory, then obviously L3/multilingualism could contribute even one step further. Although the two notions are not necessarily related, in my opinion the study of multilingualism offers test cases of less studied natural languages for generative linguists to explore. It helps us to extend the range of languages studied and to explore further the nature of the language faculty: instead of testing UG in predominantly L2 English data, multilingualism can test the limits of UG much in the same vein as [START_REF] Genesee | Bilingual first language acquisition: exploring the limits of the language faculty[END_REF] has argued for the case of bi-/multi-lingual L1 acquisition: in L3/multilingual non-primary acquisition, if a learner continues to learn foreign languages an nth time, we want to know if UG will still be functioning in a similar way as it was for L1 or L2 acquisition. In my opinion, L3 data provides an exciting pathway to further theory building.

V Prospects and future directions

More than a decade ago, Rutherford (1993: 11) speculated that a shift was underway in SLA research from syntax (alone) to the lexicon and possibly to the interaction of syntax and the lexicon. The exact nature of the lexicon certainly depends on the specific model one assumes. In Minimalist terms, Rutherford's prediction seemed to be actualized in featurebased L2 accounts (e.g. [START_REF] Hawkins | Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers[END_REF]. In addition, with [START_REF] Ullman | The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language acquisition: the declarative/procedural model[END_REF] proposition that L2 syntax and L2 lexicon occupy shared brain/mental space at least at the initial stages of L2 development, I think it is not unreasonable to stress the need to study both domains in L2 -or L3 -as well. To take a simplistic view of the lexicon as a list of 'words', I have demonstrated in Section III that multilingual lexical processing is an exciting area to explore, particularly concerning crosslexical interaction. In Section IV, I argued that L3 syntax is also full of potential to uncover the role of transfer on the level of syntactic representation and interlanguage grammar formation. A researcher interested in L3 and transfer would naturally be attracted to the study of cross-lexical interaction; such a researcher with a background in generative linguistics would also be fascinated by cross-linguistic influence on abstract syntactic properties. One possible trend for L3 research, as I see it, is therefore to combine the insights from both lexical processing and theoretical syntax to bear on the role of prior linguistic knowledge, that is, to look at both the lexicon and syntax of the same L3 population to see if convergence of results could be obtained with respect to the source of transfer (cf. Na Ranong, in progress). Investigating L3 on other combined levels, such as L3 syntax and L3 semantics would be another possible direction. I should also mention one other challenging aspect which I dare not touch on in this article: the intricate relationship between development, representation and processing in non-native language acquisition in general, about which [START_REF] Truscott | Acquisition by processing: a modular perspective on language development[END_REF] make an insightful suggestion.

To conclude, I think that L3 acquisition would benefit from a greater number of studies that specifically target L3, independent of L2; in this way, the demarcation between L3 and L2 will be clearer, and our awareness of the value of L3 as a separate domain will be strengthened. At the same time, multilingualism/L3 research has a lot to borrow by way of model building from its mother field of bilingualism/SLA.

It is controversial as to whether bilinguals access/activate either or both of the languages during lexical processing. Psycholinguists have termed the debate 'language selective vs. language non-selective'. On another note, 'cross-linguistic influence' and 'transfer' mean the same thing in this article, and I use the two terms interchangeably (but, for a fine-grained distinction of all related terms involved, see SharwoodSmith and Kellerman, 1986: 1).

The 'second language (L2) factor' in L3 acquisition refers to the general tendency to transfer (representations) from L2(s) rather than L1. In online processing/performance terms, 'L2 status' is usually used to expresses the idea of general tendency to activate L2(s) rather than L1. See below for further exposition.

Note that in this review article, I ignore controversial topics in the lexical processing literature such as what grammatical information lexical entries contain, the number of levels of lexical representation and their nature, the distinction between conceptual and semantic features (see, e.g.,[START_REF] Jiang | Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language[END_REF], etc. I am interested in the broad idea of the lexicon of each language as a whole, and I adopt the simplistic notion of a 'word' as the holistic unit of lexical representation.

I am not sure whether this also holds for representation in their view.

But the discussion applies equally if one assumes differential strength of access in the case of language non-selectiveness.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Margaret Thomas for inviting me to write this article and for her helpful feedback and kind assistance throughout the process. I am also grateful to the anonymous Second Language Research reviewer for the very encouraging comments and useful suggestions. All errors are my own.

VI References


It was with great sadness that the Editors of Second Language Research learned of the death of Craig Chaudron, whose work has had a major impact on the field. We publish below an appreciation of his life and work by Gabriele Kasper.

Craig Chaudron, 1946-2006

In the early morning of August 21, 2006, Craig Chaudron, professor and graduate chair in the Department of Second Language Studies at the University of Hawai'i, died of a sudden heart failure. Only a few days before, he had participated in the departmental orientation for new graduate students. He was his usual relaxed and confident self entirely on that occasion, reassuring the new arrivals that they had come to the right place and looking forward to teaching his newly designed graduate course on L2 acquisition by young learners.

Craig Chaudron was born and grew up in St. Louis, Missouri. At the age of twelve he traveled the world with his parents, older brother and their pet monkeys, an experience that fuelled his curiosity about different places and languages. He studied French and German at the Université de Strasbourg and earned his bachelor degree in philosophy and French at Wabash College (1968). While working in a kindergarten and EFL adult education in Odense, Denmark (1971-1975), he acquired Danish with a Funen accent. Back in North America, Craig went to Toronto-OISE for graduate studies in educational theory, obtaining an MEd (1976) and a PhD with a specialization in educational linguistics (1982). After briefly teaching at Boston University and UCLA, Craig came to the Department of English as a Second Language (now Department of Second Language Studies) at the University of Hawai'i as an assistant professor in 1983 and had been a full professor in the department since 1994. Craig Chaudron's scholarship covered a wide scope, and yet the major topics that continued to fascinate him throughout his career go back to his dissertation (The language of instruction in ESL classes:

Variations in topic reinstatement and their effect on comprehension).

The study examined how different types and degrees of simplification facilitated ESL students' lecture comprehension. It was based on a meticulous experimental design and exemplified the type of classroomoriented research conducted under laboratory conditions that Craig regarded as a necessary complement to studies in classroom settings. The dissertation foreshadowed the research domains in which Craig made his main contributions: classroom research, psycholinguistics of second language use and learning, especially of listening comprehension, and research methods. His book Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning (Cambridge University Press, 1988) won him the Modern Language Association Mildenberger Prize in 1990 and international recognition as a leading scholar in classroom research. After twenty years the book remains a seminal text, and Craig's more recent journal articles (for instance, his historical review of studies on classroom research published in The Modern Language Journal over an 85 year period, MLJ, 2001) attest to his continued leadership in the domain. Craig's work on listening comprehension distinguishes itself favorably from much of the applied linguistic literature in this area through its firm grounding in psycholinguistic theory and research. Published in major journals and edited volumes, his work substantially raised the bar for theoretical and empirical sophistication in the study of listening. It was driven by his belief that instructional practices and innovation in second language education must be derived from rigorous data-based studies, a stance that propelled his interest and substantial contributions to the methodology of second language research, such as his chapter on data collection in Doughty and Long's Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (2003). He published widely on various research methodological topics and was about to complete a comprehensive study on elicited imitation at the time of his death. Probably the first advocate of research syntheses in second language studies, he was the master of the comprehensive review article, as evident in his early influential paper on metalinguistic judgments (Language Learning, 1983) and as recently as this year in his chapter in Norris and Ortega's Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (Benjamins, 2006), in which he offered a critical evaluation of research syntheses on several second language topics. A confirmed positivist, Craig did not approve the poststructuralist and constructionist turn in much of applied linguistics and second language studies. Clearly he was not happy to see some of our best students and a few colleagues, including me, abandon the received canon of realist research that he so effectively contributed to. And yet disagreements about the nature of good research never compromised the excellent relationships that Craig had with the students in whose graduation projects he participated, and who he would support with detailed constructive commentary regardless of epistemological differences. We could have heated discussions about the merits of ethnomethodology, which to him were questionable at best, and a topic-shift later have a perfectly harmonious conversation about departmental matters. Craig knew how to integrate or compartmentalize the many different facets of his academic life. In Craig Chaudron's practice as a scholar, educator and mentor, his commitment to high standards of research equaled his deep concern for students' development as teachers and researchers. He was generous with his time and encyclopedic knowledge, and known for his extensive and detailed comments on students' work. Craig was a stickler yet also knew when to scale his perfectionism back and see the student as a person first.

Craig united outstanding scholarship with extraordinary memory and organizational skills, and thanks to this combination he was in high demand for leading administrative and service positions. In his twentythree years as a faculty member in the SLS Department, he was department chair (1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994) and graduate chair (1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006) and he excelled at those jobs. He was principle investigator of the US National Flagship Language Program for the teaching of advanced L2 Korean at the University of Hawai'i. He served twice on the Executive Board of AAAL, since 2005 as Secretary/Treasurer, and was the North American editor of Applied Linguistics (1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994).

No one who knew Craig in one or more of his many academic capacities could fail to notice that he thoroughly enjoyed the many different sides of his academic life. He clearly took pleasure in the intellectual challenges and satisfaction of theory and rigorous empirical research, in guiding students on their way to become teachers and researchers, and serving his department, the University of Hawai'i, and the applied linguistic community nation-wide and internationally. How he managed to accommodate the multiplicity of professional roles, many of which he held concurrently, and perform them all so well and with such obvious enjoyment remains a mystery, and one of the many reasons why he will be an impossible act to follow. On the morning of Craig's death, Mike Long wrote to the SLS faculty "The true significance -layer upon layer of consequences and implications -will take weeks and months to hit." Mike's prediction proves painfully accurate. Craig's vestiges are intertwined with the department's history and presence, from major policy decisions to such details as his handwriting on all incoming students' forms for course selection. He had the smartest collection of aloha shirts that I have ever seen on an academic and he wore them with style and grace. For this, he will be missed, too.

A memorial fund has been established to recognize Craig's enormous contributions to the University of Hawaii, the Department of Second Language Studies, and to the field of applied linguistics. Tax-deductible contributions can be made by sending a check or international money order payable to UH Foundation (with a note indicating the Craig Chaudron Memorial Fund), 2444 Dole Street, Bachman Hall 105, Honolulu, HI 96822. Online donations can also be made via the UH Foundation website: www.uhf.hawaii.edu "make a gift" section, by typing Craig Chaudron Memorial Fund in the "other program/account" option.

Gabriele Kasper University of Hawai'i at Manoa


Nigel Duffield
email: n.g.duffield@sheffield.ac.uk

Ayumi Matsuo

Acceptable ungrammaticality in sentence matching

, investigating native speakers' and second language (L2) learners' knowledge of constraints on clitic placement in French. Our purpose is three-fold:

; and • to provide a firm empirical basis for follow-up experiments with L2 learners.

The results reported here provide some confirmation of the validity of Duffield et al.'s earlier work, and help to adjudicate among competing interpretations of the previous effects.

I Introduction

The sentence-matching task (SMT) is a relatively simple instrument: participants are asked to decide whether a pair of consecutively presented sentences are identical in form, as they are in (1a), or not, as in (1b). 1 Psycholinguistic interest in the SMT lies in the fact that in most instances grammatical pairs are matched reliably more quickly than ungrammatical ones; for example, the sentences in (1a) are matched significantly more quickly than those in (1c) (non-matching pairs such as (1b) are simply distracters).

The explanation originally offered by Freedman & Forster for this difference is that when participants read a grammatical sentence, they construct a higher-level structural representation, which is then matched against the structural representation of the second sentence; in the case of an ungrammatical string, no such representation can be constructed, and so participants must resort to some less efficientperhaps word-by-word -mechanism for matching the two sentences, which results in increased response latencies for such items. 1) a. Alex has seen the dog.

Alex has seen the dog. b. Alex has seen the dog.

Alex has seen the cat. c. Alex has saw the dog.

Alex has saw the dog.

Whether or not this explanation is correct is perhaps less important here than the fact that -in most cases -it works, and that it provides an implicit measure of grammaticality. The utility of such a measure has not escaped second language researchers, where explicit meta-linguistic judgements may be less likely to reflect underlying competence than is the case for native speakers (Birdsong, 1989); for this and other reasons, [START_REF] Bley-Vroman | Reaction time as a supplement to grammaticality judgements in the investigation of second language competence[END_REF] propose sentence matching as a valuable adjunct to traditional grammaticality judgement (GJ) tasks in L2 research.

In the absence of a grammaticality effect

What is arguably of greater theoretical interest are those cases where the sentence-matching task apparently 'fails': that is, where superficially ungrammatical constructions are treated in terms of response latency as though they were grammatical. These results have been taken by some researchers as evidence of the 'underlying grammaticality' of such constructions, especially where there is independent support for this claim from syntactic theory; see, for example, [START_REF] Freedman | The psychological status of overgenerated sentences[END_REF], [START_REF] Forster | Sentence-matching and well-formedness[END_REF], Clahsen and Hong (1995). This is also the case in the present experiment.

One such construction from French, studied in [START_REF] Duffield | Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic placement: converging methodologies[END_REF] and [START_REF] Duffield | Clitic placement in L2 French: evidence from sentence matching[END_REF], is what may be termed the '*medial causative' (*MC), where an accusative (subject) clitic is placed between the higher causative verb and the lower predicate with which it is thematically associated, as in (2a). With respect to the surface grammar, this structure is ungrammatical; however, in previous SMT experiments, *MCs were treated by native speakers no differently from their grammatical counterparts (2b), and in clear contrast to comparable ungrammatical pairs, such as those exemplified in (2c), which elicited reliably longer response latencies. The absence of a grammaticality effect in this particular instance could be dismissed as a task or item effect were it not for the following considerations. First, in all other comparable conditions in the same experiment, native speakers' results yielded reliable effects of grammaticality. This was true, for example, of contrasting pairs of sentences involving so-called restructuring verbs such as pouvoir, vouloir, etc., illustrated in (3). Second, the same participants' judgements of the same items in a follow-up pen-and-paper GJ task, also reported in [START_REF] Duffield | Clitic placement in L2 French: evidence from sentence matching[END_REF], showed a uniform rejection of these *MC sentences, demonstrating that the absence of a grammaticality effect in the SMT was not due to poorly chosen stimuli.

Third, experiments using separate materials and a different instrumenta self-paced reading task -have shown independently that this construction is rather marked in processing terms. [START_REF] Dwivedi | Processing the French causative construction[END_REF] and [START_REF] Hoover | Syntactic processing by skilled bilinguals[END_REF] have shown that readers prefer to associate a clitic with the verb that immediately follows it, a preference that yields longer processing times3 for (grammatical) initial causatives, such as those in (2b) above and (4a), over the corresponding causatives without clitics such as those in (4b), as well as over non-causative restructuring sentences where the clitic is adjacent to the verb with which it is thematically associated, as in (5b). We return to this below. Fourth -the main point of interest in the earlier articles -Spanish L2 learners of French did in fact show reliable grammaticality effects for the *MC condition in the same SMT experiment; in this respect, they appeared to outperform native speakers [START_REF] Duffield | Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic placement: converging methodologies[END_REF][START_REF] Duffield | Clitic placement in L2 French: evidence from sentence matching[END_REF]. Finally, as mentioned earlier, there are theoretical grounds for considering the *MC construction to be underlyingly grammatical. Most recent generative analyses of Romance causative constructions assume that French faire ϩ infinitive constructions remain fundamentally biclausal, with the lower clause containing all of the functional architecture of a normal matrix clause, including clitic projections, and where the surface (initial) position of the clitic is derived by initial merger of the accusative clitic at the lower VP followed by AЈ-movement to the surface position. This derivation is schematized in (6) below, with the unpronounced copy of the clitic struck through. For relevant discussion, see [START_REF] Guasti | Semantic restrictions in romance causatives and the incorporation approach[END_REF][START_REF] Sportiche | Clitic constructions[END_REF][START_REF] Sportiche | Clitic constructions[END_REF][START_REF] Roberts | Restructuring, head movement and locality[END_REF]; see also Vinka, 2002. 6)

[je le i fais [CP … [ ClP-Acc le i … [ VP pro i rire ] ] ] ]
Depending on the particular theoretical article, the details of this analysis obviously vary. Equally clearly, this is not the only legitimate analysis of French causative constructions. However, the point is that for *MC constructions there is a class of analyses in which this particular word order is 'underlyingly grammatical', whereas for the ungrammatical sentences in (2c) and (3b) no such analysis is available: these are ungrammatical at all levels of representation. 4 Now, supposing underlying grammaticality to be more than a pure theoretical construct -if it has some psycholinguistic reality -then it is reasonable to expect that speakers should implicitly judge these sentences as essentially grammatical -or, at the very least, as significantly more acceptable than sentences that are ungrammatical at every level of syntactic analysis. In other words, in the case at hand the underlying grammaticality of *MC sentences predicts facilitation for these items in the SMT task; in principle this can explain the absence of a grammaticality effect in this case.

Gass's (2001) criticisms

Notwithstanding the preceding discussion, the SMT has been vulnerable to criticism on various counts. Early critics, notably [START_REF] Crain | Sentence matching and overgeneration[END_REF], called for a radical reinterpretation of the original findings with Nigel Duffield, Ayumi Matsuo and Leah Roberts 159 4 This directly parallels the contrast observed in Clahsen et al.'s (1995) study of German word order, where *verb-final word order in matrix clauses (i) was considered as acceptable as correct verb-second order (ii), while *verb-second order in embedded clauses continued to be treated as ungrammatical (iii), eliciting reliably longer response latencies than the (surface) correct verb-final order (iv). Here too, most analyses of German verb-second treat the word order in (i) as underlyingly grammatical. i) * Hans den Mann gesehen hat.

John the man seen has 'John has seen the man.' ii)

Hans hat den Mann gesehen hat. John has the man seen 'John has seen the man.' iii) * Ob Hans hat den Mann gesehen whether John has the man seen 'whether John has seen the man.' iv) Ob

Hans den Mann gesehen hat whether John the man seen has 'John has seen the man.' native speakers, claiming that a low-level factor of correctability better explained the early data than any appeal to more interesting theoretical notions such as underlying grammaticality.5 A firm riposte to Crain and Fodor's account was initially provided by [START_REF] Forster | Sentence-matching and well-formedness[END_REF], who showed the effects of correctability to be orthogonal to the effects of underlying grammaticality (which they termed overgeneration). Since that time, most experiments -including those reported here -have used the SMT to investigate sensitivity to grammatical violations in sentences where it is completely trivial to correct the ungrammatical word order; hence, where Crain and Fodor's correctability account appears much more implausible.

More recently, [START_REF] Gass | Sentence matching: a re-examination[END_REF] has criticized many of the previous experiments involving L2 learners on separate grounds, both methodological and empirical. Gass's principal criticisms are based on the observed contrast between previous work and her own experiments using the SMT. Those contrasts may be briefly summarized. First, in Gass's own initial experiment, L2 learners showed no reliable grammaticality effect in any structural condition (adverb placement, subject -verb agreement, or clitic placement), nor were grammatical sentences always matched faster than ungrammatical sentences by native speakers. Second, in a follow-up experiment, intermediate learners of French did not perform significantly differently from beginning learners who -according to Gass -could not reasonably be presumed able to construct such high-level structural representations. Third, the L2 results from Gass's first experiment did not reliably correlate with the same participants' offline judgements of grammaticality (indeed, a small but reliable 'reverse grammaticality effect' was observed). Finally, Gass queried aspects of the experimental design of previous experiments, including choice of materials and timing issues.

Setting aside for a moment the non-trivial methodological issues, Gass's criticisms reduce to two essential points: that, in Gass's own studies, the SMT failed to yield any reliable grammaticality effects in the case of L2 learners, casting doubt on the replicability of earlier results; and that mismatches were observed between participants' results in standard offline GJ tasks vs. those on the SMT, again suggesting -to Gass, at least'that the SMT does not provide a reliable measure of grammaticality. 6With respect to the first point, it is clear that experimental results are only valid to the extent that they are replicable; one of the main purposes of this article is to demonstrate such replicability. However, it is equally clear that failure to replicate on any given occasion does not by itself invalidate a previous finding. Moreover, various sentence-matching results have already been successfully replicated on several occasions: for example, Clahsen and Hong (1995) and Clahsen et al. (1995) replicated effects for subject -verb agreement violations in German that [START_REF] Freedman | The psychological status of overgenerated sentences[END_REF] had obtained for English, while [START_REF] Crain | Sentence matching and overgeneration[END_REF] also replicated Freedman and Forster's results, albeit with a very different interpretation.

We will not dwell here on the reasons for the failure of the SMT in Gass's experiments. 7 What is crucial to notice, however, is that in her experiments L2 learners' results globally failed to show any reliable grammaticality effect; by contrast, in [START_REF] Duffield | Clitic placement in L2 French: evidence from sentence matching[END_REF], and several other articles, the SMT elicited reliable grammaticality effects for L2 learners and native speakers both overall as well as in most sub-conditions: it was exclusively in one sub-condition (*MC) that native speakers' results failed to yield a reliable grammaticality effect. 8The validity of the second point, concerning the mismatches between online and offline results in Gass's experiments, rests on the premise that offline acceptability judgments provide the most reliable test of grammaticality: what Gass terms 'our "best guess" as to the state of learners' knowledge' (Gass, 2001: fn. p. 435). Without wishing to belabour the point here, we simply reject this premise; for extended discussion, see [START_REF] Duffield | Measures of competent gradience[END_REF]2004. In fact, if it were valid, there would be no real point in using other instruments such as SM to assess grammaticality, since whenever a systematic divergence were found between results, the results of traditional GJ tasks would immediately be deferred to (as is the case in Gass's article).

If this brief response is adequate, what remains from Gass's article is the recognition of an even greater urgency to successfully replicate the earlier results, and to develop an experimental design that allows us to better understand the grammaticality effect in the SMT. With this in mind, we conducted two follow-up experiments: the first, a near copy of the restructuring and causative sub-conditions of Duffield et al.'s larger experiment; the second, an extension of the causative conditions, using TRANSITIVE causatives, contrasting *medial-accusative with *medial-dative clitics. Before discussing these experiments in detail, it is necessary to address an important -but hitherto unclarified -methodological issue: namely, the locus of the (absent) effect.

The locus of the effect

In the SMT, the grammaticality effect (GE) is operationally defined as the difference between the mean response latency (RT or response time) for grammatical items in a particular condition, and that for the corresponding ungrammatical items (GE ϭ RT UGRAMMATICAL -RT GRAMMATICAL . In principle, the absence of such an effect in medial causatives might come about in one of two theoretically interesting ways: either, because of some processing difficulty with the grammatical pairs, producing inhibition, or because of relatively greater ease of processing with the ungrammatical ones, producing facilitation.9 In the ideal case, if the absence of any GE were due to inhibition, we would expect to see longer response latencies for grammatical pairs for those forms vis-à-vis other comparable grammatical pairs (see Figure 1a); conversely, if this were due to facilitation of the ungrammatical pairs, we would expect to see shorter latencies for these vis-à-vis other comparable ungrammatical pairs (see Figure 1b). Clearly, only the latter result supports the idea of underlying grammaticality. However, the results of the Hoover and Dwivedi study mentioned above, which showed readers' processing difficulties with grammatical (initial) causatives, might lead us to expect an inhibition-based result instead.

In [START_REF] Duffield | Clitic placement in L2 French: evidence from sentence matching[END_REF], native speakers' results showed both effects: inhibition for the grammatical causatives (-37 msec) and facilitation for the ungrammatical medial causatives ( ϩ51 msec), when compared to the overall means (see Figure 2a). However, when the results from initial vs. *medial causatives -cf. (2a)/(2b) above, repeated here for convenience -were compared more locally with those of initial vs. *final causatives -(2b/2c) -only a strong facilitation effect (ϩ40 msec) was found (see Figure 2b). This offers a priori support for the underlying grammaticality interpretation.

Section summary

In summary, our concern in this article is with the validity and replicability of the 'missing grammaticality effect' in [START_REF] Duffield | Clitic placement in L2 French: evidence from sentence matching[END_REF] article. In light of Gass's criticisms, we are interested in demonstrating that this missing effect is a robust phenomenon, and that it occurs for the right reasons: namely, that it is due to facilitation of (surface) ungrammatical pairs in exactly one syntactic context -the *MC condition -rather than to inhibition of (surface) grammatical pairs, or to a generalized failure to elicit grammaticality effects across the board.

II Experiments

We conducted two experiments, using the same experimental set-up reported in [START_REF] Duffield | Clitic placement in L2 French: evidence from sentence matching[END_REF] but with some modifications in the materials with respect to: the number of separate conditions in each experiment (reduced); the proportion of test items to filler/distracter items (reduced); the number of test items per condition (increased); and the number of participants tested (slightly increased). We also paid particular attention to balancing the gender/number properties of the pronominal clitics in the test items (le, la, les lui, leur).

Figures 2a and 2b Broad vs. narrow range comparisons

1 Method (Experiments 1 and 2)

The method closely followed that of [START_REF] Duffield | Clitic placement in L2 French: evidence from sentence matching[END_REF]. The trials in both experiments proceeded as follows. First, a fixation point '***'was presented in the centre of the screen for 750 msec. This was followed by presentation of the first sentence towards the top of the screen (left edge: 25% vertical/25% horizontal) for 3000 msec. The first sentence then disappeared and was replaced by the second sentence of the pair, presented lower on the screen and further to the right (right edge: 75% vertical/75% horizontal). The timer was started at the onset of the second sentence. This second sentence was removed either by the participant's pressing the 'yes' or 'no' key of a button box, or by a 3000 msec time-out, if the participant failed to respond within that time. 10The press of one or other response key (before or after the time-out) removed the second sentence and initiated the next trial, following an inter-stimulus interval (ISI) of 1000 msec. Two versions of each experiment were prepared, one using PsyScope [START_REF] Cohen | PsyScope: a new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments[END_REF][START_REF] Guasti | Semantic restrictions in romance causatives and the incorporation approach[END_REF], and run on Macintosh machines, the other using NESU and run on PC workstations.11 Experiments 1 and 2 were presented consecutively in the same testing session, always in the same order (1-2).

2 Experiment 1 a Design: Both experiments manipulated the (surface) grammaticality of the pairs, the construction type involved, the position of the clitic with respect to the two verbs (initial, medial, (final)), and the number and gender of the clitic (masc., fem.; singular, plural). Experiment 1 re-examined the contrast between causative and restructuring verbs, previously exemplified in (2) and (3) above.

b Participants: Twenty-nine adult native speakers of French recruited from two university sites in Canada and Europe participated in Experiment 1. All participants had normal hearing and normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and were paid a small fee for their participation. 1.

The stimuli were organized in two versions, and ordered in such a way that each participant saw the 48 test items, 24 grammatical and 24 ungrammatical pairs. Presenting two versions of the experiment allowed us to compare directly the grammatical and ungrammatical forms of each test pair, while ensuring that no participant saw no more than one version of each stimulus type.12 d Predictions: Given the results reported in [START_REF] Duffield | Clitic placement in L2 French: evidence from sentence matching[END_REF], we expected no difference in RT patterns according to clitic position in the restructuring verb conditions [E] and [F]: that is to say, we expected to find a grammaticality effect for this verb construction irrespective of Nigel Duffield,Ayumi Matsuo and Leah Roberts 167 we predicted an interaction between clitic position and grammaticality, with a grammaticality effect only in condition [H] (initial vs. *final): no grammaticality effect was predicted in condition set G, where the ungrammatical sentences contained the clitic in verb-medial position.

e Results and analysis: One participant correctly matched the experimental items only 48% of the time; this was 2 standard deviations below the mean of the group (94.7%), and therefore this participant's data were removed from subsequent analyses, since it was not clear that she had paid attention during the experiment. Following the removal of these data, the mean accuracy score for the group rose to 96.4% (SD: 5.6). As noted above, response latencies exceeding the 3000 msec time-out were removed, affecting 1.6% of the data. Following this, individual response latencies beyond two standard deviations of the individual mean per condition were also removed, which affected 3.02% of the remaining data. Figure 3 shows the mean response latencies per condition set for the restructuring verb and causative verb conditions in Experiment 1. where the grammatical items were responded to significantly faster than the ungrammatical items (t1 (27) ϭ -4.515; p Յ 0.001; t2 (11) ϭ -2.390; p ϭ 0.036), but no grammaticality effect in condition [G], where the RTs elicited by *medial causatives were no slower than their grammatical counterparts (t1, p Ն 0.9; t2 p Ն 0.7).

In addition, there was a reliable difference between the *MC items in condition [G] and the ungrammatical causative in final position in condition [H], with the former eliciting much shorter RTs than the latter (t1 (27) ϭ -4.941; p Յ 0.001; t2 (11) ϭ -3.005; p ϭ 0.015). By contrast, no difference was observed between the two grammatical conditions in [G] and [H] (t1, p Ն 0.9; t2, p Ն 0.6). This strongly supports the prediction of facilitation for *MC constructions over other types of ungrammatical sentence.

g Interim summary: In summary, a reliable effect of grammaticality was found in all conditions except condition set G, where no GE was observed. Moreover, the ungrammatical *MC items in this condition elicited RTs that were distinctly faster than ungrammatical pairs in other conditions, and much more similar to those of the grammatical pairs in this as well as in other conditions. This clearly indicates that the absence of an effect here is due to facilitation of the (surface) ungrammatical pairs (rather than inhibition of the grammatical pairs). In short, the results of Experiment 1 were entirely consistent with our immediate predictions, as well as with Duffield et al.'s earlier findings.

Experiment 2

Experiment 2 was intended as a preliminary follow-up study, probing a contrast within the class of causative constructions. In contrast to Experiment 1, which involved complex sentences with an intransitive lower predicate, Experiment 2 examined the acceptability of French clitic placement with two classes of transitive causatives, contrasting the faire ϩ infinitive construction with the alternative faire par construction. Though converging with respect to the grammatical (initial) placement of the clitic, these two constructions are distinguished by the morphological case and understood grammatical relation of the clitic pronoun. In the faire par construction, the clitic is interpreted as the object of the lower clause and realized with accusative case (the same case as the subject pronouns of the intransitive lower verbs discussed earlier), as in (7): 7) a. Je la fais suivre par son frère. I her-ACC make follow by her brother 'I make her brother follow her.' b. * Je fais la suivre par son frère.

By contrast, in the transitive faire ϩ infinitive construction, the clitic is interpreted as the lower clause subject but is realized with dative, rather than accusative, case: 8) a. On lui fait regarder la télévision. one her-DAT makes watch the television 'She is made to watch television.' b. * On fait lui regarder la télévision.

Investigating transitive causatives enabled us to tease apart two possible interpretations of the facilitation effect for intransitive *MCs: a grammatical account vs. a processing account. The grammatical interpretation of the *MC effect -the one we have been developing up to now -predicts that sentences containing *medial accusative clitics should be treated as underlyingly grammatical independently of the grammatical relation (subject/object) of the clitic.

However, a plausible alternative to this grammatical explanation of intransitive *MC sentences is the 'shallow syntactic processing' account -along the lines proposed in Clahsen and Felser (forthcoming). This allows listeners/readers to assign a linear thematic parse to an input string, rather than constructing a detailed syntactic representation. Clahsen and Felser propose this shallow processing as a strategy predominantly employed by L2 learners (possibly to the exclusion of any 'deeper parse'). However, there is no reason why native speakers should not also make use of such a canonical thematic parsing strategy. If the absence of a GE in condition G (in Experiment 1) were due to this strategy being applied to intransitive lower subjects, then this would seem to predict that medial clitic placement would be accepted only where the ungrammatical order is congruent with canonical thematic relations (SUBJ.(AGENT) 1 -VERB 1 -SUBJ.(AGENT) 2 -VERB 2 ): that is to say, it predicts that (2b) and (8b) pairs should pattern together, with (7b) pairs -where the clitic represents a lower clause object -showing a significant GE.

In light of our previous results however, we expected that if either of transitive constructions elicited a grammaticality effect, then it should be the dative causative (condition set [J]). 13 Thus, the two accounts of the facilitation of intransitive *MC constructions make opposing predictions for transitive *MCs.

a Method: The procedure for Experiment 2 was identical to that of Experiment 1.

b Participants: Twenty-eight native French speakers, recruited from two University populations in Canada and Europe participated in Experiment 2. All had normal hearing and normal or correctedto-normal vision, and were paid a small fee for their participation. 14 c Materials: Twelve transitive faire par and 12 faire ϩ infinitive pairs were constructed, and the clitic was placed medially to create the ungrammatical versions of these constructions. The experimental materials are illustrated in Table 2. The 24 experimental items were set within 48 fillers, and distributed evenly across two experimental versions, such that all participants saw 6 grammatical and 6 ungrammatical items of each experimental condition, but no participant saw the same item more than once.

d Results and analysis: The same data trimming procedure that was used in Experiment 1 was adopted for Experiment 2. The data from one participant who achieved an accuracy score (37.5%) which fell below 2 SDs of the group mean (94.6%) were removed from subsequent analyses. Following the removal of this participant's data, the mean accuracy score of the group rose to 96.8% (SD: 5.08). There were no individual data points above the time-out of 3000 msec, and the procedure employed to identify outliers affected 2.81% of the total data. In short, participants performed both experiments very well overall, and very few data points were lost through trimming. Figure 4 shows the mean RTs elicited in the two condition sets. whereas there was no difference between the two grammatical conditions (t1, p Ն 0.9; t2, p Ն 0.9). In other words, the ungrammatical items in condition set 1 were facilitated, patterning with grammatical items in both conditions. In brief, the results of Experiment 2 are entirely consistent with our immediate predictions, as well as with the results from Experiment 1. First, a reliable GE was observed just in the condition [J] where we had no reason to predict underlying grammaticality. Second, the absence of an effect of grammaticality in condition set 1 -as was the case in condition set G of Experiment 1 -was shown to be due to a facilitation effect for the (surface ungrammatical) items in that condition set. Thus, the results of Experiment 2 not only fully bear out those of Experiment 1, but also permit arbitration between a grammatical vs. a thematic parsing account of the facilitation effect, endorsing the former.

III Conclusions

In conclusion, the results from the two experiments reported here provide additional empirical support for the interpretation of previous results in [START_REF] Duffield | Clitic placement in L2 French: evidence from sentence matching[END_REF] in terms of underlying grammaticality: the present results indicate clearly that the absence of a grammaticality effect in just these conditions is due to facilitation of the *MC items -as predicted by the underlying grammaticality hypothesis -rather than to inhibition of the corresponding grammatical controls. We also extended the domain of inquiry to transitive causatives: assuming that the contrasts observed here between dative and accusative clitic constructions are replicated in future experiments, these results provide a useful means of arbitration between different theoretical interpretations, favouring analyses couched in terms of grammatical representations over those that appeal to surface thematic processing.

Clearly, there are limits on what can be concluded from the results of two small-scale experiments focusing on one specific French construction. At least for this particular area of French syntax, however, the successful replication of the earlier experiments provides further validation of the SMT as an implicit measure of grammaticality. More importantly perhaps, these results reveal an aspect of the grammaticality of causative constructions that is not disclosed by traditional GJ tasks (whatever their other virtues may be), suggesting that in some respects at least, the SMT may be superior to those traditional tasks.

Simultaneously, the results throw into relief an otherwise unremarked contrast between native speakers, who reliably 'fail' to show a surface grammaticality effect here, and advanced L2 learners of French, who -paradoxically -'did better' than native speakers in the earlier experiments, by treating *MC sentences as ungrammatical. This mismatch apparently in favour of L2 learners raises intriguing questions about the nature of grammatical competence, as well as the extent of ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Although a discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this article -see [START_REF] Duffield | Measures of competent gradience[END_REF]2004) for discussion -the point to observe is that this perspective on such issues is only made possible by the use of methodologies like the SMT, which elicit implicit judgments: in this sense, the SMT more than merely serves its purpose as a 'supplement to grammaticality judgments' [START_REF] Bley-Vroman | Reaction time as a supplement to grammaticality judgements in the investigation of second language competence[END_REF].

  them-ACC makes train-INF. (to Sarah) 'John has them trained (by Sarah)/John has Sarah train them.' b. Jean fait entraîner les éléphants (à Sara). John makes train-INF the elephants (to Sarah) 'John has the elephants trained (by Sarah)/John has Sarah train the elephants.' 5) a. Jean veut les entraîner. John want them-ACC train-INF. 'John want to train them.' b. Jean veut entraîner les éléphants. John wants train-INF the elephants 'John wants to train the elephants.'

Figures 1a and 1b

 1b Figures 1a and 1bContrastive effects of inhibition and facilitation (idealized)

  (2) a. * Je fais le rire aujourd'hui.* Je fais le rire aujourd'hui. 1553 msec b. Je le fais rire aujourd'hui. Je le fais rire aujourd'hui.1542 msec c. * Je fais rire le aujourd'hui.* Je fais rire le aujourd'hui. 1693 msec

c

  Materials: The materials comprised 48 (matching) test pairs and 178 pairs of practice, lead-in and distracter items (mostly non-matching distracters). The set of 48 test pairs comprised 12 items from each of 4 'condition sets': restructuring verbs with *initial vs. medial and medial vs. *final clitic placement (condition sets [E] and [F] respectively); causative verbs with initial vs. *medial and initial vs. *final clitic placement (sets [G] and [H], respectively). As in Duffield et al.'s experiment, the focus of interest was set G: the *MC condition. The 12 items in each condition set were themselves balanced for the gender/number of the clitic pronoun: four masculine singular clitics; four feminine singular clitics, and four plural clitics. The four experimental conditions are illustrated in Table

e

  Analysis: An ANOVA with the factors Clitic Type (2 levels: accusative vs. dative) and Grammaticality (2 levels: grammatical vs. ungrammatical) was run on the RT data. There was a significant main effect of Clitic Type by participants (F1 (1, 26) ϭ 4.363; p ϭ 0.047; F2 (1, 11) ϭ 1.409; p ϭ 0.260) and marginally significant interaction between Clitic Type and Grammaticality by items (F1 (1, 26) ϭ 2.623; p ϭ 0.117; F2 (1, 11) ϭ 3.553; p ϭ 0.086). T-tests on the individual conditions sets showed a reliable effects of grammaticality for condition set J: the faire ϩ infinitive construction with dative clitic (t1 (26) ϭ -2.060; p ϭ 0.05; t2 (11) ϭ -2.356; p ϭ 0.038). By contrast, no effect of grammaticality was observed in the accusative constructions in condition set I (t1, p Ն 0.4; t2, p Ն 0.5). Comparing across condition sets, the RTs to the ungrammatical accusative constructions differed significantly from those to the ungrammatical dative constructions (t1 (26) ϭ -3.004; p ϭ 0.006; t2 (11) ϭ -1.955; p ϭ 0.077),

Figure 4

 4 Figure 4 Experiment 2 mean latencies by condition set

Table 1

 1 Experiment 1 sample stimuli

	Verb type	Set	Clitic position	Example sentence
	Restructuring V	E	* initial	* Il la va manger avec ses parents.
			medial	Il va la manger avec ses parents.
		F	medial	Il va la manger avec ses parents
			* final	* Il va manger la avec ses parents.
	Causative V	G	initial	Jean la fait sortir de la maison.
			* medial	* Jean fait la sortir de la maison.
		H	initial	Jean la fait sortir de la maison.
			* final	Jean fait sortir la de la maison.

clitic position. By contrast, in the two causative conditions [G] and [H],

  Given the structural difference between the two verb types, two separate ANOVAs were run on the RT data to test the predictions above. Causative verb conditions (G vs. H). The same type of ANOVA was run on these data, with the factors Position (initial/*medial vs.

	• Restructuring verb conditions (E vs. F). An ANOVA with the factors
	Position, (2 levels: medial/*initial vs. medial/*final) and
	Grammaticality (2 levels: grammatical vs. ungrammatical) was run
	on the RT data. As predicted, there was a significant main effect of
	Grammaticality, marginal by items (F1 (1, 27) ϭ 5.600; p ϭ 0.025;
	F2 (1, 11) ϭ 3.421; p ϭ 0.091), but no effect of Position, nor any
	interaction between Position and Grammaticality (F1, p Ն 0.7;
	F2, p Ն 0.5): in both condition sets, the grammatical pairs were
	responded to significantly faster than the ungrammatical pairs
	(t1 (27) ϭ -2.366; p ϭ 0.025; t2 (11) ϭ -1.850; p ϭ 0.091).
	•

Figure 3 Experiment 1 mean latencies by condition set

f Analyses: initial/*final) and Grammaticality (grammatical vs. ungrammatical). There was both a main effect of Position in the by-participant ANOVA (F1 (1, 27) ϭ 12.806; p ϭ 0.001; F2 (1, 11) ϭ 3.231; p ϭ 0.100) and a main effect of Grammaticality, reliable participants by and by items (F1 (1, 27) ϭ 9.937; p ϭ 0.004; F2 (1, 11) ϭ 7.212; p ϭ 0.021). The predicted interaction between the two factors, which was significant by participants (F1 (1, 27) ϭ 11.552; p ϭ 0.002; F2 (1, 11) ϭ 2.269; p ϭ 0.160), was also observed. • Paired-samples t-tests found a grammaticality effect in condition [H],

Table 2

 2 Sample stimuli experiment 2

	Verb (clitic)	Set	Clitic position	Example sentence
	faire par (ACC)	I	initial	Elle les fait dessiner par les enfants.
			* medial	* Elle fait les dessiner par les enfants.
	faire ϩ inf (DAT)	J	initial	Je lui fais prendre de l'alcool.
			* medial	* Je fais lui prendre de l'alcool.

14 These were a subset of the same participants as took part in Experiment 1. The two experiments were run consecutively in the same testing session. Due to technical problems, the data for one participant in Experiment 2 failed to be recorded (hence 29 vs. 28 participants).

Although the SMT methodology is designed to probe grammatical knowledge, non-matching distracter pairs often differ from each other lexically, rather than grammatically; thus the pair in (1b) is typical of distracter sentences.

Note that here the expected judgements are reversed: medial placement of the clitic is grammatical, initial placement is ungrammatical.

At the point of presentation of the second verb.

Crain and Fodor's position on SM is uncompromisingly harsh: '…this overgeneration account of the matching task results is incorrect[:] the relevant difference between the two sentence types is whether the ungrammaticality tends to be spontaneously corrected by participants. This correctability account of the data is of absolutely no theoretical interest, but unfortunately it appears to be correct'(Crain and Fodor, 1987: 123-24; our italics).

Something that is often misunderstood in discussion is that the SMT is not, strictly speaking, an online task, since the probe position is not internal to the test stimulus; rather, participants' responses follow the presentation of the whole stimulus. In this sense, the SMT yields offline judgments just like traditional GJ tasks. What the SMT has in common with many true online experimental paradigms, and what distinguishes it from other traditional GJ tasks, is that it is a timed task; and, much more importantly, an implicit task. For further discussion, see[START_REF] Duffield | Measures of competent gradience[END_REF] 2004.

 7 One difference between Gass's results and Duffield et al.'s is worthy of mention, however; namely, the difference in the size of overall mean response latencies. In Gass's experiments typical mean latencies exceed 2000 msec; in those of Duffield et al., the mean was around 1600 msec (even before applying a 3000 msec cut-off; see footnote 9 below). This contrast is possibly due to a number of participants whose responses were relatively slow overall, skewing the facilitation for grammatical pairs, thus obscuring the grammaticality effect. Gass does not mention whether participants were included as a random factor in the analysis: the fact that all results are presented as simple t-tests, rather than ANOVA, suggests not. Nor, apparently, was there any normalization of individual subject means. In principle, this factor alone could be the proximate cause of the failure of the SMT to yield grammaticality effects in Gass's experiments. It should also be obvious that as mean RTs get longer, a larger difference between grammatical and ungrammatical pairs is required in order to reach significance.

Such cases of local failure are much more profitably viewed in terms of a (statistically) reliable interaction between grammaticality and sub condition than in terms of an unreliable main effect of grammaticality (as Gass would have it).

Of course, there are also completely non-interesting ways to obtain a non-result: i.e. cases where the variance across the levels of a given factor is such that there are no distinct means for grammatical vs. ungrammatical pairs.

RTs above 3000 msec were recorded but not included in the final analysis.

As well as we could determine, software/platform differences between the two versions did not materially affect the participants' perception of the task, nor did it appear to affect their performance in any way (see below).

For example, participant one might have been exposed to pair (2a), while participant two was exposed to pair (2b): these participants would then receive the grammatical and ungrammatical tokens, respectively, of a different causative/masc.sg set of pairs from this condition. This is the type of counter-balanced list design recommended in[START_REF] Raaijmakers | How to deal with 'the-language-as-fixed-effect fallacy': common misconceptions and alternative solutions[END_REF][START_REF] Duffield | Measures of competent gradience[END_REF], as a means of controlling item variability and thus mitigating the influence of the 'language-as-fixed-effect fallacy'[START_REF] Clarke | The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research[END_REF].

We did not exclude the possibility that condition set J might also fail to show any GE. Rather, we were agnostic here, in the absence of any theoretical account of the faire ϩ infinitive construction that posits a lower (medial) position for dative clitics as well.

Acknowledgements

This article has benefited from the comments and suggestions of two anonymous Second Language Research reviewers, from comments from audience members at Psycholinguistic Shorts (Ottawa, 2005), and at EUROSLA (Dubrovnik, 2005), as well at colloquia presentations in various places, including University of California, San Diego, and the universities of Essex (2004), York (2005) and Edinburgh (2005). For specific comments, we are particularly grateful to Harald Clahsen and Roger Hawkins. The research reported here was supported in part by a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (410-2003-0420) to Ayumi Matsuo (PI) and Nigel Duffield. It could not have been undertaken without the continuing generosity and support of Wolfgang Klein (Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen) and Juana Liceras (Ottawa), who kindly allowed us use of their lab facilities, nor without the invaluable assistance of Danijela Stojanovic (Ottawa), who ran all of the Canadian participants.

IV References

Birdsong, D. 1989: Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. New York: Springer-Verlag.