Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:56:42.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Acceptability Experiments in Romance Languages

from Part III - Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Tania Leal  and
Timothy Gupton
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

We present a selective review of studies on Romance languages wherein acceptability experiments played an important role in advancing our knowledge of the grammars of particular linguistic varieties and, by extension, furthering our knowledge of human language and linguistic theory. First, we examine recent studies on word order in wh-questions across varieties of Spanish. Next, we examine the value of acceptability experiments in the study of infrequent structures (e.g. clitic left-dislocation, focus fronting). We highlight the importance of data triangulation by examining studies of information focus in Spanish, emphasizing the impact that methodological choices can have on results. We also examine control and raising structures in Brazilian Portuguese, where conflicting results have required innovative methodological approaches. Since acceptability intuitions may be uniquely nuanced for minority languages, we also briefly discuss how data that is typically used in other theoretical paradigms can contribute to data triangulation with lesser-spoken Romance varieties.

Keywords

Romance languagesacceptability judgmentssyntaxexperimental methodologySpanishPortuguesefocuscontrolCLLD
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 448 - 476
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

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

References

Adger, D. (2006). Combinatorial variability. Journal of Linguistics, 42, 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auger, J. (1994). Pronominal clitic in Québec colloquial French: A morphological analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Meng, M. (1999). Subject–object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(2), 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, E., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32–68.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2012). Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 6, 267–294.Google Scholar
Blom, E. & Unsworth, S., eds. (2010). Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. (2006). The virtues of control as movement. Syntax, 9, 118–130.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. (2007). On (non-)obligatory control. In Davies, W. D. Dubinsky, & S., eds., New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosque, I. & Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2009). Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid: Ediciones Akal.Google Scholar
Boyd, C. O. (2001). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. In Munhall, P. L., ed., Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett, pp. 579–598.Google Scholar
Brandi, L. & Cordin, P. (1989). Two Italian dialects and the Null Subject Parameter. In Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K., eds., The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 111–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, D. & Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2001.) Focus-related constituent order variation without the NSR: A prosody-based crosslinguistic analysis. In MacBhloscaidh, S., ed., Syntax at Santa Cruz, vol. 3. University of California, Santa Cruz, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Language Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Repetti, L. (2004). Clitics in Northern Italian dialects: Phonology, syntax and microvariation. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 7–106.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Repetti, L. (2010). Proclitic vs enclitic pronouns in northern Italian dialects and the null-subject parameter. In D’Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A., & Roberts, I., eds., Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–134.Google Scholar
Casey, D. & Murphy, K. (2009). Issues in using methodological triangulation in research. Nurse Researcher, 16(4), 40–55.Google Scholar
Casielles-Suárez, E. (2004). The Syntax–Information Structure Interface: Evidence from Spanish and English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On WH-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cowles, H. W. (2012.) The psychology of information structure. In Krifka, M. & Musan, R., eds., The Expression of Information Structure. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 287–318.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. (2010). Convergent evidence for categorical change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language, 86(1) 85–132.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. & Legendre, G. (2014). Prefixal agreement and impersonal ‘il’ in Spoken French: Experimental evidence. French Language Studies, 24, 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. D. & Dubinsky, S., eds. (2004). The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2016–). Corpus del Español: Two Billion Words, 21 Countries. Available online at www.corpusdelespanol.org/web-dial/Google Scholar
Denzin, N. (1978). The Research Act. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. (1989). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
DeVicenzi, M. (1996). Syntactic analysis in sentence comprehension: Effects of dependency types and grammatical constraints. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(1), 117–133.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. (2016). Inter-speaker variation, Optimality theory, and the prosody of clitic left-dislocations in Spanish. Probus, 28(2), 293–333.Google Scholar
Fernández-Rubiera, F. (2009). Clitics at the edge: clitic placement in Western Iberian Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (2002). Processing ‘d-linked’ phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistics, 31(6), 633–659.Google Scholar
Gabriel, C. (2010). On focus, prosody, and word order in Argentinean Spanish: A Minimalist OT account. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem, 4, 183–222.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita, Y., Marantz, A., & O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, A., Santos, A. L., & Duarte, I. (2014). (Pseudo-)Inflected infinitives and control as Agree. In Lahousse, K. & Marzo, S., eds., Selected Papers from “Going Romance” Leuven 2012. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 161–180.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2010). Experimenting with wh-movement in Spanish. In Arregi, K., Fagyal, Z., Montrul, S., & Tremblay, A., eds., Romance Linguistics 2008: Interactions in Romance. Selected Papers from the 38th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Urbana-Champaign, April 2008. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 233–248.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2011). Syntactic satiation and the inversion effect in English and Spanish wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 29–47.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, J., ed., One Mind Two Languages. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Gupton, T. (2014). The Syntax–Information Structure Interface: Clausal Word Order and the Left Periphery in Galician. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupton, T. (2017). Early minority language acquirers of Spanish exhibit focus-related interface asymmetries: Word order alternation and optionality in Spanish–Catalan, Spanish–Galician, and Spanish–English bilinguals. In Lauchlan, F. & Parafita-Couto, M. C., eds., Bilingualism and Minority Languages in Europe. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 214–241.Google Scholar
Gupton, T. & Leal-Méndez, T. (2013). Experimental methodologies: Two case studies investigating the syntax–discourse interface. Studies in Hispanic & Lusophone Linguistics, 6(1), 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halcomb, E. & Andrew, S. (2005). Triangulation as a method for contemporary nursing research. Nurse Researcher, 13(2), 71–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Henríquez Ureña, P. (1940). El español en Santo Domingo. Buenos Aires: Coni.Google Scholar
Henry, A. (2005). Non-standard dialects and linguistic data. Lingua, 115(11), 1599–1617.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. (2007). Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T., Sag, I., Arnon, I., & Snider, I. (2007). Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W., eds., Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition and Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 195–222.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T., Arnon, I., Sag, I., & Snider, I. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1), 48–87.Google Scholar
Hoot, B. (2012). Presentational focus in heritage and monolingual Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Hoot, B. (2016). Narrow presentational focus in Mexican Spanish: Experimental evidence. Probus, 28(2), 335–365.Google Scholar
Hoot, B. & Leal, T. (2020). Native speaker processing of narrow focus in Spanish. Probus: International Journal of Romance Linguistics, 32(1), 93–127.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax–discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(4), 463–483.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1974). A deep structure projection rule. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(4), 481–505.Google Scholar
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 603–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, A. L. (2015). Towards a typology of focus: Subject position and microvariation at the discourse–syntax interface. Ampersand, 2, 49–60.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language, 87(4), 771–816.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, P. (2018). Generative linguistics: Syntax. In Geeslin, K., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–30.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. Culicover, P. & McNally, L., eds.,The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 241–279.Google Scholar
Knafl, K. A. & Breitmayer, B. J. (1991). Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. In Morse, J. M., ed., Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 226–239.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1996). When intuitions fail. In McNair, L., Singer, K., Dolbrin, L., & Aucon, M., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2000). Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2004). The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22, 811–877.Google Scholar
Leal, T. (2016). Look before you move: Clitic left dislocation in combination with other elements at the Spanish left periphery. Spanish Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 396–428.Google Scholar
Leal, T., Destruel, E., & Hoot, B. (2018). The realization of information focus in monolingual and bilingual native Spanish. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(2), 217–251.Google Scholar
Leal, T. & Slabakova, R. (2019). The relationship between L2 instruction, exposure, and the acquisition of a syntax–discourse property in L2 Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 23(2), 237–258.Google Scholar
Leal, T., Slabakova, R., & Rothman, J. (2014). A rare structure at the syntax–discourse interface: Heritage and Spanish-dominant native speakers weigh in. Language Acquisition, 21(4), 411–429.Google Scholar
Leal Méndez, T. & Slabakova, R. (2011). Pragmatic consequences of P-movement and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: Unraveling the syntax-discourse interface. In Herschensohn, J. & Tanner, D., eds., Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2011). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 63–75.Google Scholar
Leal Méndez, T., Slabakova, R., & Rothman, J. (2015). Discourse-sensitive clitic-doubled dislocations in heritage Spanish. Lingua, 155, 85–97.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2015). Parallels in Romance nominal and clausal microvariation. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60 (2–3) 105–127.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design, 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martins, A. M. (2011). Coordination, gapping, and the Portuguese inflected infinitive: The role of structural ambiguity in syntactic change. In Jones, D., Whitman, J., & Garrett, A., eds., Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayol, L. (2010). Refining salience and the position of antecedent hypothesis: A study of Catalan pronouns. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16(1), 127–136.Google Scholar
Miller, K. & Schmitt, C. (2010). Effects of variable input in the acquisition of plural in two dialects of Spanish. Lingua, 120(5), 1178–1193.Google Scholar
Modesto, M. (2010). What Brazilian Portuguese says about control: Remarks on Boeckx & Hornstein. Syntax, 13(1), 78–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modesto, M. & Maia, M. (2017). Representation and processing of the inflected infinitive in Brazilian Portuguese: An eye-tracking study. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 25(3), 1183–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molsing, K. (2010). On the L2 Acquisition of the Overt Pronoun Constraint in Brazilian Portuguese. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P. & Domínguez, L., eds., New Directions in Language Acquisition: Romance Languages in the Generative Perspective. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 267–298.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. & Rodr, íguez Louro, C. (2006). Beyond the syntax of the Null Subject Parameter: A look at the discourse-pragmatic distribution of null and overt subjects by L2 learners of Spanish. In Torrens, V. & Escobar, L., eds., The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 401–418.Google Scholar
Muntendam, A. G. (2013). On the nature of cross-linguistic transfer: A case study of Andean Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 111–131.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. & Olarrea, A. (2006). Microvariation in Caribbean/non Caribbean Spanish interrogatives. Probus, 18, 59–96.Google Scholar
Orozco, R. & Guy, G. (2008). El uso variable de los pronombres sujetos: ¿Qué pasa en la costa Caribe colombiana? In Westmoreland, M. & Thomas, J. A., eds., Selected Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 70–80.Google Scholar
Ortiz López, L. A. (2011). Spanish in contact with Haitian Creole. In Díaz-Campos, M., ed., The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 418–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, R. & Zentella, A. C. (2012). Spanish in New York. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R., Zentella, A. C., & Livert, D. (2007). Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community. Language, 83, 770–802.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and Surface Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (2009). Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 211–238.Google Scholar
Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (2010). Building bridges: Experimental L1 acquisition meets diachronic linguistics. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P. & Domínguez, L., eds., New Directions in Language Acquisition: Romance Languages in the Generative Perspective. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 357–385.Google Scholar
Pires, A., Rothman, J., & Santos, A.L. (2011). L1 acquisition across Portuguese dialects: Modular and interdisciplinary interfaces as sources of explanation. Lingua, 121, 605–622.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. (2000). The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. & Pollock, J.-Y. (2005). On wh-clitics, wh-doubling and apparent wh-in-situ in French and some North Eastern Italian dialects. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 33, 135–156.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. & Tortora, C. (2016). Subject clitics: Syntax. In Ledgeway, A. & Maiden, M., eds., The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 772–785.Google Scholar
de Prada Pérez, A. (2009). Subject expression in Minorcan Spanish: Consequences of contact with Catalan. Doctoral dissertation, Penn State University.Google Scholar
Redfern, S. J. & Norman, I. J. (1994). Validity through triangulation. Nurse Researcher, 2, 41–56.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 501–57.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1991). Residual Verb Second and the Wh- Criterion. Geneva: University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual verb second and the Wh-Criterion. In Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L., eds., Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 63–90.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause.” In Cinque, G. & Salvi, G., eds., Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 287–296.Google Scholar
Roberge, Y. (1990). The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (2014). Syntactic change. In Carnie, A., Siddiqi, D., & Sato, Y., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Syntax. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 391–408.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, C. A. N. (2004). Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of Case domains. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, C. & Hornstein, N. (2013). Epicene agreement and Inflected Infinitives when the data is “under control”: A reply to Modesto (2010). Syntax, 16(3), 217–309.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2007). Heritage speaker competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(4), 359–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5) 951–973.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In Sharma, D. & Podesva, R., eds., Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27-50.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. (2012). A new take on partial control: Defective thematic intervention. Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 6, 1–47.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2015). The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on second language knowledge of the syntax–discourse interface. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(3), 671–699.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., Rothman, J., & Kempchinsky, P. (2011). Gradient competence and the syntax–discourse interface. EUROSLA Yearbook, 11, 218–243.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(3), 575–582.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2018). Acceptability judgments and grammaticality, prospects and challenges. In Hornstein, N., Yang, C., & Patel-Grosz, P., eds., Syntactic Structures after 60 Years: The Impact of the Chomskyan Revolution in Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 195–224.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. (1994). V-movement and the licensing of argumental wh-phrases in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 335–372.Google Scholar
Toribio, A. J. (1993). Parametric variation in the licensing of nominals. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 103–129.Google Scholar
Travis, C. E. (2007). Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change, 19(2), 101–135.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, E. (2005). L2 ultimate attainment and the syntax–discourse interface: The acquisition of topic constructions in non-native Spanish and English. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Vermès, G., Collet, S.-M., & Huet, E. (1999). Réflexion métalinguistique en langue minorisée: Le cas du créole pour les enfants réunionnais en France. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée, 69(2), 73–86.Google Scholar
Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79–112.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 203–238.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, R. (1995). Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning, 45(1), 3–42.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×