Contraction of want to to wanna is subject to constraints that have been related to the operation of Universal Grammar. Contraction appears to be blocked when the trace of an extracted wh-word intervenes. Evidence for knowledge of these constraints by young English-speaking children has been taken to show the operation of Universal Grammar in early child language acquisition. The present study investigates knowledge of these constraints in adults, both English native speakers and advanced Korean learners of English. The results of three experiments — using elicited production, oral repair, and grammaticality judgments — confirmed native speaker knowledge of the constraints. A second process of phonological elision may also operate to produce wanna. Learners also showed some differentiation of contexts, but much less clearly than native speakers. We speculate that non-natives may be using rules of complement selection, rather than the constraints of Universal Grammar (UG) to control contraction.
Bley-Vroman R. ( 2009) The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis . Studies in Second Language Acquisition31: 175-98.
2.
Bley-Vroman R. and Chaudron C. ( 1994) Elicited imitation as a measure of second-language competence . In: Tarone EE, Gass SM, and Cohen AD (eds) Research methodology in second-language acquisition . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum , 245-62.
3.
Bley-Vroman R., Felix SW, and Ioup G. ( 1988) The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research4: 1-32.
4.
Bolinger DL ( 1980) Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries. In: Brettschneider G and Lehmann C (eds) Wege zur Universalienforschung. Tübingen: Günter Narr, 292-99.
5.
Bolinger DL ( 1981) Consonance, dissonance, and grammaticality: The case of wanna. Language and Communication1: 189-206.
6.
Chomsky N. ( 1976) Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis2: 303-51.
7.
Chomsky N. ( 1977) On wh-movement. In: Culicover P, Wasow T, and Akmajian A (eds) Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press, 71-132.
8.
Chomsky N. ( 1980) Rules and representations. New York : Columbia University Press.
9.
Chomsky N. and Lasnik H. ( 1977) Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry8: 425-504.
10.
Chomsky N. and Lasnik H. ( 1978). A remark on contraction. Linguistic Inquiry9: 268-74.
11.
Crain S. and Thornton R. ( 1998) Investigating Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
Drozd KF ( 2004) Learnability and linguistic performance. Journal of Child Language31: 431-57.
13.
Eubank L (ed.) (1991) Point counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14.
Fiengo R. ( 1980) Surface structure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Hawkins R. ( 2001) Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
16.
Hawkins R. and Chan CY-H (1997) The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘Failed Functional Features Hypothesis’ . Second Language Research13: 187-226.
17.
Jaeggli O. ( 1980) Remarks on to contraction. Linguistic Inquiry11: 239-46.
18.
Karins AK and Nagy N. ( 1993) Developing an experimental basis for determining grammaticality . Penn Review of Linguistics1793-100.
19.
Kweon S-O. ( 2000) The acquisition of English contraction phenomena by advanced Korean learners of English: Experimental studies on wanna contraction and auxiliary contraction. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI.
20.
Kweon S.-O (2001a) UG availability and wanna contraction. Studies in Modern Grammar24: 203-23.
21.
Kweon S.-O (2001b) The acquisition of contraction constraint by non-native speakers of English. English Teaching56: 89-109.
22.
Lakoff G. ( 1970) Global rules. Language46: 627-39.
23.
Lightfoot D. ( 1976) Trace theory and twice-moved NPs. Linguistic Inquiry7: 559-82.
24.
Lightfoot D. ( 1977) On traces and conditions on rules. In: Culicover PW, Wasow T , and Akmajian A (eds) Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press, 207-37.
25.
Mackey A. and Gass SM ( 2005) Second language research: Methodology and design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Masterson D. ( 1993) A comparison of grammaticality evaluation measurements: Testing native speakers of English and Korean. Unpublished PhD, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI.
27.
Munnich E., Flynn S., and Martohardjono G. (1994) Elicited imitation and grammaticality judgment task: What they measure and how they relate to each other. In Tarone EE, Gass SM, and Cohen AD (eds) Research methodology in second-language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 227-43.
28.
O’Grady W., Nakamura M., and Ito Y. ( 2008) Want-to contraction in second language acquisition: An emergentist approach. Lingua118: 478-98.
29.
Pullum GK ( 1997) The morphological nature of English to-contraction. Language73: 79-102.
30.
Rotenberg J. ( 1978) The syntax of phonology. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
31.
Selkirk EO ( 1984) Phonology and syntax. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
32.
Tarone EE, Gass SM , and Cohen AD (eds) ( 1994). Research methodology in second language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
White L. ( 2003) Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
