OBJECT CLITIC CLIMBING IN ADULT L2 ITALIAN:
SOME EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM L1 ENGLISH∗
AND L1 SPANISH NEAR-NATIVES
Elisa Bennati
University of Siena

1. Introduction
The following study explores the mastery of Object Clitic Climbing (OCC henceforth) in
adult L2 Italian by L1 English and L1 Spanish near-natives, focusing on the placement of
third person singular accusative clitics. One of the main purposes of this research was to revisit the traditional theoretical approaches on causative constructions and restructuring
predicates through L2 evidence at ultimate attainment, following the analyses proposed by
Rizzi (1982), Burzio (1986), Guasti (1997) and Cinque (2004) over the years.
OCC is a typical property of some Romance languages which affects either auxiliary +past participle constructions or complex predicates (i.e. finite verb + infinitive constructions).
It entails the cliticization of the deficient object pronoun, which is argument of the lexical
predicate, on the finite verb which carries the features related to person, number and gender
and which is the highest verbal form in the clause structure. Thus the order obtained is Clhighest finite verb-non finite predicate (i.e. past participle or infinitive). In Italian, there arecontexts where OCC occurs obligatorily and others where it is optionally realized, as I will
discuss below.
The experimental paradigm was originally designed by Bennati & Matteini (2005) and it
had already been used successfully to test advanced L2 learners of Italian with different L1s.
The investigation concerned both obligatory and optional OCC contexts, as paraphrased
below in the examples in (1), (2), (3) and (4). The former included auxiliary + past participle
contexts as in (1) and ‘da’ causative constructions1 as in (2) (referring to the analyses on
different kinds of causatives, namely ‘da’ and ‘a’ causative constructions in Italian, proposedby Kayne 1975, Burzio 1986 and Guasti 1996, 1997):

This paper is based on the 4th chapter of my Ph.D. dissertation (Bennati 2007). I would like to thankProf. Luigi Rizzi and Prof. Adriana Belletti for giving me the opportunity to present this work at
Nanzan University (Japan) within the Cambridge-Connecticut-Hyderabad-Tsinghua-Siena-Nanzan
Consortium project and collect crucial comments. Thanks are due to Prof. Mamoru Saito and Prof.
Keiko Murasugi for their kind hospitality at Nanzan University and to all their collaborators.
∗

1‘A’ causative constructions were not present in the input of our experimental material.

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1, 1-21
© 2007 Elisa Bennati

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(1) a. L’hosuonato (il campanello)stIt(cl)-have 1 pers sg rung(the bell)‘I have rung it (the bell)’b. *Hohave 1st pers sg

suonato lorungit(cl)‘I have rung it (the bell)’(2) a. La bambina lo fa correggere
dal maestro (il tema)
the girlit(cl) make-s correct(inf) by the teacher (the composition)‘The girl makes the teacher correct it (the composition)’b. *La bambina fa correggerlo
dal maestro (il tema)
the girl
make-s correct(inf)-it(cl) by the teacher (the composition)‘The girl makes the teacher correct it (the composition)’
The latter included some restructuring predicates (Rizzi, 1982), displaying either motion
or modal verbs, as exemplified in (3) and (4)2:(3) a. Gianni lovaaJohn it(cl) go-es tob. Gianni vaaJohn go-es topagare alla cassa (il caffè)buy
to-the cash (the coffee)

pagar- lobuyit(cl)

alla cassa (il caffè)to-the cash (the coffee)‘John goes to the cash to pay for it (the coffee)’(4) a. Il cane la
the dog it(cl)vuolewant-sprendere (la palla)
to catch (the ball)b. Il cane vuole prender- la
the dog want-s to catch it(cl)(la palla)(the ball)‘The dog wants to catch it (the ball)’
2. Some Initial Remarks
Before introducing the experimental work, some theoretical assumptions on the factorsof syntactic complexity which are at stake in OCC will be taken into account.

2

Aspectual verbs which are the third verb class regarded as restructuring predicates (Rizzi 1982) will
not be discussed in this work.

-2-

Object Clitic Climbing in Adult L2 Italian (E. Bennati)

It is mostly shared that complement clitics per se are an impervious domain with respect
to different modes of acquisition, namely L1 acquisition, early L2 acquisition, adult L2
acquisition, bilingualism and pathology as well, and that the complexity of their computationis the source of the difficulty in acquiring them, as discussed in detail in Hamann & Belletti(2007). In this perspective, the experiment on OCC at ultimate attainment I have conducted
may contribute to a general overview on the acquisition of complement clitics and serve as
evidence to improve a general understanding in a controversial domain. In these respects, acomparison between L1 English near-natives’ performance and L1 Spanish near-natives’ one
can be interesting, given the differences between Italian and English on the one hand and thesimilarities between Italian and Spanish on the other. Indeed, English does not display a clitic
system at all and resorts to strong/weak pronouns in argument position, while Spanish has arich clitic system which shares several properties with the Italian one, even though it showssome language specific properties as it will be discussed later.
I will assume here the analysis proposed by Belletti (1999) according to which thederivation process clitics undergo is fairly complex. The cliticization of the pronoun starts
from the complement position of the lexical VP (its base position) and through a step by step
movement ends when the clitic lands in a dedicated agreement-like position in the high part ofthe clausal functional structure (Kayne 1991, Belletti 1999 and references cited there)3 .
Hence, the clitic starts its movement as a DP and ends it as a head in a dedicated positionreferred to as AgrS in Belletti (1999), as exemplified in (5):(5)[AgrS cl […[AgrOP j [Spec AgrPstPrtP j [AgrPstPrt[…[VP[V j] ]In these terms, languages differ with respect to the active or inactive status of this functional
head dedicated to clitics depending on whether they have or do not have clitic pronouns. In
particular, Italian and Spanish do not differ between each other while Italian and English do.
Furthermore, OCC property is closely connected to the intrinsic nature of the complex
predicate involved, whether it gives rise only to mono-clausal configurations or optionally toboth mono-clausal and bi-clausal configurations (see Rizzi 1978, 1982, Burzio 1986, Guasti
1996, 1997, Cardinaletti & Giusti 2001, 2003, Cardinaletti & Shlonsky 2004). The dichotomy
strict mono-clausality vs. optional mono-clausality/bi-clausality determines the distinction
between predicates with obligatory OCC such as auxiliary plus past participle contexts andcausative constructions on the one hand and predicates with optional OCC such as
restructuring predicates on the other. Compare the structures in (6) and (7):(6) a.

[IP La bambina lo
the girlit(cl)fa[VP correggere dal maestro]]
makes
correct
by-the teacher

b. *[IP La bambina [ fa[CPthe girl
makes

correggerlo
correct-it(cl)3dal maestro]]]by-the teacher

See also Sportiche (1996) who assumes that clitics fill a head, which he refers to as ‘clitic voice’, inthe high part of the clausal functional structure dedicated to clitic pronouns.

-3-Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(7) a. [IP Maria deve [CP pulirla]]
Mary has toclean-it(cl)b. [IP Maria [VPMaryladeve pulire]]it(cl) has to clean

In the light of these assumptions what can an experimental study on OCC in L2 Italian
reveal? A study along these lines can provide useful hints on both the role of UG and accesstype to UG, and transfer in L2 acquisition.
As a starting observation concerning UG involvement, assuming that clitics in Italian
have their dedicated functional positions, the L2 acquisition of clitics by near-natives might
be relevant to debates on whether L2ers whose native language lacks clitics, such as English,
can fully master functional categories that are not instantiated in their L1, hence showing fullaccess to UG (White 1996 a.o.). Moreover, since the relevant properties of Italian clitic
placement result from other properties such as mono-clausal vs. bi-clausal interpretation of
structures, our data might be useful to capture whether L2 near-natives are sensitive to subtle
morpho-syntactic properties in the clausal domain, distinguishing among different kinds ofcomplex predicates.
Turning to the matter of transfer in L2 acquisition, it might be interesting to check the L2
acquisition of the Italian clitic system and placement by adult near-natives whose L1 displays
a pronominal clitic system which is similar to the Italian one. For this reason L1 Spanish and
L1 English near-natives were chosen to be interviewed. Are L1 Spanish speakers favoredsomehow given the strong similarity between L1 and L2 in this domain?
The following table sorts out the languages under investigation with respect tocomplement clitic system and OCC:
Table 1
languages

complement clitic
systemOCC (Object Clitic Climbing)
auxiliary + past
participle

Italianyesobligatory‘da’causativesobligatory

restructuring
predicates

Spanishyesobligatory

obligatory

optional

Englishnotonic and atonic pronouns in argument position

optional

The examples from (8) to (11) emphasize the contrast between Italian and Spanish-likelanguages and English-like languages in the four investigated contexts:-4-Object Clitic Climbing in Adult L2 Italian (E. Bennati)

Auxiliary + Past Participle(8) a. L’homangiato (il panino)b. Lo hecomidostIt(cl)-have 1 pers sg eaten(el boccadillo)(the sandwich)c. I have eaten it (the sandwich)‘da’ Causative Constructions(9) a. La bambina lo fa correggereb. La niña
the girldal maestro(il tema)se lo hace corregir
al maestro4
it(cl) make-s correct(inf) by the teacher (the composition)c. The girl makes the teacher correct it (the composition)
Restructuring predicates: motion verbs(10) a. Gianni lo
va a comprare / va a comprar-lo dal salumiereb. JuanJohn(il prosciutto)

se lo5 va a comprar / va a comprar-lo6 a la charcuteria (el jamón)
it(cl) go-es to buy / go-es to buy itto the grocery (the ham)c. John goes to the grocery to buy it (some ham)Restructuring predicates: modal verbs(11) a. Gianni lovuole mangiare (il panino)b. JuanJohnloquiere comerit(cl) want-s to eat/ vuole mangiar-lo(el boccadillo) / quiere comer-lo(the sandwich) / want-s to eat-it(cl)c. John wants to eat it (the sandwich)
3. The OCC Experiment
The aim of the experiment was to test the level of mastery of OCC in L2 Italian both in
L1 English near-natives, whose L1 lacks clitics and resorts to strong/weak pronouns in Italian

4

Spanish causative constructions are “a” causatives and require the clitic cluster se lo/la. Causative
constructions with “por”, which is the Spanish counterpart of the Italian “da”, are only marginallyaccepted.
5

In Spanish OCC constructions with motion verbs the clitic cluster “se lo” as opposed to “lo” alone
sounds more natural.
6

By contrast, when OCC does not take place in complex constructions containing a motion verb, only
the clitic ‘lo’, as opposed to ‘*se lo’ is attached to the infinitival verb.

-5-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

clitic-like contexts, and in L1 Spanish near-natives, where L1 and L2 are alike with respect tothe complement clitic system and clitic placement.7
3.1. Participants and Screening ProcedureThree groups of speakers participated in the experiment: a control group consisting ofeight native speakers of Italian, an L1 English experimental group consisting of eight nearnatives and an L1 Spanish experimental group consisting of eight near-natives too. All
subjects belonging to the experimental groups had been resident in Italy for at least 5 years
and were judged as near-natives on the basis of the screening procedure adapted from Whiteand Genesee (1996). 8 It consisted of a score system focusing on appropriate use ofmorphology and syntax, clitics in particular, richness of vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency
and overall impression of near-nativeness. The materials used for the pre-test were an
adaptation of some sketches belonging to Leonini & Belletti’s (2004) experimental
paradigm9, as illustrated in the still pictures in (a) and (b) followed by some questions as in
the examples from (12a) to (14a):
Still picture (a)Still picture (b)7Even though OCC is a widespread phenomenon in Romance languages, it is worth recalling that
there are some differences in the two languages under investigation. Whereas Italian and Spanish havethe same pattern with auxiliary + past participle (where OCC is obligatory) and modals (where OCC is
optional) as well, they also show some language specific properties in causative constructions andwith respect to motion verbs, as illustrated in the examples in (8b), (9b), (10b) and (11b).
8

White & Genesee’s (1996) screening procedure was originally created to identify near-nativeness.

9

Leonini & Belletti (2004) and Leonini (2005, 2006) pointed out that non near-native L2 learners
mainly produce full lexical noun phrases in complement position instead of object clitics, which areextensively used by Italian native speakers.

-6-

Object Clitic Climbing in Adult L2 Italian (E. Bennati)(12a) Describe the scene.
(13a) What did the boy do with the lamp?
(14a) What does the boy look like?
3.2. Task
The participants had to accomplish a written elicitation task where OCC was tested in thefour structural conditions which were mentioned in the introduction. Five items per condition
were administered (20 experimental items in total). 20 fillers were also inserted. Subjects
were tested individually and items were randomized at each run.
Each item consisted of a picture and a question about it, as exemplified in (A), (B), (C)and (D):(A) auxiliary + past participle

Che cosa ha fatto il bambino con la porta?
“What has the boy done with the door ?”Nella risposta:
Sostituisci “porta” con un pronome(In the answer replace “door” with a pronoun)(B) ‘da’ causatives

Da chi fa correggere il tema la bambina?
“Whom does the girl make correct thecomposition?”
Nella risposta: ripeti la costruzione “fare + verbo”
e sostituisci “tema” con un pronome(In the answer: repeat “fare + verb” construction
and replace “composition” with a pronoun)-7-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(C) motion verbs

Dove va la nonna a comprare il prosciutto?
“Where does Grandma go to buy some ham?”
Nella risposta: ripeti la costruzione “andare +verbo” e sostituisci “prosciutto” con un
pronome(In the answer: repeat “andare + verb”
construction and replace “ham” with apronoun)(D) modal verbs

Che cosa deve fare Gianni con il vaso?
“What does John have to do with the vase?”
Nella risposta: deve essere presente il verbo“dovere”; sostituisci “vaso” con un pronome(In the answer: repeat dovere and replace“vase” with a pronoun)

The choice of a written elicitation procedure was due to the difficulty in eliciting theconstructions under investigation through an oral mode. For this reason the subjects were
provided with written instructions.
3.3. Data Analysis
In order to give a clear overview we present the results of each structural condition
separately. The data were statistically analysed by means of the χ2 test10.
Table 2 and figure 1 include the performances of the two near-native experimentalgroups and the native control group with respect to the placement of accusative clitics in
auxiliary + past participle contexts:
Table 2. Obligatory OCC in auxiliary + past participle contexts
auxiliary + past participle contexts
clitic climbing no climbing other
L1 English near-natives 100% (40/40) 0% (0/40) 0% (0/40)
L1 Spanish near-natives 100% (40/40) 0% (0/40) 0% (0/40)
Italian monolinguals
100% (40/40) 0% (0/40) 0% (0/40)

10

The Chi-square test (χ2) was chosen as the most suitable non-parametric statistical procedure tocompare relative frequencies of responses.

-8-

Object Clitic Climbing in Adult L2 Italian (E. Bennati)

Figure 1
OCC in auxiliary + past participle contexts
100%
80%
60%

L1 English nearnatives

40%
20%

L1 Spanish nearnatives

0%

Italian m onolinguals
cliticnoclim bing clim bingotherExperimental sample:(15)a. Che cosa ha fatto il bambino con la porta?
“What has done the child with the door ?”Expected answer:b. L’ha chiusa“(He) it(cl) has closed”
Table 2 and Figure 1 indicate a target-like performance of both L1 Spanish and L1
English near-natives with respect to OCC in auxiliary + past participle contexts. No cases ofclitic misplacement occurred and the clitic was correctly produced to the left of the highest
finite verb, i.e. the auxiliary.
Table 3 and Figure 2 illustrate the results with respect to obligatory OCC in ‘da’causative constructions:
Table 3. Obligatory OCC in ‘da’ causative constructions‘da’ causative constructions
clitic climbing no climbing other
L1 English near-natives 100% (40/40) 0% (0/40) 0% (0/40)
L1 Spanish near-natives 95% (38/40) 5% (2/40) 0% (0/40)
Italian monolinguals
100% (40/40) 0% (0/40) 0% (0/40)-9-Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Figure 2
OCC in 'da' causative constructions
100%
80%
60%

L1 English nearnatives

40%
20%
0%

L1 Spanish nearnatives
cliticclim bingother

Italian m onolinguals

Experimental sample:(16) a. Da chi fa correggere il tema la bambina?
“Who does the girl make correct the composition?”
Expected answer:b. Lo fa correggere dal maestro“(She) it(cl) make-s correct by the teacher”
Both near-native groups showed a native-like performance. Although in the L1 Spanishgroup there are two cases of no climbing (5%) the difference with respect to the Italianmonolinguals is not statistically significant. Again the clitic is correctly placed before themain finite verb in OCC obligatory contexts.
Table 4 and Figure 3 present the results of the three groups with respect to clitic
placement in complex predicates containing a motion verb:
Table 4. Optional OCC with restructuring predicates containing a motion verb
Restructuring predicates containing a motion verb
clitic climbing
no climbingother
L1 English near-natives
40% (16/40)
60% (24/40)
0% (0/40)
L1 Spanish near-natives
38% (15/40)
62% (25/40)
0% (0/40)
Italian monolinguals
80% (32/40)
20% (8/40)
0% (0/40)-10-Object Clitic Climbing in Adult L2 Italian (E. Bennati)

Figure 3
OCC w ith restructuring predicates containing a m otion verb
80%
60%
40%

L1 English near-natives

20%

L1 Spanish near-natives
Italian m onolinguals0%
cliticnoclim bing clim bingotherExperimental sample:(17) a. Dove va a comprare il prosciutto?
“Where does she go to buy some ham?”
Expected answers:
b. Lo va a comprare dal salumiere“(She) it(cl) go-es to buy to the grocery”
c. Va a comprarlo dal salumiere“(She) go-es to buy-it(cl) to the grocery”
Contrary to the results obtained with obligatory OCC contexts, both L1 English and L1
Spanish near-natives tended to produce less clitic climbing with motion verb constructions,thus diverging from the Italian monolinguals. The object clitic appeared on the infinitival verb
at considerable rate in the near-natives (60% and 62% for L1 English and L1 Spanish
speakers respectively vs. 20% for the control group). The difference between the near-natives
and the natives is statistically significant (χ2=11.7188/13.2044; p=0.0006/p=0.0001), while nodifference emerged between the two near-native groups who produced almost the same OCC
rates with the same verbs (40%/38% OCC vs. 60%/62% no clitic climbing).
Table 5 and Figure 4 show the realization of OCC with complex predicates containing
modal verbs in the three groups under study:
Table 5. Optional OCC with restructuring predicates containing a modal verb
Restructuring predicates containing a modal verb
clitic climbing
no climbingother
L1 English near-natives
75% (30/40)
25% (10/40)
0% (0/40)
L1 Spanish near-natives
75% (30/40)
25% (10/40)
0% (0/40)
Italian monolinguals
95% (38/40)
2.5% (1/40)
2.5% (1/40)-11-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Figure 4
OCC w ith restructuring predicates containing a m odal verb
100%
80%
60%

L1 English near-natives

40%
20%

L1 Spanish near-natives
Italian m onolinguals0%
cliticnoclim bing clim bingotherExperimental sample:(18) a. Che cosa deve fare Gianni con il vaso?
“What does John have to do with the vase?”
Expected answers:
b. Lo deve incollare“(He) it(cl) has to glue”
c. Deve incollarlo“(He) has to glue it(cl) ”
If we compare the two optional OCC contexts involved, it is crucial noticing that both L1
English and L1 Spanish near-natives produced a significantly higher rate of OCC withcomplex predicates containing modal verbs than complex predicates containing motion verbs(40% vs. 75%, χ2=8.6445, p=0.0033 and 38% vs. 75%, χ2=9.9556, p=0.0016 respectively).
Although the difference between the near-native groups and the control group is statisticallysignificant with respect to modal contexts (75% and 75% in both near-native cases vs. 95%
for the controls, χ2=4.8039; p=0.0284), it is not so remarkable as with motion verbs where thedifference between both near-native groups and the natives is deeper.
4. Discussion
In this section I will discuss the data adopting the traditional theoretical approach torestructuring which is based on the dichotomy mono-clausality vs. bi-clausality (following
Rizzi 1978, 1982, Burzio 1986, Guasti 1996, 1997). The main claim is that OCC is the resultof a mono-clausal analysis. As a starting point I will focus on the general picture emerging in
obligatory vs. optional contexts with respect to OCC in the three groups. The results are
summarized in table 6:-12-

Object Clitic Climbing in Adult L2 Italian (E. Bennati)

Table 6. OCC in obligatory and optional contexts
obligatory OCC contexts
aux+past partcausatives
L1 English near-natives
100%
100%
(40/40)(40/40)L1 Spanish near-natives
100%
95%(40/40)(38/40)Italian monolinguals
100%
100%
(40/40)(40/40)

optional OCC contexts
motion verbs
modals40%
75%(16/40)(30/40)38%
75%(15/40)(30/40)80%
95%(32/40)(38/40)Let us first focus on obligatory OCC contexts.
Overall, the performance of both near-native groups in obligatory contexts, i.e. aux. +past participle and causatives, provides clear evidence that OCC is fully active, regardless of
L1, and that the object clitic is correctly located onto the highest inflected verb (Aux, caus).
No difficulties seem to emerge with causative constructions. The native-like performance
shown by L1 Spanish speakers when a causative verb is involved (95% vs. 100%) is not
unexpected, since Spanish requires clitic climbing with “hacer” (to make) like the Italian“fare”. By contrast, L1 English near-natives’ results are revealing since they show that they
are not at a disadvantage with respect to L1 Spanish near-natives, despite the total absence ofa clitic system in their L1. Both near native groups, like native Italian speakers, process
causatives as single verbal units, where OCC applies obligatorily (see Guasti 1996,1997 on
the processing of Italian causatives)
The L1 English near-natives’s data concerning OCC in obligatory contexts provide
interesting evidence in favor of the ‘No Impairment Hypothesis’, according to which UG is
operational in interlanguage grammars and functional categories which are absent in L1 canbe instantiated in L211, and Full Access to UG as well. These results are consistent with recent
work on this topic (see Schwartz & Sprouse 1996, Duffield, White, Bruhn-Garavito, Montrul
and Prévost 2002, Leonini & Belletti 2004, Leonini 2005, 2006, Hamann & Belletti 2007).
As far as optional contexts are concerned, Italian monolinguals produced OCC to avisibly large extent in both optional OCC contexts (80% with motion verbs and 95% withmodal verbs). It seems reasonable to assume that the controls’ tendency to resort to OCC in
optional contexts might depend on their dialects/idiolects (as noticed in Cinque 2004 andCardinaletti & Shlonsky 2004). Actually, all of them come from Central and Southern Italianregions where OCC is the preferred option. However, a slight difference occurred between thetwo predicates at stake, since OCC production is relatively higher with modals (80% vs.
95%).

11

The No Impairment Hypothesis is in contrast with other views on adult L2 acquisition which claimthat parameters and properties which are not instantiated in L1 can not be reset in adult L2 acquisition(Hawkins 2001, Hawkins & Franceschina 2004, Towell & Hawkins, 1994).

-13-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

For what concerns the two near native groups, the OCC rates are overall inferior to thecontrols’ ones in both optional contexts (38/40% with motion verbs and 75% with modal
verbs). Contrary to the natives, the near-natives’ substantial choice for the no clitic climbing
option, especially with motion verbs (60% in L1 English near-natives and 62% in L1 Spanish
near-natives), cannot be related to their geographical/dialectal varieties. Rather, it seems
reasonable to attribute the difference between Italian native speakers and L2 near-natives tothe accessibility to different processing structures at work. The former tend to process bothmotion and modal contexts as mono-clausal structures showing that a mono-clausal structureis their most readily accessible option, whereas the latter prefer bi-clausal configurations morethan the controls, mainly when a restructuring predicate containing a motion verb is involved(60%). However, interestingly, in the near-natives a split emerged between restructuring
predicates containing a motion verb and restructuring predicates containing a modal verb
(40% vs. 75% for L1 English near-natives and 38% vs. 75% for L1 Spanish near-natives), as
it occurred for the controls (80% vs. 95%). In fact, the most intriguing result concerns thisanalogy not only between the natives and the near-natives but especially between the twonear-native groups whose L1s display different properties in the contexts under investigation.
This finding provides evidence that the reason must be sought for in the different nature of thetwo restructuring predicates at stake.
Indeed, this fact may be analysed in the light of Cinque’s (2004) work on lexical andfunctional predicates. Under this perspective, I will assume that while motion verbs can beutilized either as ‘restructuring’ or lexical verbs in Italian, modals, on the contrary, have only
a functional usage. Accordingly, a mono-clausal configuration, hence OCC, is expected to be
more readily accessible with modals than with motion verbs.
Even though this discrimination is expected to be manifest in Italian monolinguals, it is
not so obvious that it should occur in the near-natives. Crucially, despite their L1s, both L1
English and L1 Spanish near-natives have shown to be sensitive to the intrinsic differences of
the two restructuring predicates to the same extent (cf. table 6).
As far as L1 Spanish near-natives are concerned, one could prima facie be tempted tosuggest that the tendency not to resort to OCC with motion verbs is not so unexpected giventhat in Spanish the climbing of clitics in this context is driven by the presence of a clitic
cluster ‘se lo/la’ as opposed to a single clitic ‘lo/la’, as alreadynoticed in the example in (10) and commented in the foot notes in 5 and 6, here repeated in(19) for clarity’s sake:(19) a. Gianni lo
b. JuanJohnva a comprare / va a comprar-lo dal salumiere(il prosciutto)

se lo12 va a comprar / va a comprar-lo a la charcuteria (el jamón)
it(cl) go-es to buy / go-es to buy it to the grocery (the ham)

12

In Spanish OCC constructions with motion verbs the clitic cluster “se lo” as opposed to “lo” alone
sounds more natural. On the contrary complex constructions with a motion verb where OCC does nottake place only the single clitic ‘lo’ is accepted.

-14-

Object Clitic Climbing in Adult L2 Italian (E. Bennati)c. John goes to the grocery to buy it (some ham)
If we get on reasoning in this direction a possible explanation for such a result could be
related to some sort of ‘selective’ L1 transfer which affects this class of verbs. Contrary to
motion verbs, the tendency found with modals is not puzzling since Spanish and Italian sharethe same OCC optionality, as already introduced in the examples in (11), here repeated in(20):(20) a. Gianni lo
b. JuanJohnvuole mangiare (il panino)loquiere comerit(cl) want-s to eat/ vuole mangiar-lo(el boccadillo) / quiere comer-lo(the sandwich) / want-s to eat-it(cl)c. John wants to eat it (the sandwich)
However, to a deeper analysis, the similar performance of both L1 Spanish and L1
English near-natives leads one to believe that the track presented above is not the correct one
and that the results of the two near-native groups must be combined and seen as a whole.
A further consideration is prompted by the comparison between the results found in
obligatory OCC contexts and the ones observed in optional OCC contexts.
Overall, the L2 near-natives seem to have captured the degree of structural complexity
involved with each predicate-type. Indeed, the experimental groups have shown that nearnative speakers are able to recognize different boundaries, namely VP complements vs. CP
ones, as exemplified in (21), (22), (23):(21) [IP La bambina lo
fa[VP correggere] dalmaestro]the girlit(cl) make-s
correct(inf) by the teacher(22) [IP MariaMary

ladeve [VP pulire]it(cl) Has toclean(inf)(23) [IP Maria deve [CP pulirla]]
Mary has toclean-it(cl)While causative verbs and motion/modal complex predicates in restructuringconfigurations select a VP (following Manzini 1983, Guasti 1997) like simple predicates (i.e.
auxiliary + past participle constructions), as shown in (21) and (22) respectively,
motion/modal predicates when restructuring does not take place select a CP as in (23).
In these terms OCC is the visible result of the choice of a mono-clausal structure.
As a final remark, the general picture with respect to the different predicates involved isquite uniform across the three groups and seems to show the same trends as shown in Figure
5, thus showing that near-native speakers can really approximate native speakers even when-15-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

subtle properties are concerned:
Figure 5
OCC with different predicates
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
aux+past part
L1 English near-natives

causatives

m odals

L1 Spanish near-natives

m otion verbs
Italian m onolinguals

To sum up, these findings suggest the existence of a hierarchy of complexity withrespect to mono-clausal processing. On the one hand, it is crucial that auxiliary + past
participle constructions and causatives as well, which are to be obligatorily processed as
mono-clausal structures in standard Italian, are not problematic at all for the near natives. On
the other, it is intriguing that constructions displaying motion or modal verbs, where a monoclausal processing is optional, namely where both VP and CP complements are accepted instandard Italian with differences among speakers and varieties (Cinque 2004), are treateddifferently from obligatory mono-clausal structures where only VP complements are licit instandard Italian. Moreover, interestingly, the near-natives, like the native controls, are able tocatch the different nature of the two types of restructuring predicates at stake, showing thatmodals are easier to be analysed as mono-clausal predicates than motion verbs.
To sum up, even though mono-clausal structures are, generally speaking, easier to beacquired as attested by the non problematic realization of causative structures in Italian by L2
speakers with different L1s (see also Bennati & Matteini 2005) 13, this general trend may be
inverted when the predicate involved displays a lexical nature besides the functional one as in
the case of motion verbs (Cinque 2004).
To speculate further on the theoretical implications emerged from the analysis of thedata, in the following section I will propose a comparison between the results found with thenear-natives and the findings concerning the same experimental paradigm administered toadvanced L2 speakers of Italian with Spanish, English and German as L1 respectively(Bennati & Matteini 2005).
13

See also some interesting studies on L1 acquisition of Japanese (Murasugi, Hashimoto & Kato,
2003; Yano 2007 and references cited there) where lexical causative constructions which require amono-clausal structure are acquired earlier than syntactic causative constructions which require a biclausal structure.

-16-

Object Clitic Climbing in Adult L2 Italian (E. Bennati)

5. A Comparison with the Results Found by Bennati & Matteini (2005) in L2
Advanced Learners
In this section I will compare the near-natives’ results with the advanced L2 learners’
productions collected by Bennati & Matteini (2005). As already noticed, the experimental
paradigm presented in this study was originally designed by Bennati & Matteini (2005) andwas successfully administered to advanced L2 learners of Italian with different L1s,
specifically to L1 Spanish, L1 German and L1 English speakers. The three L2 groups werereduced to two, since the L1 English and L1 German speakers were included in the samegroup because of their very similar performance (no statistically significant difference
emerged between them).
The following tables and figures summarize the results per group in each structural
condition, thus comparing the performance of the L2 advanced learners (from Bennati &Matteini 2005) with the near-natives’ one:
Table 7. OCC in obligatory and optional contexts in L2 advanced learners
obligatory OCC contexts
optional OCC contexts
aux+past partcausatives
motionmodalsverbs
L1 English/German advanced 97%
63.5%
24%
40%
speakers(63/65)(43/68)(16/68)(27/67)
L1 Spanish advanced
100%
88%
28%
24%
speakers(25/25)(22/25)(7/25)(6/25)
Italian monolinguals
100%
100%
80%
95%
(40/40)(40/40)(32/40)(38/40)
Table 8. OCC in obligatory and optional contexts in the near-natives
obligatory OCC contexts
optional OCC contexts
aux+past partcausatives
motion verbs
modalsL1 English near-natives
100%
100%
40%
75%
(40/40)(40/40)(16/40)(30/40)L1 Spanish near-natives
100%
95%
38%
75%
(40/40)(38/40)(15/40)(30/40)Italian monolinguals
100%
100%
80%
95%
(40/40)(40/40)(32/40)(38/40)-17-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Figure 6. OCC in L1 Spanish speakers
OCC in L1 Spanish speakers
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
aux+past partcausatives

L1 Spanish advanced speakers

m odalsm otion verbs

L1 Spanish near-natives

Italian m onolinguals

Figure 7. OCC in L1 English speakers
OCC in L1 English speakers
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
aux+past partcausatives

L1 English advanced speakers

m odals

L1 English near-natives

m otion verbs
Italian m onolinguals

In a nutshell, the most noteworthy result is a general improvement in the mastering of
OCC as soon as the L2 end-state is reached in both L1 Spanish and L1 English speakers.
More specifically:i. OCC with past participle contexts is fully mastered since stages lower than ultimate
attainment, i.e. advanced.
ii. Causatives do not cause any problems at all at ultimate attainment and are easily
processed as mono-clausal structures, like auxiliary + past participle contexts. The
residual uncertainties at L2 advanced stages disappear at the L2 end-state.
iii. OCC seems to be the preferred strategy also with complex predicates containing amodal verb for the near-natives (75% in both near-native groups), while at inferior
stages of L2 competence the no climbing strategy is still the predominant one (we foundjust 40% OCC for the L1 English/German speakers and 24% for the L1 Spanish-18-

Object Clitic Climbing in Adult L2 Italian (E. Bennati)

speakers). This fact can reasonably be attributed to an accessibility matter, namely a biclausal structure is easier and less costly than a mono-clausal one, which will betentatively discussed as a final observation in this paragraph by combining the results
obtained with modal verbs and motion verbs in the two experiments.
iv. A slight difference between the advanced groups and the near-natives can also be
detected for complex predicates containing a motion verb. In this respect theoccurrences where OCC is manifest are more numerous at ultimate attainment (40/38%
vs. 24/28% for the L2 advanced groups), even though complex verbal constructions witha motion verb are still processed mainly as bi-clausal structures.
As a final remark, I would like to speculate on the reason why at L2 acquisition stages
lower than ultimate attainment, both complex predicates containing a motion verb andcomplex predicates containing a modal verb are preferably analysed as bi-clausal structuresby L2ers, while at ultimate attainment this trend is still consistently visible only with motion
verbs. As a starting point of this analysis let us recall the different status of modal and motion
verbs (Cinque 2004). Modal verbs in Italian just display a functional nature, while motion
verbs have a twofold nature as functional and lexical predicates. Moreover let us recall whatobserved in the previous paragraph as regards i. the general trend found both in L1 and L2
acquisition which shows that mono-clausal structures are generally easier to be acquired andrealized than bi-clausal ones and ii. the inverted trend which occurs when the predicate
involved has either a functional or a lexical nature.
Let us first consider the results of both near-natives and advanced14 L2 speakers withrespect to motion verbs. All L2ers follow the inverted trend and find it easier to produce biclausal structures.
Let us now consider the results of both groups with respect to modal verbs where aninteresting difference between the near-native group and the advanced L2 group emerged.
The fact that the L2 advanced speakers preferred the bi-clausal structure with modals whichhave just a functional nature as opposed to the twofold nature of motion verbs, seems tosuggest that the L2 advanced speakers did not have instantiated the right formal status ofmodals as only functional predicates. On the contrary, the L2 near-natives could clearly
distinguish between the status of modal and motion verbs.
6. Conclusions
The linguistic domain investigated in this study provides a twofold contribution:
Firstly, it shows how different theoretical analyses on complex predicates andrestructuring proposed over the years can be useful to interpret and disambiguate
experimental data from L2 Acquisition.
14

In both groups (near-natives and L2 advanced) no differences were made between L1 Spanish and
L1 English since they behaved the same within their group.

-19-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Secondly it provides cues on the role of UG and L1 in L2 Acquisition at ultimate
attainment, supporting both the UG Full Access Theory (Schwartz & Sprouse 1996) and the
No Impairment Hypothesis and matching the findings of recent studies on this issue (Duffield,
White, Bruhn-Garavito, Montrul and Prévost 2002, Leonini & Belletti 2004, Leonini 2005,
2006, Hamann & Belletti 2007).

Selected References
Belletti, A. (1999) “Italian/Romance Clitics: Structure and derivation.” In Henk van Riemsdijk, ed.,Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Mouton de Gruyter, 543-579.
Belletti A. (2005) “Kinds of Evidence for Linguistic Theory.” To appear in the Proceedings of the 17th
Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Bennati, E. (2007) Pronouns in Adult L2 Acquisition: Evidence from L2 Near-native Italian, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Siena.
Bennati, E. & S. Matteini (2005) “Object Clitic Climbing in L2 Learners of Italian.” In Proceedings
GALA 2005, University of Siena.
Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax, Reidel, Dortrecht.
Cardinaletti, A. & G. Giusti (2001) “«Semi-lexical» Motion Verbs in Romance and Germanic.” In N.
Corver & H. Van Riensdjik, eds., Semi-lexical Categories, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New
York, 371-414.
Cardinaletti, A. & G. Giusti (2003) “Motion Verbs as Functional Heads.” In C. Tortora, ed., The
Syntax of Italian Dialects, Oxford University Press, 31-49.
Cardinaletti, A. & U. Shlonsky, (2004) “Clitic Positions and Restructuring in Italian.” Linguistic
Inquiry 35.4, 519-557.
Cinque, G. (2004) “Restructuring and Functional Structure,” In A.Belletti, ed., Structures and Beyond.
The Cartography of Syntactic Structure, Vol 3., Oxford University Press, New York, 132191.
Duffield, N., White, L., Bruhn De Garavito, J., Montrul, S. & P. Prévost (2002) “Clitic Placement in
L2 French: Evidence from Sentence Matching.” In Journal of Linguistics 38, 487-525.
Guasti, M. T. (1996) “Semantic Restrictions on Romance Causatives and the Incorporation
Approach.” Linguistic Inquiry 27(2), 294-313.
Guasti, M. T. (1997) “Romance causative.” In L. Haegeman, ed., The New Comparative Syntax,
Longman Linguistics Library, London, 124-144.
Hamann, C. & A. Belletti (2007) “Developmental Patterns in the Acquisition of Romance
Complement Clitics: Comparing Different Acquisition Modes with an Emphasis on French.”
Submitted.
Hawkins, R. (2001) Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction, Blackwell, Oxford.
Hawkins, R. & F. Franceschina (2004) “Explaining the Acquisition of and Non Acquisition of
Dterminer Noun Gender Concord in French and Spanish.” In P. Prévost & J. Paradis, eds.,
The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
207-242.
Kayne, R. S. (1975) French Syntax. The Transformational Cycle, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

-20-

Object Clitic Climbing in Adult L2 Italian (E. Bennati)

Kayne, R. S. (1991) “Romance Clitics, Verb Movement, and PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 647-686.
Leonini, C. (2005) “Object Clitics and Determiners in the Acquisition of Italian as L2 and L1.” In
Proceedings GALA 2005, University of Siena.
Leonini, C. (2006) The Acquisition of Object Clitics and Definite Articles: Evidence from Italian as L2and L1, Doctoral dissertation, University of Florence.
Leonini, C. & A. Belletti (2004) “Adult L2 Acquisition of Italian Clitic Pronouns and Subject
Inversion/VS Structures.” In J. van Kampen & S. Baauwn, eds., Proceedings of GALA 2003,
LOT – Occasional Series, 293-304.
Manzini, R. (1983) Restructuring and Reanalysis, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Murasugi, K., T. Hashimoto, & S. Kato (2003) “On the Acquisition of Causatives in Japanese.”
Nanzan Linguistics 2.
Rizzi, L. (1978) “A Restructuring Rule in Italian Syntax.” In S. J. Keyser, ed., Recent
Transformational Studies in European Languages, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 113-158.
Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.
Schwartz, B. D. & R. Sprouse (1996) “L2 Cognitive States and the Full Transfer/full Access Model.”Second Language Research 12, 40-72.
Sportiche, D. (1996) “Clitic Constructions.” In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring, eds., Phrase Structure and the
Lexicon, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 213-276.
Towell, R. & R. Hawkins (1994) Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, Multilingual Matters
Clevedon.
White, L. (1996) “Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition: Current Trends and New
Directions.” In V. Ritchie & T. Bhatia, eds., Handbook of Language Acquisition, Academic
Press, New York, 85-120.
White, L. & F. Genesee (1996) “How Native is Near-native? The Issue of Age and Ultimate
Attainment in the Acquisition of a Second Language.” Second Language Research 12, 23365.
Yano, K. (2007) “The Structure of Japanese Potential –(r)eru Construction: A study in Syntax,
Learnability and Acquisition.” Talk given at the Cambridge-Connecticut-HyderabadTsinghua-Siena-Nanzan Consortium, February 2007, Nanzan University.

-21-