Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Please cite as
Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Lexical and syntactic development in English as a second language: A cross-sectional study. Presentation delivered at 11th PALA Symposium-Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition. Innsbruck, Austria, September 12-13, 2011.
Copyright Satomi Kawaguchi 2011
2
Following LFG (e.g., Bresnan 2001), PT believes that grammatical constructions are lexically restricted in L2 learning (cf. Pinker 1984, Tomasello 1992 in L1 acquisition).
The L2 learner gradually learns how to attribute prominence to a particular thematic role as well as how to de-focus or suppress a thematic role e.g. suppressing the Agent role and promoting the Patient role to SUBJ rather than mapping canonically Agent onto SUBJ.
5
Yokoyama et. al. (2006b): active / passive sentences in Japanese L1 English L2 (late bilingual) Active sentence < Passive counterpart (both L1 and L2) significant interaction between sentence type (active Vs. passive) and language (Japanese Vs. passive)
late bilinguals use language-related regions of the brain differently when processing structurally complex sentences in L1 Vs. L2 (p575).
7
Research Questions
1) Do Japanese L1 English L2 learners acquire non-canonical mapping after canonical mapping regardless of different types of verb (e.g., intrinsically non-canonical verbs, passive construction)? 2) Is there a relationship between learners lexical size (Nation and Bagler ibid.) and acquisition of canonical and non-canonical mapping.
8
Intrinsically non-canonical Canonical transitive Intransitve: Unaccusative Transitive: Psych Verb (OBJ experiencer (OE))
These constructions allow English speakers to impart different perspectives on discourse world situations (Payne 2011)
9
Thematic Hierarchy
Thematic hierarchy (Bresnan 2001, 307)
Agent > Beneficiary > experiencer/goal > Instrument > Patient/Theme > Locative Canonical mapping Agent-like role is mapped on to SUBJ, Patient-like (or Theme-like) is mapped on to OBJ
10
1 Canonical Transitive
Agent > Beneficiary > Experiencer/goal > Instrument > Patient/Theme > Locative
(a)Intransitive
Sleep <Experiencer> dogs sleep (around 18 hours a day)
Experiencer
SUBJ
(b) Psych Verb: OBJ Experiencer (OE) Please <Theme, Experiencer> His gifts please me (c.f. I like his gifts)
Theme
SUBJ
Experiencer
OBJ
c.f., White 1998
12
(a) Passive The dog was kicked by Tom be kicked <Patient, Agent>
agent patient thematic roles
Subject
Adjunct
grammatical functions
The dog
Tom
word order
(b) Causative
Mapping of a-structure onto f-structure for the transitive causative sentence Mary makes Tom wash the car cause < [agent] [recipient patient]
SUBJ OBJ wash < [agent] [patient] >> a-structure
OBJ patient
f-structure
Masako
Takashi
kuruma [car]
c-structure
13
Hypothesis
1) Canonical Vs. intrinsically Non-canonical mapping
Canonical (Transitive )> > Intrinsically non-canonical Intransitive> > Intrinsically non-canonical Transitive 2) Canonical Vs. Non-canonical constructions Canonical Active > Passive > Causative
3) Lexical acquisition and syntactic acquisition
There is a positive relationship between lexical size and syntactic acquisition (lexical acquisition precedes the acquisition of syntax).
14
Research Design
a. Informants 22 Japanese L1 - English L2 (male 5, female 17), with a length of stay in Australia, ranging from 9 days to 27 years. Their age range is between 20 and 56 years (mean 31, SD 9.9). One native control (simultaneous bilingual first language speaker of English and Japanese): 18 year old.
15
Production (translation) task: Japanese -> English with time limitation (20 min. for 25 sentences) pen & paper (without eraser) (6 sentences involving ditransitive verbs are not used in this study)
17
Causative CausativePassive
All verbs are selected from 0-1K English frequency list except shock and confuse freeze is an alternating unaccusative; fall is a non-alternating unaccusative Unaccusative intransitives are non-canonical BUT Unergative intransitives are canonical. 18
Question No. and question sentence 1. SEE: They saw it. 6. DRIVE: He drives fast. 7, 1. MAINTAIN: Can they maintain it? 2. RESTORE: It has been restored. 4, SCRUB: He is scrubbing it. 7. PAVE: It was paved. 8. DASH: They dashed over it. 9. ROVE: He couldn't stop roving. 10. ALLEGE: They alleged it. 2. WEEP: He wept. 4. HAUNT: The house is haunted. 8. PEEL: Shall I peel it?
6th 1000 7th 1000 8th 1000 9th 1000 10th 1000 11th 1000 12th 1000 13th 1000 14th 1000
7. STRANGLE: He strangled her. 10. VEER: The car veered. 4. SHUDDER: The boy shuddered. 10. MUMBLE: He started to mumble. 6. PERTURB: I was perturbed.
1. EXCRETE: This was excreted recently. 8. IMPALE: He nearly got impaled. 4. AUGUR: It augured well.
20
Results
21
22
NS
(H: JA 3)
(L: JA 19)
NS (H: JA13)
The tree in the backyard has fallen. A tree in a garden fell down.
24
NS (H: JA3)
Ms. Yamada's explanation always confuses her students. Professor Yamada's explanation always confuses his students.
Examples: Passive
NS (H: JA03)
26
Examples: Causative
NS (H: JA03)
My mum makes me wash the dishes. My mother makes me wash the dishes every day.
27
Results: Canonical <Intransitive Unaccusative < Transitive Psych Verb (applying PTs emergence criterion)
Informant JA15 JA19 JA11 JA21 JA16 JA18 JA17 JA20 JA09 JA14 Lexical size /140 50 46 30 68 47 51 58 41 54 64
Psych V (3) 33% 0/3 0/3 1/?1/3 0/3 0/3 0/3 0/3 0/3 0/3
Low Middle
JA08
JA06 JA04 JA07 JA22 JA05 JA12 JA10 JA01 JA02 JA13 JA03 NS control
68
69 90 81 62 77 88 90 97 101 112 127 113
Middle (M3)
Middle (M1)
80%
80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
67%
100% 100% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0/3
0/3 0/1(?)/*2 33% 33% 33% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 28
Middle
41 51 54 50 90 62
68 58
Low (L2)
JA06
JA05 JA14 JA21 JA07 JA12 JA10 JA01 JA02 JA13 JA03 NS control
69
77 64 68 81 88 90 97 101 112 127 113
Middle (M1)
Middle Middle (M2)
100%
80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
67%
50% 33% 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 83% 100% 83%
1/2
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
29
a. Canonical structure
Correct Mapping with Canonical Verbs
120 100
80
percentage
60
40
20
30
Non-canonical mapping
100
80 60 40 20
80
structurally non-canonical
31
Results summary
1. (Canonical Vs. Non-canonical mapping) Acquisition follows canonical to non-canonical mapping. Canonical > Intransitive Unaccusative > Trans. Psych Verb Canonical > Passive > Causative (structural non-canonical mapping relates closer to developmental stages) 2. (lexical size and syntactic ability with different verb types) Only high vocabulary size (9 k or over) predicts the grammatical ability of producing all types of non-canonical mapping. Both middle and low lexical size groups showed problems with non-canonical mapping.
32
Conclusion
Productive ability relating to non-canonical mapping seems to be a good indicator of syntactic development. On the other hand, learners lexical size can only partly predict L2 learners syntactic development. This requires further cross-linguistic confirmation. From the learning and teaching point of view an awareness of the role of non-canonical mapping may help towards pushing development forwards.
33
References
Bowerman, M. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics 28: 1253-1289. Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2005 Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi, S. (in press 2011). Development across languages: English, Italian and Japanese. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.). Processability Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hasagawa, M., Carpenter, P. & Just, M. (2002). An fMRI Study of Bilingual Sentence Comprehension and Workload. NeuroImage. 15, 647-660. Hirakawa, M. (2003). Unaccusativity in second language Japanese and English. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo. Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument Structure and Syntactic Development in Japanese as a Second language. In M. Pienemann. (Ed.). Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. (pp. 253-298). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kawaguchi, S. (2007). Lexical Mapping in Processability Theory: a Case Study in Japanese. In F. Mansouri (ed.). Second Language Acquisition Research: Theory-Construction and Testing. (pp. 39-80). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press. Kawaguchi, S. (2009). Acquiring Causative Constructions in Japanese as a Second Language, The Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 29. 2, 273-291. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. MIT Press, MA: Cambridge. Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Complex predicates in Japanese - A syntactic and semantic study of the notion word. California and Tokyo: CSLI Publications and Kurosio Publishers. Nation, P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language, Cambridge University Press. Payne, T. E., (2011). Understanding English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language Processing and Second Language Development - Processability Theory. 34 Amsterdam: Benjamins.
References
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending processability theory, in M. Pienemann (ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 199-251). Amsterdam: Benjamins,. Tomasello, M. 1992. First Verbs. Cambridge U Press. Wang, K.(2010). The acquisition of English passive constructions by Mandarin speakers: A developmental perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Western Sydney. White, L., Brown, C., Bruhn-Garavito, J., Chen, D., Hirakawa, M. & Montrul, S. (1998). Psych verbs in second language acquisition. In E. C. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.). The development of second language grammars: A Generative Approach, pp. 171-196. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Yokoyama, S., Miyamoto, T, Riera, J., Kim, J., Akitsuki, Y., Iwata, K., Yoshimoto, K., Horie, K., Sato, S. & Kawashima, R. (2006). Cortical Mechanisms Involved in the Processing of Verbs: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 18:8, 1304-1313. Yokoyama, S., Okamoto, H., Miyamoto, T., Yoshimoto, K., Kim, J., Iwata, K., Jeong, H., Uchida, S., Ikuta, N., Sassa, Y., Nakamura, W., Horie, K., Sato, S. & Kawashima, R. (2006). Cortical activation in the processing of passive senteces in L1 and L2: An fMRI study. NeuroImage. 30 570-579.
35