Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:17:09.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acquisition of aspect in L2: The computation of event completion by Japanese learners of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2020

Keiko Kaku-MacDonald Open the ORCID record for Keiko Kaku-MacDonald [Opens in a new window] ,
Juana M. Liceras Open the ORCID record for Juana M. Liceras [Opens in a new window]  and
Nina Kazanina Open the ORCID record for Nina Kazanina [Opens in a new window]
Keiko Kaku-MacDonald*
Affiliation:
Ablenti, LLC
Juana M. Liceras
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa; and Universidad Nebrija, Madrid
Nina Kazanina*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol; and Higher School of Economics, Russian Federation
*
*Corresponding authors. Emails: keikokaku@gmail.com or nina.kazanina@bristol.ac.uk
*Corresponding authors. Emails: keikokaku@gmail.com or nina.kazanina@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous studies on the acquisition of semantics in the aspectual domain have suggested that a difficult case for achieving a targetlike representation in a second language arises when learners need to preempt a first language (L1) option (Gabriele, 2009). This study investigates this issue by focusing on a learning scenario where predicate-level variability exists in the L1 input. We investigate whether Japanese learners of English can learn to invalidate event cancellation readings (Tsujimura, 2003) in English and how such knowledge develops with increasing English proficiency. We address these questions by examining how Japanese learners of English interpret accomplishment predicates that allow an event cancellation reading in Japanese but not in English. A truth-value judgment task was administered to 60 beginner, 96 intermediate, and 40 advanced Japanese learners of English as well as 20 L1 English and 20 L1 Japanese speakers. Our results showed that Japanese learners of English progressed toward a targetlike representation of aspectual entailment. We argue that such progress follows two parallel routes: a grammatical route rooted in the learners’ growing awareness of the English determiner and number morphology combined with a statistical route rooted in the learners’ inferences based on missing data.

Keywords

aspectJapanesepreemptionsecond language acquisitionvariability
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 185 - 214
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020 

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

Arunachalam, S., & Kothari, A. (2011). An experimental study of Hindi and English perfective interpretation. Journal of South Asian Linguistics, 4, 27–42.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (2005). Structuring sense II: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998a). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998b). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of semantic parameter. In Rothstein, S. (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 53–103). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to experiments in the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Déprez, V. (2005). Morphological number, semantic number and bare nouns. Lingua, 115, 857–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, A. V. (Ed.) (2000). Linguistics: An introduction to linguistics theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gabriele, A. (2005). The acquisition of aspect in a second language: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York).Google Scholar
Gabriele, A. (2007). Interpreting bare nominals in L2 Japanese. In Belikova, A., Meroni, L., & Imeda, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America 2 Conference (pp. 92–101). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Gabriele, A. (2009). Transfer and transition in the SLA of aspect. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriele, A. (2010). Deriving meaning through context: Interpreting bare nominals in second language Japanese. Second Language Research, 26, 379–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriele, A., & McClure, W. (2011). Why only some imperfectives are learned imperfectly: A study of Chinese learners of Japanese. Language Acquisition, 18, 38–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriele, A., & Sugita Hughes, M. (2015). Tense and aspect in Japanese as a second language. In Nakayama, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Japanese psycholinguistics (pp. 271–302). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (1st ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. (1996). The truth-value judgment task. In McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Crains, H. (Eds.), Methods for assessing children’s syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hay, J., Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (1999). Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 9, 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Y. (1985). “Activity”—“accomplishment”—“achievement”: A language that can’t say “I burned it, but it didn’t burn” and one that can. In Makkai, A. & Melby, A. K. (Eds.), Linguistics and philosophy: Essays in honor of Rulon S. Wells (pp. 265–304). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41, 9–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kageyama, T. (1996). Dooshi imiron [Lexical semantics]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Kaku, K. (2009). Acquisition of telicity in L2: A psycholinguistic study of Japanese learners of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa).Google Scholar
Kaku, K., & Kazanina, N. (2007). Acquisition of telicity by Japanese learners of English. In Otsu, Y. (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 8th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (pp. 161–185). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.Google Scholar
Kaku, K., Liceras, J. M., & Kazanina, N. (2008a). Progressing beyond the neutral perfective: Acquisition of English aspect by native speakers of Japanese. In Slabakova, R., Rothman, J., Kempchinsky, P., & Gavruseva, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 90–102). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Kaku, K., Liceras, J. M., & Kazanina, N. (2008b). There is hope for Japanese learners of English: The case of telicity. In Chan, H., Jacob, H., & Kapia, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 201–212). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Koeneman, O., & Zeiljstra, H. (2014). The rich agreement hypothesis rehabilitated. Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 571–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, J.-P., & Muansuwan, N. (2000). How to end without ever finishing: Thai semi-perfective markers. Journal of Semantics, 17, 147–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2004). A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 31, 883–914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2002). The L2 acquisition of morphosyntactic and semantic properties of the aspectual tenses preterite and imperfect. In Perez-Leroux, A. T. & Liceras, J. M. (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax: The L1/L2 connection (pp. 131–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite/imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishida, C. (1994). The Spanish reflexive clitic se as an aspectual class marker. Linguistics, 32, 425–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Regier, T. (2006). Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quick placement test / Local Examinations Syndicate, University of Cambridge. (2001). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2010). Reflection on manner/result complementarity. In Doron, E., Rappaport Hovav, M., & Sichel, I. (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics and event structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Rezai, M. J. (2006). L2 acquisition of English “verb + prepositional phrase” and “verb + particle” constructions by Persian speakers. In O’Brien, M. Grantham, Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 114–123). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2004). Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M. (1998). On the semantics of the perfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 171–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2000). L1 transfer revisited: The L2 acquisition of telicity marking in English by Spanish and Bulgarian native speakers. Linguistics, 38, 739–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2001). Telicity in the second language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2005). What is so difficult about telicity marking in L2 Russian? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1994). Aspectual viewpoint and situation type in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 3, 107–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soh, H. L., & Kuo, Y. (2005). Perfective aspect and accomplishment situation in Mandarin Chinese. In Verkuyl, H. J., de Swart, H., & van Hout, A. (Eds.), Perspectives on aspect: Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics (Vol. 32, pp. 199–216). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugita, M. (2009). Japanese -te iru and -te aru: The aspectual implication of the stage-level and individual-level distinction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center).Google Scholar
Tai, J. (1984). Verbs and times in Chinese: Vendler’s four categories. In Testen, D., Mishra, V., & Drogo, J. (Eds.), Parasession on lexical semantics (pp. 289–296). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Press.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). Generalization, similarity and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and Brain Science, 24, 629–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, L. (2000). Event structure in syntax. In Tenny, C. & Pustejovsky, J. (Eds.), Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Travis, L. (2003). Lexical items and zero morphology. Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 315–330). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceeding Project.Google Scholar
Travis, L. (2005). Articulated vPs and the computation of Aktionsart. In Kempchinsky, P. & Slabakova, R. (Eds.), Aspectual inquiries (pp. 69–94). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsujimura, N. (2003). Event cancellation and telicity. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 12, 388–399.Google Scholar
van Hout, A. (2007). Acquiring telicity crosslinguistically: On the acquisition of telicity entailments associated with transivity. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure (pp. 255–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 56, 143–160.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, H. J. (1972). On the compositional nature of the aspect. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, B., & Kaiser, E. (2011). Chinese speakers’ acquisition of telicity in English. In Granens, G., Koeth, J., Lee-Ellis, S., Lukyanchenko, A., Prieto Botana, G., & Rhoades, E. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2010 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 182–198). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Yin, B., & Kaiser, E. (2013). Second language learners’ knowledge of syntax in the acquisition of aspectual semantics. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, K. (2005). Japanese bare nouns as weak indefinites. Proceedings of PACLC19, the 19th Asia-Pacific Conference on Language, Information and Computation. Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Yoshida, K. (2008). Bare nouns and telicity in Japanese. In Rothstein, S. (Ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect (pp. 421–439). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar