Notes on the acquisition of L2 English intervention structures: a case of Japanese EFL learners
-
Atsushi Fujimori
,
Mineharu Nakayama
Abstract
This paper discusses Japanese-speaking EFL learners’ acquisition of English object relative clauses (ORC), which have intervention (Relativized Minimality) structures. Specifically, we contrast their early understanding of the ORC and the Subject Control constructions with their late understanding of the Subject Raising (seem) construction that exhibits a structural effect of locality on the filler-gap relation. We argue that relativization and the Control structure in Japanese induce hierarchical structures on par with those in English. Therefore, the learners have acquired a way of avoiding intervention during the process of acquiring the ORC and the Control structures in Japanese. L1 grammatical knowledge helps nullify the intervention effect in acquiring the constructions in L2 English. On the other hand, it takes time for them to overcome the effect by learning the seem raising structure with a specific strategy because Japanese does not have a construction similar to it. L1 Japanese critically influences the acquisition of L2 English with respect to the intervention configurations.
Acknowledgments
We thank the two JJL reviewers, and the National Tsing Hua University Institute of Linguistics and the Ohio State University Japanese linguistics seminar audiences for their helpful comments on the earlier versions of this paper. We also thank Manami Sato for her help in designing the test sentences and Sayaka Esu for her drawing of the associated pictures.
-
Research funding: The research has been partially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 18K00834 and 20K00806. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix: Test relative clauses
| Yoshimura et al. (2021) and Fujimori et al. (2022) |
| Condition 1: [+animate] [RC [-animate] <[+animate]>] |
| the dog that the rock is hitting |
| the thief that the robot is chasing |
| Condition 2: [-animate] [RC [-animate] <[-animate]>] |
| the truck that the school bus is pushing |
| the ball that the falling stone attacked |
| Condition 3: [-animate] [RC [+animate] <[-animate]>] |
| the police car that the sailor followed |
| the computer that the suspect found |
| Condition 4: [+animate] [RC [+animate] <[+animate]>] |
| the white rabbit that the child loved |
| the old lady that the elephant crashed into |
| Yoshimura et al. (2023) |
| Choose X |
| SRC [-animate] [RC <[-animate]> [+animate]] |
| the truck that is pushing a boy |
| the village that loves a panda |
| the box that hits a girl |
| ORC C2 [-animate] [RC [-animate] <[-animate]>] |
| the computer that the robot found |
| the rock that a basketball is falling onto |
| the ball that an airplane struck |
| ORC C3 [-animate] [RC [+animate] <[-animate]>] |
| the police car that a sailor is following |
| the tractor that a detective is chasing |
| the roller coaster that an old lady crashed into |
| Yoshimura et al. (2024) |
| Condition 1: the [+animate] head with the [-animate] RC subject |
| Mari, please select the picture of the sailor who the police car is following |
| the picture of the soccer player that the ball struck |
| the picture of the detective that the tractor is chasing |
| Condition 2: [-animate] [RC [-animate] <[-animate]>] |
| the picture of the tractor that the bus is chasing |
| the picture of the helicopter that the roller coaster struck |
| the picture of the basketball that A box touched |
| Condition 3: [-animate] [RC [+animate] <[-animate]>] |
| the picture of the computer that the suspect found |
| the picture of the rock that the cat is falling onto |
| the picture of the police car that the sailor is chasing |
| Condition 4: [+animate] [RC [+animate] <[+animate]>] |
| the picture of the boy that the girl is hugging |
| the picture of the old lady that the elephant is greeting |
| the picture of the fan that the player struck |
References
Adani, Flavia. 2012. Some notes on the acquisition of relative clauses: New data and open questions. In Valentina Bianchi & Cristiano Chesi (eds.), Enjoy linguistics! papers offered to Luigi Rizzi on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 6–13. Siena, Italy: CISCL Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Adani, Flavia, Heather K. J. Van der Lely, Matteo Forgiarini & Maria Teresa Guasti. 2010. Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua 120. 2148–2166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.018.Suche in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 2013. Ways of avoiding intervention: Some thoughts on the development of object relatives, passives, and control. In Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini & Robert C. Berwick (eds.), Rich languages from poor inputs, 115–126. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590339.003.0008Suche in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Maria Teresa Guasti. 2015. Acquisition of Italian: Morpho-syntax and its interfaces in different mode of acquisition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/lald.57Suche in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, Naama Friedman, Dominique Brunato & Luigi Rizzi. 2012. Does gender make a difference? Comparing the effect of gender on children’s comprehension of relative clauses in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua 122. 1053–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.02.007.Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, H. Douglas. 1971. Children’s comprehension of relativized English sentences. Child Development 42(6). 1923–1936. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1971.tb03780.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to raising in English. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389053710701.Suche in Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Cecil McKee. 1985. The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. Proceedings of NELS 15. 94–110.Suche in Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Rosalind Thornton. 1998. Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments in the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Friedmann, Naama, Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi. 2009. Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119. 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Fujimori, Atsushi, Mineharu Nakayama & Noriko Yoshimura. 2021. Animacy in object relative clauses in Japanese EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Paper presented at the 21st International Conference of the Japan Second Language Association. Tokyo, Japan: Chuo University (Online), 23–24 October.Suche in Google Scholar
Fujimori, Atsushi, Noriko Yoshimura & Mineharu Nakayama. 2022. RM effects can be nullified in L2 acquisition. Paper presented at the 22nd International Conference of the Japan Second Language Association. Tokyo, Japan: Chuo University, 22–23 October.Suche in Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1). 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1.Suche in Google Scholar
Hakuta, Kenji. 1981. Grammatical description versus configurational arrangement in language acquisition: The case of relative clauses in Japanese. Cognition 9. 197–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90001-9.Suche in Google Scholar
Harada, Kazuko. 1976. Acquisition of relative clauses: A case study on a two-year old. Annual Reports 1, The Division of Languages, 1–16. Tokyo, Japan: International Christian University.Suche in Google Scholar
Hawkins, Roger & Cecilia Yuet Hung Chan. 1997. The partial availability of universal grammar in second language acquisition: The failed functional features hypothesis. Second Language Research 13. 187–226. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897671476153.Suche in Google Scholar
Hirsch, Christopher & Ken Wexler. 2008. The late development of raising: What children seem to think about seem. In William D. Davies & Stanley Dubinsky (eds.), New horizons in the analysis of control and raising, 35–70. Dordrencht, The Netherlands: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-6176-9_3Suche in Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2005. Tōgokōzo to Bunpōkankei [Syntactic structures and grammatical relations]. Tokyo, Japan: Kurosio Publishers.Suche in Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2009. Beisikku Seisei bunpō [Basic generative grammar]. Tokyo, Japan: Hituzi Syobō.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shigeyuki. 1978. Case-marking, canonical sentence patterns and counter equi in Japanese. In John Hinds & Irwin Haward (eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 30–51. Tokyo, Japan: Kaitakusha.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shigeyuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes 12. 1–47.10.1075/li.12.1.02kurSuche in Google Scholar
Martini, Karen. 2019. Animacy does not help French-speaking children in the repetition of object relatives. In Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes & Cristina Suáretz-Gómez (eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2017: Language acquisition and development, 221–240. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
McKee, Cecile, Dana McDaniel & Merrill F. Garrett. 2022. Fast passives, slow relatives. Language Acquisition 29(4). 384–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2022.2043328.Suche in Google Scholar
Miyamoto, Edison T. & Michiko Nakamura. 2003. Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In Proceedings of the 22nd west coast conference on formal linguistics, 342–355. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Nakayama, Mineharu & Noriko Yoshimura. 2020. Japanese EFL learners’ null subjects in the control and seem raising constructions. Second Language 19. 7–38.Suche in Google Scholar
Ozeki, Hiromi & Yasuhiro Shirai. 2007. Does the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29(2). 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263107070106.Suche in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Sato, Atsushi. 2011. Nihongo kankeisetu no syorihuka o kettei suru yōin no kentō: Kōpasu ni okeru siyōhindo no eikyō o tyūsin ni [A study on determining factors for processing load of Japanese relative clauses: Influence of corpus-based frequency]. Hiroshima, Japan: Hiroshima University Dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie D. & Rex A. Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the ’full transfer/full access’ model. Second Language Research 12. 40–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200103.Suche in Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie D. & Rex A. Sprouse. 2021. The full transfer/full access model and L3 cognitive states. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 11(1). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.20055.sch.Suche in Google Scholar
Sprouse, Rex A. 2011. The interface hypothesis and the full transfer/full access/full parse: A brief comparison. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1). 97–100. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.16spr.Suche in Google Scholar
Suzuki, Kazunori & Yahiro Hirakawa. 2019. Intervention effects in relative clause production: An L2 English study. Poster presented at the European Second Language Association (EUROSLA 29). Lund, Sweden: Lund University.Suche in Google Scholar
Takezawa, Koichi. 1993. A comparative study of omoe and seem. In Heizo Nakajima & Yukio Otsu (eds.), Argument structure: Its syntax and acquisition, 75–95. Tokyo, Japan: Kaitakusha.Suche in Google Scholar
Takezawa, Koichi. 2015. Mieru ninsikikōbun-no tōgokōzo-to te-kei zyutsugo no tōgo to imi [The syntactic structure of mieru and the structure-meaning of te predicate]. In Goi Imiron-no Aratana Kanōsei-o sagutte [Exploring the new directions of lexical semantics], 243–273. Tokyo, Japan: Kaitakusha.Suche in Google Scholar
Tavakolian, Susan L. 1981. The conjoined clause analysis of relative clauses. In Susan L. Tavakolian (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, 167–187. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Villata, Sandra, Luigi Rizzi & Jullie Franck. 2016. Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua 179. 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.004.Suche in Google Scholar
Xia, Vera Yunxiao, Lydia White, Natália Barambatti Guzzo. 2020. Intervention in relative clauses: Effects of relativized minimality on L2 representation and processing. Second Language Research 38. 347–372.10.1177/0267658320958742Suche in Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Noriko & Mineharu Nakayama. 2017. L2 acquisition of raising without an experiencer: A preliminary report. In Conference handbook of the Japanese society for language sciences 2017, 178–179.Suche in Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Noriko, Mineharu Nakayama, Atsushi Fujimori & Hitoya Shimizu. 2016. Control and raising constructions in early L2 English. Second Language 15. 53–76.Suche in Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Noriko, Mineharu Nakayama & Atsushi Fujimori. 2017. The acquisition of control, raising, and tough constructions among Japanese learners of English. In Proceedings of pacific second language research forum 2016, 247–252.Suche in Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Noriko, Mineharu Nakayama & Atsushi Fujimori. 2021. Effects of animacy on Japanese EFL learners’ comprehension of object relative clauses. Poster presented at the 9th Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America. Reykjavík, Iceland: University of Iceland, 7–9 May.Suche in Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Noriko, Atsushi Fujimori & Mineharu Nakayama. 2023. Japanese grammatical knowledge is a way of nullifying intervention effects in L2 English. Paper presented at the 13th Workshop on Theoretical East Asian Linguistics. Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University, 12–14 May.Suche in Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Noriko, Atsushi Fujimori & Mineharu Nakayama. 2024. Puzzles in Japanese EFL learners’ production of object relative clauses in L2 English. Paper presented at the 24th International Conference of the Japan Second Language Association. Osaka, Japan: Osaka Kyoiku University, 22–23 June.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editorial
- Guest Editors’ Notes
- Guest editor’s notes
- Articles
- The role of L1 phonology in the perception of L2 semivowels
- Notes on the acquisition of L2 English intervention structures: a case of Japanese EFL learners
- Microvariation in L2 acquisition of backward anaphora: Mandarin versus Japanese
- L2 acquisition of Japanese null arguments
- Cross-language facilitatory and inhibitory effects in the naming of Japanese words by Chinese-Japanese bilinguals
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editorial
- Guest Editors’ Notes
- Guest editor’s notes
- Articles
- The role of L1 phonology in the perception of L2 semivowels
- Notes on the acquisition of L2 English intervention structures: a case of Japanese EFL learners
- Microvariation in L2 acquisition of backward anaphora: Mandarin versus Japanese
- L2 acquisition of Japanese null arguments
- Cross-language facilitatory and inhibitory effects in the naming of Japanese words by Chinese-Japanese bilinguals
