L1 Korean and L1 Mandarin L2 English learners’ acquisition of the count/mass distinction in English

Abstract

This study investigates the second language (L2) acquisition of the English count/mass distinction by speakers of Korean and Mandarin Chinese, with a focus on the semantics of atomicity. It is hypothesized that L1-Korean and L1-Mandarin L2-English learners are influenced by atomicity in the use of the count/mass morphosyntax in English. This hypothesis is tested in two experiments, one comparing Korean and Mandarin speakers in their L2 (English) and the other investigating count/mass morphosyntax in native Korean and Mandarin Chinese. In both experiments, participants are tested on their suppliance of plural marking with count and mass NPs. The findings are fully consistent with the view of atomicity as a semantic universal: learners overuse plural marking with mass atomic nouns such as furniture more than with mass non-atomic nouns such as water. Even though plural marking is associated with atomicity in Korean but not in Mandarin, the same patterns are observed in L1-Korean and L1-Mandarin L2-English learners. We conclude that learners’ performance is not due to L1-transfer, but rather to the role of the semantic universal of atomicity in L2-acquisition.

Plural marking in the second language: Atomicity, definiteness, and transfer

“…Kim (2005) argues that -tul directly encodes the distinction between object-denoting (atomic) nouns and substance-denoting (nonatomic) ones. This proposal has received experimental support from Choi, Ionin, and Zhu (2018), who examined the use and judgments of -tul by Korean native speakers. They found that -tul was optionally used, and optionally allowed, with all object-denoting nouns: both those that are count in English (e.g., chair) and those that are mass in English (e.g., furniture).…”

“…In contrast, -tul was both used and accepted to a much lower degree with substance-denoting nouns such as oil. Following Kim (2005), Choi et al (2018) conclude Korean -tul directly encodes atomicity. In contrast Mandarin -men, which is restricted to [human] nouns, does not encode atomicity; rather, atomicity has been argued to be reflected in the Mandarin classifier system (Cheng & Sybesma, 1998.…”

“…There are many studies on the L2 acquisition of English plural marking, including Hiki (1990Hiki ( , 1991, Hua and Lee (2005), Snape (2008), and Choi et al (2018). These were offline studies, which focused on accuracy rather than reaction time (please see the next section for an overview of online studies in this domain).…”

“…The only studies that specifically investigated the role of atomicity in L2 acquisition of the count/mass distinction are Inagaki (2014), MacDonald andCarroll (2018), andChoi et al (2018). In Inagaki (2014) and MacDonald and Carroll (2018), participants completed a quantity judgment task (from Barner & Snedeker, 2005; see also Inagaki & Barner, 2009), in which they had to say which was "more": two big entities (e.g., two big blobs of mustard or two big pieces of furniture-judgment by volume) or six small entities (e.g., six small blobs of mustard or six tiny pieces of furniture-judgment by number).…”

The L2 Acquisition of Mass Nouns by Arab Leaners of English

“…All languages have specific positions for nouns and quantifiers that permit reference to objects in either the real or abstract world. The grammatical distinction of mass/count is encoded morphosyntactically and further connected to the conceptual/semantic distinction of object/substance (Choi, Ionin, & Zhu, 2017). The semantic component of the mass-count distinction is beyond the scope of this paper as the study focuses on the morphosyntactic aspects of this distinction.…”