The acquisition of pronominal case-marking by Japanese learners of English

Suda, Koji; Wakabayashi, Shigenori

doi:10.1177/0267658307076545

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The required inclusion of LIs in the array is determined by requirements of the sound and meaning interfaces, but these requirements have nothing to do with computation in Narrow Syntax since they are all reflected on the lexical array before computation. Learner grammars may have problems with the feature assembly, as suggested by the Lexical Learning and Lexical Transfer Hypothesis (Suda and Wakabayashi, 2007; Wakabayashi 1997, 2002) and the Feature Assembly Hypothesis (Lardiere, 2008, 2009), but once LIs, including formal features, are set in Lexicon, the computation occurs in Narrow Syntax without failure. On the other hand, in Morphology, the input from Narrow Syntax is computed with reference to phonological requirements: ‘Lowering movement will be required to unite syntactic terminals that are phonologically spelled together but not joined in overt syntax (by Raising)’ (Embick and Noyer, 2001: 561), and hence the operation must refer to requirements at the interface with phonology.…”

Section: Dens: Reasons and Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In short, Vocabulary Items in L2 grammar differ from those of adult L1 grammar. This is not a totally new proposal, as implied by the Lexical Learning and Lexical Transfer Hypothesis (Suda and Wakabayashi, 2007;Wakabayashi, 1997Wakabayashi, , 2002 and the Feature Assembly Hypothesis (Lardiere, 2008(Lardiere, , 2009 and explicitly proposed in Hawkins and Casillas (2008). 15 However, these studies fail to elaborate how the L2 grammar operates when it has Vocabulary Items different from the target grammar, except Hawkins and Casillas (2008).…”

Section: Dens: Reasons and Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A principle of economy in derivation in L2 grammar: Do everything in narrow syntax

Wakabayashi

2019

Second Language Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a novel account for the overuse of free morphemes and underuse of bound morphemes in English as a second language (L2) based on the framework of Distributed Morphology. It will be argued that an Economy Principle ‘Do everything in Narrow Syntax (DENS)’ operates in the L2 learner’s computational system. Consequently, derivation in Morphology becomes as limited as possible except when applying Vocabulary Items to syntactic objects (Vocabulary Insertion). This results in non-target-like use/acceptance of certain morphemes: Bound morphemes are often omitted in early L2 grammar, and alternative free morphemes may apparently be used instead. Two types of data, namely the overuse of be reported in previous research, and the preference of to-infinitives over -ing gerunds in early L2 grammar, will be presented in support of the proposal, and the plausibility of the operation of DENS will be discussed.

show abstract

Section: Dens: Reasons and Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dens: Reasons and Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A principle of economy in derivation in L2 grammar: Do everything in narrow syntax

Wakabayashi

2019

Second Language Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, one could consider a set operation (including predication and hierarchy) and recursiveness as general cognitive primitives and our computational system constrained by (language) input, time, and working memory, which would generate language variations (e.g., word order, locality) and consider language to be learned by this computational system. See also Suda and Wakabayashi (2007). Even high proficiency speakers, however, use more full nouns in narratives than Japanese native speakers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I NOM confidence ACC have recommend HON product TOP this COP 'This is a product that I confidently recommend-promoting (to you).' See also Suda and Wakabayashi (2007). 6 Cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

8. The modularity of grammar in L2 acquisition

Nakayama¹,

Yoshimura²

2015

Handbook of Japanese Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1 This chapter discusses L2 acquisition, in particular, adult foreign language acquisition, from a particular generative perspective. There are different views within the generative perspective and different theoretical approaches to investigating the mechanism of L2 acquisition (cf. Chomsky 2007a(cf. Chomsky , b, c, 2012Reinhart 2006). For instance, one could consider a set operation (including predication and hierarchy) and recursiveness as general cognitive primitives and our computational system constrained by (language) input, time, and working memory, which would generate language variations (e.g., word order, locality) and consider language to be learned by this computational system. This kind of cognitive nativism does not assume Universal Grammar (for different proposals, see WolfeFor other theoretical approaches, see Shirai's chapter in this volume).Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library Authenticated Download Date | 8/7/15 8:28 PM 2 Similarly in L2 Japanese, it's been shown in Nakahama (2011) that English-speaking learners of Japanese can use null pronouns, but intermediate learners use more lexical nouns (as well as overt pronouns) than those with higher proficiency. Even high proficiency speakers, however, use more full nouns in narratives than Japanese native speakers. 236Mineharu Nakayama and Noriko Yoshimura Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library Authenticated Download Date | 8/7/15 8:28 PM 3 L2 Japanese errors reported in Kanagy (1994) like yasui-nai-desu ('not cheap') and akai-zya-arimasen ('not red') are morphological or lexical misclassification errors (i.e., adjective vs. adjectival noun). Although the akai-nai ('not red'), akai-ku-nai, and aka-ku-nai sequence is observed in L1 Japanese and are morpho-syntactic errors (Sano 2002), this developmental sequence does not occur in L2, and the nature of error seems different in L1 and L2. L1 children are acquiring syntactic categories and their brains are maturing (e.g., the root infinitive stage; see Murasugi in this volume). However, adult L2 learners are both cognitively and linguistically mature and they have acquired one language already (i.e., the root infinitive stage doesn't exists in L2). Therefore, we regard these L2 errors as morphological or lexical errors. In other words, those errors in L1 and L2 may look the same, but their sources are different, and we are not certain if errors that solely fall in morpho-syntactic cases exist in L2 Japanese. 4 In order to explain their experimental results that Japanese-speaking learners of English were insensitive to the number feature, but sensitive to the person feature in subject-verb agreement, Wakabayashi (1997), Wakabayashi et al. (2007), and Shibuya and Wakabayashi (2008) consider Japanese not to have the number feature, but to have the person feature, and point out that subject-honorification is an instance of agreement in the person feature. See also Wakabayashi and Yamazaki (2006) and Shibuya, Wakabayashi and Yamazaki-Hasegawa (2009). Since it exists in L1, they wer...

show abstract

Modeling morphological variation and development

McCarthy

2012

LAB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a model of morphological variation and development grounded in feature-geometric theory. It tests two hypotheses that follow from this model on a corpus of data from speakers of Spanish as a second language (L2). First, variation is systematic; default, underspecified feature values are adopted when errors occur. This hypothesis is supported for person, number, and finiteness, as 3rd, singular, and nonfinite defaults surface in place of 1st, plural, and finite verbs. Second, developmental trends are observed as nodes are added to the geometry; the unmarked/less specified feature value is successfully produced prior to the marked/more specified one. This hypothesis is partially supported, as accuracy in 3rd person emerges prior to 1st. However, no developmental pattern is found for number. Errors in finiteness are limited to lower-proficiency speakers, whereas intermediate speakers favor 3rd person, finite defaults. Together, these results suggest systematic variation and gradual development in the morphology.

show abstract

The acquisition of pronominal case-marking by Japanese learners of English

Cited by 4 publications

References 24 publications

A principle of economy in derivation in L2 grammar: Do everything in narrow syntax

A principle of economy in derivation in L2 grammar: Do everything in narrow syntax

8. The modularity of grammar in L2 acquisition

Modeling morphological variation and development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About