Advertisement

Alternations and Argument Structure in Second Language English: Knowledge of Two Types of Intransitive Verbs

  • Makiko HirakawaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 16)

Abstract

This chapter discusses nontarget “overpassivization” errors in L2 English by Japanese speakers (e.g., the earthquake was happened last night) and the effects of classroom instruction on such errors. A number of studies have reported that the errors in which intransitive verbs appear in the passive form, be + V-ed, are confined to one type of intransitive verb, so-called unaccusative verbs, and that the errors are often found even among high-proficiency learners. An experimental study was conducted at a university in Japan to examine the effects of explicit teaching on the ungrammaticality of passive intransitive verbs. Learners’ knowledge was examined before and after four weeks of teaching. Results partly suggest that instruction had some positive effect on L2 knowledge of English. Even though the amount of instruction learners received in the present study may not have been sufficient for all the learners to attain knowledge that enabled them to correctly reject the ungrammatical passives, individual analyses revealed there were a few learners who appeared to have overcome overpassivization errors.

Keywords

Subject Position Native English Speaker Sentence Type Test Sentence Negative Evidence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am most grateful to the editors of this volume, in particular Melinda Whong, for her insightful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this chapter. I also benefited from the comments of an anonymous reviewer. Special thanks to all the participants in the experimental study and to Yuri Fujisaki for her help with statistical analyses. This research was in part supported by a grant from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (No. 22320109), for which I am grateful.

References

  1. Balcom, P. 1997. Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research 13: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burzio, L. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiba, S. 1998. Hitaikaku-kobun no dai-ichi dai-ni gengo no kakutoku (‘Unaccusative construction in first and second language acquisition’). In Report (2). Researching and verifying an advanced theory of human language: Explanation of the human faculty for constructing and computing sentences on the basis of lexical conceptual features, ed. K. Inoue, 173–208. Chiba: Kanda University of International Studies.Google Scholar
  4. Dekydtspotter, L. 2001. The universal parser and interlanguage: Domain-specific mental organization in the comprehension of combine interrogatives in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research 17: 91–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dekydtspotter, L., and J. Hathorn. 2005. Quelque chose … de remarquable in English-French acquisition: Mandatory, informationally encapsulated computations in second language ­interpretations. Second Language Research 25: 291–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dekydspotter, L., and R. Sprouse. 2001. Mental design and (second) language epistemology: Adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research 17: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Helms-Park, R. 2001. Evidence of lexical transfer in learner syntax: The acquisition of English causatives by speakers of Hindi-Urdu and Vietnamese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(1): 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hirakawa, M. 1995. L2 acquisition of English unaccusative constructions. In Proceedings of the 19th Boston University conference of language development, ed. D. MacLaughlin and S. McEwen, 291–302. Sommerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hirakawa, M. 2003a. Unaccusativity in second language Japanese and English. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Hirakawa, M. 2003b. Unaccusatives versus passives in L2 English. In Generative approaches to the acquisition of English by native speakers of Japanese, ed. S. Wakabayashi, 41–78. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Hirakawa, M. 2005. Effects of instruction on the L2 acquisition of English unaccusative verbs. Poster presented at J-SLA annual conference, Kwansei Gakuin University.Google Scholar
  12. Hirakawa, M. 2006. ’Passive’ unaccusative errors in L2 English revisited. In Inquiries in linguistic development, ed. R. Slabakova, S.A. Montrul, and P. Prevost, 17–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Hubbard, P.L. 1994. Non-transformational theories of grammar: Implications for language teaching. In Perspectives on pedagogical grammar, ed. T. Odlin, 49–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kellerman, E. 1978. Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism 15: 59–92.Google Scholar
  15. Kellerman, E. 1983. Now you see it, now you don’t. In Language transfer in language learning, ed. S. Gass and L. Selinker, 112–134. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  16. Levin, B., and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Levin, B., and M. Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matsunaga, K. 2005. Overgeneralization in second language acquisition of transitivity alternations. Second Language 4: 75–110.Google Scholar
  19. Montrul, S. 1997. Transitivity alternations in second language acquisition: A crosslinguistic study of English, Turkish and Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation. McGill University.Google Scholar
  20. Montrul, S. 1999. Causative errors with unaccusative verbs in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research 15: 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Montrul, S. 2000. Transitivity alternations in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 229–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montrul, S. 2001. First-language-constrained variability in the second-language acquisition of argument-structure-changing morphology with causative verbs. Second Language Research 17: 144–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oshita, H. 1997. “The Unaccusative Trap”: L2 acquisition of English intransitive verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  24. Oshita, H. 2000. What is happened may not be what appears to be happening: A corpus study of ‘passive’ unaccusatives in L2 English. Second Language Research 16: 293–324.Google Scholar
  25. Perlmutter, D., and P. Postal. 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In Studies in relational grammar 2, ed. D. Perlmutter and C. Rosen, 81–125. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rutherford, W. 1987. Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  27. Shomura, Y. 1996. Perspectives on pedagogic grammar in English language teaching: A study of the acquisition of ergatives by Japanese learners. In Annual review of English learning and teaching, 17–35. The Japan Association of College English Teachers, Kyusyu Okinawa Chapter, Japan.Google Scholar
  28. Shomura, Y. 2002. The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition: Evidence from L2 Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation. Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
  29. Shomura-Isse, Y. 2006. The effects of zero/overt morphology in L2 acquisition. Studies in Language Sciences 5: 237–258.Google Scholar
  30. Slabakova, R. 2001. Telicity in the second language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  31. Sorace, A. 1995. Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language: The unaccusative/unergative distinction. In The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford, ed. L. Eubank, L. Selinker, and M. Sharwood-Smith, 153–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Sorace, A. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76: 859–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sorace, A., and Y. Shomura. 2001. Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity: Evidence from L2 Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23: 247–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whong-Barr, M. 2005. Transfer of argument structure and morphology. In Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004), ed. L. Dekydspotter, R.A. Sprouse, and A. Liljestrand, 269–282. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  35. Whong-Barr, M. 2006. What transfers? In Paths of development in L1 and L2 acquisition. In honor of Bonnie Schwartz, ed. S. Unsworth, T. Parodi, A. Sorace, and M. Young-Scholten, 187–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  36. Yip, V. 1995. Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  37. Yusa, N. 2003. ‘Passive’ unaccusatives in L2 acquisition. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11, ed. P. Clancy, 246–259. Stanford: CLSI.Google Scholar
  38. Yusa, N., M. Koizumi, J. Kim, N. Kimura, S. Uchida, S. Yokoyama, N. Miura, S. Uchida, S. Yokoyama, N. Miura, R. Kawashima, and H. Hagiwara. 2011. Second-language instinct and instruction effects: Nature and nurture in second-language acquisition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23: 2716–2730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zobl, H. 1989. Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, ed. S. Gass and J. Schachter, 203–231. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Language and LiteratureBunkyo UniversityKoshigayaJapan

Personalised recommendations