In:Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition: Studies in the tradition of Andrea Tyler
Edited by Lucy Pickering and Vyvyan Evans
[Human Cognitive Processing 64] 2018
► pp. 213–247
Chapter 9What is happened? Your amazon.com order has shipped
Overpassivization and unaccusativity as L2 construction learning
Published online: 20 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.64.10ort
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.64.10ort
Abstract
It is well known that many L2 users overpassivize unaccusatives. The same L2 users may also be reluctant to accept constructions with unaccusative meanings. We examined the responses from 56 L2 users of English on a scaled grammaticality judgment task. We predicted that performance would be negatively affected in the presence of a conceptualizable agent in the discourse scene that biases an external causation construal and with low-frequency verbs and alternating verbs. We found clear effects for frequency and alternation in the hypothesized direction. However, there was no evidence for an independent contribution of the conceptualization bias condition. Our study supports the claim that learners build their L2 grammars by abstracting not only the statistical properties but also the complex, polysemous meanings of the constructions they experience in usage.
Keywords: Frequency, cognitive-effects, L2 constructions
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Overpassivation and unaccusativity
- 2.1Unaccusatives as types of predicates
- 2.2Event construal of causation in unaccusative constructions
- 2.3L2 learning of unaccusatives as construction learning
- 3.Method
- 3.1Participants
- 3.2Corpus-based selection of target verbs
- 3.3Scaled acceptability judgment task
- 3.4Procedure
- 3.5Analyses
- 4.Results
- 5.Discussion
- 5.1Why did the availability of a conceptualizable agent make only a subtle difference?
- 5.2The importance of considering crosslinguistic influence
- 5.3Frequency is key to L2 learning, but is no panacea
- 5.4In defense of the centrality of discourse meaning in constructional learning
- 6.Conclusion
Note References
References (73)
Abdi, H. (2007). The Bonferroni and Šidák corrections for multiple comparisons. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (pp. 103–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alexiadou, A., & Doron, E. (2012). The syntactic construction of two non-active Voices: Passive and middle. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 1–34.
Ambridge, B. (2015). Island constraints and overgeneralization in language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 361–370.
Ambridge, B., Bidgood, A., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Freudenthal, D. (2015). Is passive syntax semantically constrained? Evidence from adult grammaticality judgment and comprehension studies. Cognitive science.
Ambridge, B., & Brandt, S. (2013). Lisa filled water into the cup: The roles of entrenchment, pre-emption and verb semantics in German speakers’ L2 acquisition of English locatives. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik: A Quarterly of Language, Literature and Culture, 61, 245–263.
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 42, 239–273.
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Jones, R. L., & Clark, V. (2009). A semantics-based approach to the “No Negative Evidence” problem. Cognitive Science, 33, 1301–1316.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J., Rowland, C., & Young, C. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgments of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106, 87–129
Armon-Lotem, S., Haman, E., Jensen de Lopez, K., Smoczynska, M., Yatsushiro, K., Szczerbinski, M., & Kamandulytė-Merfeldienė, L. (2016). A large-scale crosslinguistic investigation of the acquisition of passive. Language Acquisition, 23, 27–56.
Balcom, P. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research, 13, 1–9.
Bard, E., Robertson, B., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68.
Behrens, H., & Pfänder, S. (2016). Experience counts: Frequency effects in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Bowerman, M. (1974). Learning the structure of causative verbs: A study in the relationship of cognitive, semantic, and syntactic development. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 8, 142–178.
British National Corpus. (2007). BNC XML Edition, Version 3. Distributed by Oxford University computing services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: [URL]
Brooks, P. J., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K., & Lewis, L. B. (1999). Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development, 70, 1325–1337.
Cadierno, T. & Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Clahsen, H. (2006). Dual-mechanism morphology. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 4: Morphology, pp. 1–5). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
de Marneffe, M. C., Grimm, S., Arnon, I., Kirby, S., & and Bresnan, J. (2012). A statistical model of the grammatical choices in child production of dative sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 25–61.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–88.
(2015). Cognitive and social aspects of learning from usage. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 49–74). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
(2016). Online processing of Verb-Argument Constructions: Lexical decision and meaningfulness. Language and Cognition, 8, 391–420.
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2013). Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning, 63(Supplement 1: Currents in Language Learning), 25–51.
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 188–221.
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gao, Y. (2016). Investigating the impact of L1 morphology and semantics on L2 acquisition of English detransitivized constructions by Chinese and Korean learners. In L. Yu & T. Odlin (Eds.), New perspectives on transfer in second language learning (pp. 124–144). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In J. O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 17–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2016). Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 8, 369–390.
Gordon, P., & Chafetz, J. (1990). Verb-based versus class-based accounts of actionality effects in children’s comprehension of passives. Cognition, 36, 227–254.
Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Currents in Language Learning, 2, 228–255.
Han, Z. (2000). Persistence of the implicit influence of NL: The case of the pseudo-passive. Applied Linguistics, 21, 78–105.
(2006). Fossilization: Can grammaticality judgment be a reliable source of evidence? In Z. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 56–82). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hirakawa, M. (2001). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(2), 221–245.
Hubbard, P. L. (1994). Non-transformational theories of grammar: Implications for language teaching. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 49–71). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ju, M. (2000). Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 85–111.
Juff, A. (2001). Discussion: Verb classes, event structure, and second language learners’ knowledge of semantics-syntax correspondences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 305–313.
Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37–57.
Kondo, T. (2005). Overpassivization in second language acquisition. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 129–161.
Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lieven, E. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here? Language and Cognition, 8, 346–368.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd. Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
(2015). Multidimensional SLA. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 19–48). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
(2005). On knowledge and development of unaccusativity in Spanish L2 acquisition. Linguistics, 43, 1153–1190.
Nagano, T. (2015). Acquisition of English verb transitivity by native speakers of Japanese. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 322–355.
Ortega, L., Tyler, A., Park, H. I., & Uno, M. (Eds.). (2016). The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
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, 10, 293–324.
(2001). The unaccusative trap in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 279–304.
Paolillo, J. C. (2000). Asymmetries in Universal Grammar: The role of methods and statistics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 209–228.
Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 108–127.
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis (BLS No. 4). University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Ranta, L., & Meckelborg, A. (2013). How much exposure to English do international graduate students really get? Measuring language use in a naturalistic setting. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 1–33.
Reppen, R., Ide, N., & Suderman, K. (2005). American national corpus (ANC) second release. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Nonnative speakers do not take competing alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do. Language Learning, 66, 60–93.
Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9, 22–47.
(1995). Acquiring argument structures in a second language: The unaccusative/unergative distinction. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, and M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage (pp. 153–175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sorace, A. and Shomura, Y. (2001). Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity: Evidence from L2 Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 247–278.
Sprouse, J. (2011). A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language, 8, 274–288.
Theakston, A. L. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children’s and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development, 19, 15–34.
Theakston, A. L., Maslen, R., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2012). The acquisition of the active transitive construction in English: A detailed case study. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 91–128.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tomlin, R. S. (1983). On the interaction of syntactic subject, thematic information, and agent in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 411–432.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. Routledge
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77, 724–765.
Yip, V. (1995). Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical structures and ergativity. In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 203–221). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zyzik, E. (2006). Transitivity alternations and sequence learning: Insights from L2 Spanish production data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 449–485.
(2014). Causative verbs in the grammar of Spanish heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 1–33.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
