Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 5:3 (2015) ► pp.322–355

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Acquisition of English verb transitivity by native speakers of Japanese

 | The City University of New York (LaGuardia Community College)
Published online: 24 July 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.3.02nag
This study is concerned with native Japanese speakers’ acquisition of English lexical causativity. In Japanese, a large number of verbs, including those not participating in the causative alternation in English (e.g., kieru/kesu “disappear/be disappeared” and todoku/todokeru “deliver/be delivered”), are lexically causative, in addition to the prototypical causative verbs such as aku/akeru “open” and ugoku/ugokasu “move”. This asymmetric relationship forms a gap between the L1 and L2 and will cause overgeneralization errors in the L2 utterances. In this study, 44 native speakers of English and 60 Japanese ESL learners participated in the grammaticality judgment tasks in a series of experiments. The data show that the negative transfer exists in the inherently-directed motion verbs and verbs of disappearance, but it is conditioned by the frequency of verbs. The existence of frequency effect on verbs in the asymmetric relationship indicates that certain classes of verbs must be learned from the input.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Causative Alternation in English and Japanese
    • 2.1Causative Alternation in English
    • 2.2Lexical causativity in Japanese
    • 2.3Comparison of lexical causativity between English and Japanese
  • 3.Asymmetric relationship in SLA
  • 4.Frequency effect
    • 4.1Frequency effects on language acquisition
    • 4.2Frequency effects and Zipf’s Law
  • 5.Research questions
  • 6.Methodology of Experiment 1
    • 6.1Participants
    • 6.2English Proficiency
    • 6.3Stimuli
    • 6.4Research design
  • 7.Results of Experiment 1 (Mixed-design ANOVA)
  • 8.Methodology of Experiment 2
  • 9.Results of Experiment 2 (Analysis using the Mixed-effect Linear Model)
  • 10.Discussion
  • 11.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Appendix
  • References
References (54)
References
Ambridge, B., Pine, J.M., Rowland, C.F., & Young, C.R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (Entrenchment) on Children’s and Adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 1061, 87–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1996). CELEX2. language corpus.
Baayen, H.R. (2001). Word frequency distributions. New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, H.R., Davidson, D., & Bates, D.M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 390–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D. (2008). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using the lme4 package in R. Presentation at Potsdam GLMM workshop .
Bley-Vroman, R., & Yoshinaga, N. (1992). Broad and narrow constraints on the English dative alternation: Some fundamental differences between native speakers and foreign language learners. In University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 11 , Manoa, HI, 1992 (pp. 157–199). University of Hawaii.
Brooks, P.J., & Tomasello, M. (1999). How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language, 75(4), 720–738. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brooks, P.J., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K., & Lewis, L. (1999). Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development, 70(6), 1325–1337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brooks, P.J., & Zizak, O. (2002). Does preemption help children learn verb transitivity?. Journal of Child Language, 291, 759–781. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brooks, P.J. (2004). Grammatical competence is not a psychologically valid construct. Journal of Child Language, 31(2), 467–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Souza, R., Fernandez, E.M., & Guimaraes, M. (2012). Shared argument structure among builinguals: Evidence from setnence reading and recall. Talk given at the 2012 CUNY Sentence Processing Conference .
Ellis, N.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 241, 143–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd edition). London, UK: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. (1970). Three reasons for not deriving kill from cause to die. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 429–438.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forster, K.I., & Chambers, S.M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 121, 627–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forster, K.I., & Dickerson, L. (1976). More on the language-as-fixed effect: Monte-Carlo estimates of error rate for F1, F2, F’, and minF’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 151, 135–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gabriele, A. (2009). Transfer and transition in the L2 Acquisition of aspect. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 311, 371–402. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R.A. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 651, 203–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. (1991). Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41(1-3), 153–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2008). On the causative construction. In S. Miyagawa & M. Saito (Eds.), Handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp. 20–53). Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1993). More on the Typology of Inchoative/causative verb alternations. In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causatives and transitivity (pp. 87–120). New York, NY: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirakawa, M., & Suzuki, K. (2010). Learnability and modality restrictions on conditionals in L2 Japanese and English. In Proceedings of the Second language research Forum 2010 .
Inagaki, S. (1997). Japanese and Chinese learners’ acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alternation in English. Language Learning, 47(4), 637–669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001). Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 231, 153–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2002). Japanese learners’ acquisition of English manner-of-motion verbs with locational/directional PPs. Second Language Research, 18(1), 3–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Izumi, S., & Lakshmanan, U. (1998). Learnability, negative evidence and the L2 acquisition of the English passive. Second Language Research, 14(1), 62–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobsen, W.M. (1992). The transitive structure of events in Japanese. Tokyo, Japan: Kuroshio Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcus, M.P., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M.A. (1994). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 313–330.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (1998). Sase as an elsewhere causative and the syntactic nature of words. Journal of Japanese linguistics, 161, 67–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2002). Causatives. In N. Tsujimura (Ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp. 236–268). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2001a). Agentive verbs of manner of motion in Spanish and English as second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 231, 171–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001b). First-language-constrained variability in the second-language acquisition of argument-structure-changing morphology with causative verbs. Second Language Research, 17(2), 144–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001c). Causatives and transitivity in L2 English. Language Learning, 51(1), 51–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. Boston, Mass.: Viking Adult.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, J.G.W., Schrijnemakers, J.M.C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with ‘the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy’: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 411, 416–426. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reppen, R., Ide, N., & Suderman, K. (2005). American National Corpus (ANC) second release. LDC.
Schwartz, B.D., & Sprouse, R.A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full-transfer/full-access model. Second Language Research, 121, 40–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1972). Three reasons for not deriving kill from cause to die in Japanese. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 125–138). New York, NY: Seminar Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1976). Causativization. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 239–294). Boston, Mass.: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2004). The causative continuum. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation (pp. 85–126). Cambridge, Mass.: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsujimura, N. (2002). Japanese enter/exit verbs revisited. Studies in Language, 26(1), 165–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Why not all verbs are learned equally: The Intransitive Verb Bias in Japanese. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, 33(2), 105–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Markedness and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(3), 261–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2008). The great number crunch. Journal of Linguistics, 441, 205–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). Who’s afraid of George Kingsley Zipf?. manuscript.
Zipf, G.K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Differential Object Marking in Spanish-English Early Bilinguals.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ortega, Lourdes, Sang-Ki Lee & Munehiko Miyata
2018.  What is happened? Your amazon.com order has shipped . In Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 64], ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue