japanese and chinese learners’ acquisition of the narrow

Japanese and Chinese Learners’ Acquisition ofthe Narrow-Range Rules for the Dative

Alternation in English

Shunji InagakiMcGill UniversityInagaki

I investigated the acquisition of narrow-range rules gov-erning the dative alternation (Pinker, 1989) by adult L2learners of English: 32 English speakers, 32 Japanesespeakers and 32 Chinese speakers participated. I investi-gated 4 of Pinker’s narrow-range verb classes—the Throwclass, the Push class, the Tell class, and the Whisper class:Participants rated the acceptability of prepositional anddouble object datives containing both made-up and realverbs in these subclasses. Both Japanese and Chinesespeakers distinguished double object datives containingTell-class verbs from those with Whisper-class verbs, butfailed to distinguish double object datives containingThrow-class verbs from those with Push-class verbs. I sug-gest that Japanese and Chinese learners’acquisition of thedative alternation in English is governed by the propertiesof an equivalent structure in their L1 relative to the prop-erties of the target structure.

637

Language Learning 47:4, December 1997, pp. 637–669

This is an extensively revised version of Inagaki (1994, 1996). I would like tothank Robert Bley-Vroman, Kate Wolfe-Quintero, Richard Schmidt, WilliamO’Grady, Kevin Gregg, Naoko Yoshinaga, and Shu-chun Huang for theirhelpful comments at various stages of this research. Special thanks go toLydia White for her suggestions for revision. However, any remaining errorsare mine.

Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to the author atDepartment of Linguistics, McGill University, 1001 Sherbrooke Street West,Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1G5. Internet: [email protected]

In this article, I consider issues relating to the second lan-guage (L2) acquisition of English argument structure, particu-larly, the dative alternation. Second language argument structureis attracting increasing attention (Juffs, 1996a, 1996b; Sorace,1993, 1995; White et al., in press). The English dative alternationwas probably the first argument structure issue to receive atten-tion in the L2 literature. Early work on L2 acquisition of the Eng-lish dative alternation centered around the notion of markedness—whether defined in terms of the core/periphery distinction(Mazurkewich, 1984), learnability (White, 1987), “learning com-plexity” (Hawkins, 1987), or typology (Wolfe-Quintero, 1992)—aswell as how it could explain acquisition sequence or transfer fromthe L1 to the L2. These studies, although concerned with thedative alternation, did not look at the fine-grained verb classes onwhich the present paper focusses.

It is well-known that the dative alternation in English posesa learnability problem (e.g., Baker, 1979). The following sentencesillustrate this:

(1) John threw a ball to Mary.(2) John threw Mary a ball.(3) John pushed a ball to Mary.(4) *John pushed Mary a ball.(5) John told a secret to Mary.(6) John told Mary a secret.(7) John whispered a secret to Mary.(8) *John whispered Mary a secret.

Sentences (1), (3), (5), and (7) are called prepositional datives(PDs), whereas sentences such as (2), (4), (6), and (8) are doubleobject datives (DODs). The term “dative alternation” refers tothe alternation between the PD and the DOD. The term “dativelexical rule” refers to a rule which, given the PD, yields theDOD. Pinker and his colleagues (Gropen, Pinker, Hollander,Goldberg, & Wilson, 1989; Pinker, 1989), convincingly showedthat children, although generally conservative, apply the dativelexical rule productively and make overgeneralization errors,

638 Language Learning Vol. 47, No. 4

such as “I gon’ put me all dese rubber bands on” and “Jay saidme no” (Pinker, 1989, p. 21). This suggests a “learnability para-dox” in the acquisition of the dative alternation in English; chil-dren apparently would require negative evidence in order tounlearn the overgeneralizations.

Pinker’s Solution

Pinker’s solution to the learning paradox rests on theassumption that the dative alternation is an operation on under-lying semantic structures. According to Pinker (1989), the dativealternation is an alternation between the two “thematic cores”: “Xcauses Y to go to Z” (yielding the PD [X V Y to Z] in syntax) and “Xcauses Z to have Y” (yielding the DOD [X V Z Y] in syntax).

Semantic structures are projected to argument structures by“linking rules,” which map the agent (“X” in the thematic cores ofboth the PD and DOD) onto the subject, the theme (“Y” in the the-matic core of the PD) and the recipient or possessor (“Z” in the the-matic core of the DOD) onto the direct object, the possessed entity(“Y” in the thematic core of DOD) onto the second object, the goal(“Z” in the thematic core of the PD) onto the oblique argument, etc.Pinker (1989) argued that linking rules are properties of Univer-sal Grammar (UG), in the sense that every language in the worlduses them, and children need not learn them because they areinnate.

Then what do children learn? Pinker (1989) proposed thatthey learn the “broad-range rule” (BRR), which changes “X causesY to go to Z” to “X causes Z to have Y” when a given verb is cogni-tively compatible with causation of possession change. However,compatibility with the BRR is only a necessary, not a sufficient,condition for a verb to alternate, because the BRR still cannot ruleout “negative exceptions” like (4) and (8). One can certainly imag-ine an event in which pushing a ball to somebody results in thatperson’s possessing the ball, or one in which whispering a secret tosomebody results in that person’s “possessing” or knowing thesecret. Yet sentences like (4) and (8) are not acceptable.

Inagaki 639

To solve this problem, Pinker proposed “narrow-range rules”(NRRs), whose application poses a sufficient condition for a verb toalternate. According to Pinker, there are 10 or so subclasses ofverbs (“narrow-range verb classes”), some of them dativizable(able to alternate) and others nondativizable (unable to alter-nate); a sufficient condition for a verb to alternate is membershipin one of the dativizable subclasses of verbs.1

How do NRRs solve the particular cases of Sentences (1)–(8)?Example (2) is possible because throw belongs to the dativizablenarrow-range verb class “verbs of instantaneous causation of bal-listic motion,” whereas (4) is not possible because push belongs tothe nondativizable narrow-range verb class “verbs of continuouscausation of accompanied motion in some manner.” The differencebetween Throw-class verbs and Push-class verbs lies in tempo-ral/aspectual properties: Throw-class verbs signify an instantane-ous causing event which precedes the motion of the object,whereas Push-class verbs signify a continuous causing eventwhich temporarily accompanies the motion of the object (seePinker, 1989, p. 218 for details).

As for Sentences (5)–(8), (6) is possible because tell belongs tothe dativizable narrow-range verb class “verbs of type of commu-nicated message,” whereas (8) is not possible because whisperbelongs to the nondativizable narrow-range verb class “verbs ofmanner of speaking.” The difference between Tell-class verbs andWhisper-class verbs lies in the lack/presence of a manner of speak-ing: Tell-class verbs do not specify any manner of speaking,whereas Whisper-class verbs have certain manners of speaking(e.g., “in a whispering manner” in the case of whisper; see Pinker,1989, p. 215 for details).2

Bley-Vroman and Yoshinaga’s Study

Yoshinaga (1991) and Bley-Vroman and Yoshinaga (1992)3

looked at the L2 acquisition of the NRRs for the English dativealternation based on Pinker’s theory. They tested Bley-Vroman’s(1989, 1990) Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH) that


adult L2 learners lose their ability to access UG and that thosewho start to learn an L2 as adults have available only the proper-ties of UG that are instantiated in their L1. Specifically, based onthe FDH, B & Y (Bley-Vroman & Yoshinga, 1992; Yoshinga, 1991)predicted that adult L2 learners will successfully form narrow-range verb classes where relevant distinctions are available intheir L1, but will fail to do so where relevant distinctions are notavailable in their L1.

To test this prediction, B & Y tested 85 native speakers (NSs)of English and 85 Japanese adult learners of English as a secondlanguage. They used a questionnaire containing 12 short para-graphs with pictures, each of which was designed to provide themeaning of a verb belonging to one of Pinker’s narrow-rangeclasses. The 12 verbs consisted of an equal number of real andmade-up verbs, half of which belonged to dativizable narrow-range verb classes (Tell, Throw and Send) and half to nonda-tivizable ones (Whisper and Push).

Each paragraph was followed by 2 simple sentences, whoseacceptability the participants rated on a 7-point Likert scale. Thesentences consisted of a PD and a DOD, both containing the verbjust introduced by the preceding paragraph and picture. The ideawas that if the learners knew the relevant narrow-range verbclasses, they would, given a PD, apply the NRR and accept the cor-responding DOD if the verb belonged to a dativizable subclass butnot if it belonged to a nondativizable subclass.

B & Y found that with real verbs both native and Japanesespeakers rated the DODs containing dativizable verbs signifi-cantly higher than those containing nondativizable verbs. Withmade-up verbs, however, the Japanese speakers’ ability to distin-guish dativizable verbs from nondativizable verbs almost disap-peared; the NSs could still distinguish between the dativizableand nondativizable verbs at a statistically significant level, al-though the distinction was less clear than with real verbs.

B & Y claimed that the Japanese speakers, when presentedwith PDs containing made-up verbs, could not distinguish the

Inagaki 641

grammaticality of the corresponding DODs depending on a par-ticular narrow-range verb class because narrow-range verbclasses were grammatically irrelevant in Japanese. That is,according to B & Y’s analysis, Japanese has only one dative con-struction, corresponding to the DOD in English; therefore, thereare no narrow-range dativizable verb classes in Japanese.

The Present Study

The present study expands on B & Y’s study, but differs fromit in three important ways:

1. This study examines the effects of specific narrow-rangeverb classes, whereas B & Y collapsed narrow-range verb classesinto dativizable and nondativizable classes.

2. This study rests on an analysis of the dative construction inJapanese which differs from that presented in B & Y’s study.

3. This study included Chinese adult learners of English aswell as Japanese adult learners of English.

As for the first point, this study focuses on four of Pinker’s(1989) narrow-range verb classes: “verbs of instantaneous causa-tion of ballistic motion” (the Throw class), “verbs of continuouscausation of accompanied motion in some manner” (the Pushclass), “verbs of type of communicated message” (the Tell class),and “verbs of manner of speaking” (the Whisper class). Thus, itexamines sensitivity to specific narrow-range constraints. Theimportance of this will become clear in light of the analyses of thedative constructions in Japanese and Chinese provided below.

Regarding the second point, although B & Y were right inclaiming that Japanese has only one dative construction, theDOD, it does not necessarily follow that the narrow-range con-straints are irrelevant in Japanese. On the contrary, narrow-range constraints are relevant for the occurrence of the Japanesedative construction, but Japanese differs from English in terms ofhow the narrow-range verb classes are delineated in relation totheir ability to occur in the DOD construction.


As B & Y argued, Japanese has only one dative construction,NP-ni NP-o V, exemplified in (9):

(9) John-ga Mary-ni hon-o atae-ta.John-Nom Mary-to/Dat book-Acc give-Pst4

“John gave a book to Mary.” or “John gave Mary abook.”

The issue here is whether the particle ni attached to the sec-ond NP is a postposition or a dative Case-marker. If ni is apostposition, the construction is similar to the PD in English; ifni is a dative Case-marker, the construction is similar to theDOD in English. B & Y argued that it is DOD (Bley-Vroman &Yoshinaga, 1992, pp. 170–174).

However, the fact that Japanese has only one dative con-struction does not imply the irrelevance of the narrow-range con-straints in Japanese; Pinker’s theory allows for the possibilitythat particular constraints apply directly to a single argumentstructure (Pinker, 1989, pp. 65–67).

I now focus on the four narrow-range verb classes investi-gated in the present study: Push, Throw, Tell, and Whisper.

Previously, I argued (Inagaki, 1993) that in Japanese, thesubclass “verbs of continuous causation of accompanied motion” isthe only narrow-range verb class that does not allow the NP-niNP-o V construction. This is shown in (10):5

(10) *John-ga Mary-ni hako-o osi-ta/hakon-da/hii-ta/age-ta.John-Nom Mary-Dat box-Acc push/carry/pull/lift-Pst“John pushed/carried/pulled/lifted a box to Mary.”

On the other hand, Throw-class verbs are perfectly naturalin the NP-ni NP-o V construction in Japanese, as shown in (11):

(11) John-ga Mary-ni booru-o nage-ta/ket-ta.John-Nom Mary-Dat ball-Acc throw/kick-Pst“John threw/kicked Mary a ball.”

The contrast between (10) and (11) suggests that just as inEnglish, the Throw class and the Push class in Japanese are

Inagaki 643

delineated in relation to the ability to occur in the DOD construc-tion. This is a counter-example to B & Y’s claim, and evidence forthe direct application of the narrow-range constraints to the DODconstruction in Japanese.

I also (Inagaki, 1993) found that both Tell-class verbs andWhisper-class verbs can occur in the NP-ni NP-o V construction,as shown in (12) and (13), respectively:

(12) John-ga Mary-ni nanika-o hanasi-ta/osie-ta/kai-ta.John-Nom Mary-Dat something-Acc tell/teach/write-

Pst“John told/taught/wrote Mary something.”

(13) John-ga Mary-ni nanika-o sasayai-ta/saken-da.John-Nom Mary-Dat something-Acc whisper/shout-Pst“John whispered/shouted something to Mary.”

This suggests that unlike in English, the Tell class and theWhisper class are not delineated in Japanese in relation to theability to occur in the DOD construction.

With respect to the third point, I included Chinese speakersin the present study because the dative construction in Chinese,as analyzed by Huang (1994), allows interesting predictions aboutthe acquisition of the NRRs by Chinese adult learners of Englishas compared to their Japanese counterparts.

Huang (1994), expanding on previous studies on the dativeconstruction in Chinese by Li and Thompson (1981) and Wolfe-Quintero (1992), examined verbs in Chinese within the frame-work of Pinker’s (1989) narrow-range verb classes. As she pointedout, Chinese has a dative alternation similar to that in English, asshown in (14) and (15):

(14) John sòng yi-du6o hua ge

6i Mary.

John give a flower to Mary“John gave a flower to Mary.”

(15) John sòng Mary yi-du6o hua.

John give Mary a flower“John gave Mary a flower.”


However, Huang found some differences between Chinese andEnglish in terms of how the narrow-range verb classes weredelineated in relation to dativizability. In Chinese, neither theThrow class nor the Push class allows the DOD construction,although they both allow the PD construction. Sentences(16)–(19) illustrate this:

(16) John diu / ti yi-ge qiú ge6i Mary.

John throw/kick a ball to Mary“John threw/kicked a ball to Mary.”

(17) *John diu / ti Mary yi-ge qiú.John throw/kick Mary a ball“John threw/kicked Mary a ball.”

(18) John tui / yùn yi-ge xiangzi ge6i Mary.

John push/carry a box to Mary“John pushed/carried a box to Mary.”

(19) *John tui / yùn Mary yi-ge xiangzi.John push/carry Mary a box“John pushed/carried Mary a box.”

This suggests that, unlike English, Chinese does not delineatethe Throw class and the Push class in relation to dativizability.

Further, Huang (1994) found that in Chinese, the Tell classallows the DOD construction, but not the PD construction, asshown in (20) and (21):

(20) *John gàosù yi-ge gùshì ge6i Mary.

John tell a story to Mary“John told a story to Mary.”*John jiao shùxúe ge

6i Mary.6

John teach mathematics to Mary“John taught mathematics to Mary.”

(21) John gàosù Mary yi-ge gùshì.John tell Mary a story“John told Mary a story.”

Inagaki 645

John jiao Mary shùxúe.John teach Mary mathematics“John taught Mary mathematics.”

This is further evidence that the narrow-range constraints canapply directly to the DODs even when the corresponding PDsare ungrammatical.

On the other hand, Whisper-class verbs can only occur in thePD construction in Chinese, as shown in (22) and (23):

(22) John xia6o-sheng-shuo/ha

6n yi-ge mìmì ge

6i Mary ting

John soft-voice-say/shout a secret to Mary hear“John whispered/shouted a secret to Mary.”

(23) *John xia6o-sheng-shuo/ha

6n Mary (ting) yi-ge mìmì

John soft-voice-say/shout Mary (hear) a secret“John whispered/shouted Mary a secret.”

The contrast between (21) and (23) suggests that, just as inEnglish, the Tell class and the Whisper class are delineated in Chi-nese in relation to their ability to occur in the DOD construction.

To summarize, Table 1 shows whether or not each of the fournarrow-range verb classes—Throw, Push, Tell, and Whisper—allows the DOD construction in English, Japanese and Chinese.


Table 1

Verb Classes and Their Occurrence in the DOD Construction inEnglish, Japanese and Chinese

Throwclass

Pushclass

Tellclass

Whisperclass

English Yes No Yes NoJapanese Yes No Yes YesChinese No No Yes No

Note: Yes: DOD allowed; No: DOD not allowed

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The present study investigates the acquisition of NRRs forthe dative alternation by Japanese speaking and Chinese speak-ing adult learners of English. Specifically, I formulated the follow-ing 4 hypotheses:

1. English NSs will distinguish the DODs containing Throw-class verbs from those containing Push-class verbs, and the DODscontaining Tell-class verbs from those containing Whisper-classverbs.

2. Japanese adult learners of English will distinguish theDODs containing Throw-class verbs from those containing Push-class verbs, but not the DODs containing Tell-class verbs fromthose containing Whisper-class verbs.

3. Chinese adult learners of English will distinguish the DODscontaining Tell-class verbs from those containing Whisper-classverbs, but not the DODs containing Throw-class verbs from thosecontaining Push-class verbs.

4. Where speakers can distinguish DODs appropriately, bothNSs and Japanese and Chinese adult learners of English will per-form better when real verbs are used.

Hypothesis 1 follows from Pinker’s (1989) theory. Hypothe-ses 2 and 3 are based on the FDH, assuming the analysis of verbclasses and their occurrence in the DOD construction in English,Japanese and Chinese summarized in Table 1. Hypothesis 4comes from B & Y’s finding that both English NSs and Japaneseadult learners of English distinguished between dativizable andnondativizable verbs more clearly when real verbs were used.7

Inagaki 647

Method

Participants

This study compared 3 language groups, whose biodata aresummarized in Table 2.8 The participants were either under-graduates, graduates, or visiting scholars at the University of Ha-waii. The Japanese speakers consisted of 7 undergraduates and25 graduates; the Chinese participants, all Mandarin speakers,consisted of 3 undergraduates, 27 graduates, and 2 visiting schol-ars; the English speakers consisted of 11 undergraduates and 21graduates.

There were two requirements for the nonnative (NNS) par-ticipants: (a) high proficiency in English, and (b) arrival in theU.S. (or any other English-speaking country) as adults. High pro-ficiency was required for comparability to B & Y’s study, whoseJapanese participants were highly advanced (TOEFL: M = 579.4,


Table 2

Biodata Summary of Participants

Japanese(n=32)

Chinese(n=32)

English(n=32)

AgeRange 22–43 18–42 18–45M 29.61 28.33 28.00SD 5.18 5.41 8.00

TOEFL scoreRange 508–650 500–650 —M 574.89 566.83 —SD 33.48 37.82 —

Age on arrival in the U.S.Range 17–40 14–42 —M 25.56 26.19 —SD 5.50 5.69 —

SD = 40.9). Arrival as adults was required because of the study’srelevance to the FDH.

Materials

Verb classes. I chose 4 narrow-range verb classes for thisstudy: Throw, Push, Tell, and Whisper. I created 2 made-up verbsfor each verb class (Part 1), and chose 2 real verbs from each (Part2). Thus, there were 8 verbs in each part. Table 3 shows how themade-up verbs in Part 1 and the real verbs in Part 2 correspondedto each narrow-range verb class.

I used a written questionnaire, consisting of 2 parts. Part 1was a modification of B & Y’s questionnaire. Following instruc-tions and one example question, it presented 8 paragraphs withpictures (see Appendix A for an example). Each paragraph con-tained one made-up verb. The context of the paragraph and thepicture provided the meaning of the made-up verb so that itwould, in grammatically relevant terms, be identical to the se-mantic representation of a verb in a particular narrow-range sub-class. Each paragraph contained a test verb in the PD

Inagaki 649

Table 3

Made-Up and Real Verbs Corresponding to Each Verb Class

Verb class Part 1 Part 2

Throw japenorp

kickthrow

Tell moopgomp

teachtell

Push tonkpell

pushcarry

Whisper feendoak

whispershout

Note: Made-up verbs were counterbalanced across paragraphs and participants.

construction. Two sentences followed each paragraph, using themade-up verb, one in the PD construction and the other in theDOD construction. Before each sentence was a 7-point Likertscale with the numbers −3 (completely impossible in English)through 0 (unable to decide) to 3 (completely possible in English).The instructions asked the participants to read the paragraphand look at the picture to understand the meaning of the newword and then to decide on the acceptability of each of the follow-ing 2 sentences by circling one of the numbers.

If the person knew a particular narrow-range verb class andwhether or not it allowed the DOD construction, when presentedwith a novel verb in that narrow-range verb class occurring in thePD construction, the person should correctly accept or reject thecorresponding DOD, depending on the narrow-range verb class.In other words, the successful learner would allow the applicationof the NRR only when the made-up verb belonged to one of thedativizable narrow-range subclasses.

I asked the participants to rate the sentences from intuition,rather than conscious knowledge. They were also told not to try tosubstitute a real word for the new one but to try to learn the newword’s meaning. This was an attempt to avoid the “code” problem(Bley-Vroman & Yoshinaga, 1992): Using made-up verbs to exam-ine the productivity of the NRRs controls for a possible frequencyeffect; however, if participants simply substitute a real word forthe new one and see the made-up verb as code for a real verb, thisdefeats the purpose of using made-up verbs.

I randomly ordered the 8 paragraphs. To control for a possi-ble effect of morphophonology (see Note 2), I used monosyllabicverbs, further counterbalancing them across paragraphs and par-ticipants, obtaining a total of 8 versions of the questionnaire. Fourparticipants in each language group filled out each version of thequestionnaire.

Whereas B & Y presented real and made-up verbs randomlyacross the paragraphs, I presented only made-up verbs in Part 1,saving all real verbs for Part 2. If real and made-up verbs were


presented together, participants might be led to see the made-upverbs as codes for the real verbs.

Between Part 1 and Part 2, there were 2 questions on onepage, with space for a written answer. The questions were:

1. Were there any strategies that you used for the rating of thesentences? If there were, what kinds? Please give examples ifpossible.

2. Did you find any principles which determined the accept-ability of the sentences? If you did, what kinds?

The purpose of the first question was to check whether the“code” problem had occurred. The second was to see to whatextent the participants were aware of the NRRs.

Part 2, following instructions and 2 example questions, ran-domly presented 8 pairs of sentences without pictures and para-graphs. One real verb in English was used for each pair. Each pairconsistedofonesentence inthePDconstructionandone intheDODconstruction. As in Part 1, there was a 7-point Likert scale beforeeachsentence.The instructions,as inPart1,askedtheparticipantstodecideontheacceptabilityofeachsentencebycirclingoneof the7numbersandtoconcentrateonhowtheyfeltaboutthesentences.

Administration. I distributed the questionnaire to the par-ticipants during the summer session and the fall semester of 1994at the University of Hawaii. There was no time limit for complet-ing it. This made sure that the participants could figure out themeaning of the made-up verbs. Roughly speaking, it took the Eng-lish speakers about 20 minutes, and the Japanese and Chinesespeakers about 30 minutes, to finish the questionnaire.

Analyses

I conducted a 4-way repeated measures ANOVA. The designincluded one between-subject factor (language), which had 3 lev-els (native (NS)/Japanese (JPN)/Chinese (CHN)) and 3 within-subject factors (construction, authenticity, and verb class).

Inagaki 651

Construction had 2 levels (PD/DOD), and so did authenticity(made-up verbs (MU)/real verbs (REAL)). Verb class had 4 levels(Throw class/Push class/Tell class/Whisper class).

As pointed out before, one of the problems with B & Y’s studywas that they collapsed verb classes into dativizable and nonda-tivizable classes. As a solution to this problem, I included verbclass as a factor and examined the effect of specific narrow-rangeverb classes. I used planned comparisons to determine which pairsof means were significantly different. I used the SuperANOVA(1989) software for the analysis, setting the alpha level at 0.05.

Results

Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of theratings of the PDs and the DODs by the NSs, Japanese, and Chi-nese speakers for the different conditions.

Table 4 indicates that overall, the PDs were consistentlyrated high compared to the DODs, as indicated by the significantmain effect of construction—F (1, 93) = 526.56, p = 0.0001—withthe exception of Chinese speakers’ low mean rating of the PDs con-taining real Tell verbs (1.84) compared to their high mean ratingof the corresponding DODs (2.64). (I will return to this exceptionlater.) The high ratings of the PDs containing made-up verbs areperhaps due to the fact that the PD sentences were given in theparagraphs. In fact, in answering the first question between Part1 and Part 2, 3 native speakers, 3 Japanese speakers, and one Chi-nese speaker reported that they accepted the PD sentence becausethe construction was used in the paragraph.

There was a significant 2-way interaction between construc-tion and verb class, F (3, 279) = 99.37, p = 0.0001, reflecting thefact that within the DODs the ratings varied depending on theverb class, as Pinker’s (1989) theory predicts. There was also a sig-nificant 3-way interaction between construction, verb class, andlanguage, F (6, 279) = 7.25, p = 0.0001, indicating that the effect ofverb class on the ratings of the DODs varied depending on the lan-guage group, as expected under Hypotheses 1 through 3.


Inagaki 653

Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings of PDs and DODs byNSs, Japanese and Chinese Speakers

MU REAL M

PDNS

Throw class 2.67 (0.73) 2.86 (0.41) 2.77 (0.59)Push class 2.72 (0.57) 2.91 (0.30) 2.81 (0.46)Tell class 2.75 (0.55) 2.88 (0.31) 2.81 (0.45)Whisper class 2.55 (0.81) 2.83 (0.47) 2.69 (0.67)mean 2.67 (0.67) 2.87 (0.37) 2.77 (0.55)

JPNThrow class 2.48 (0.79) 2.72 (0.52) 2.60 (0.67)Push class 2.38 (0.98) 2.69 (0.67) 2.53 (0.85)Tell class 2.44 (1.01) 2.69 (0.59) 2.56 (0.83)Whisper class 2.02 (1.14) 2.56 (0.69) 2.29 (0.98)mean 2.33 (0.99) 2.66 (0.62) 2.50 (0.84)

CHNThrow class 2.67 (0.63) 2.94 (0.17) 2.81 (0.48)Push class 2.67 (0.74) 2.91 (0.27) 2.79 (0.56)Tell class 2.48 (0.84) 1.84 (1.62) 2.16 (1.32)Whisper class 2.27 (1.12) 2.50 (0.82) 2.38 (0.98)mean 2.52 (0.86) 2.55 (1.01) 2.54 (0.94)

DODNS

Throw class 1.77 (1.19) 1.41 (1.38) 1.59 (1.29)Push class 0.91 (1.80) −0.72 (2.16) 0.09 (2.14)Tell class 2.03 (1.16) 2.78 (0.38) 2.41 (0.93)Whisper class 0.19 (1.86) −0.53 (1.87) −0.17 (1.88)mean 1.22 (1.69) 0.73 (2.14) 0.98 (1.94)

JPNThrow class −0.11 (1.71) −1.77 (1.18) −0.94 (1.68)Push class −0.19 (1.49) −2.09 (1.11) −1.14 (1.62)Tell class 0.91 (1.60) 2.19 (1.34) 1.55 (1.60)Whisper class −0.55 (1.74) −0.73 (1.86) −0.64 (1.79)mean 0.02 (1.71) −0.60 (2.19) −0.29 (1.98)

CHNThrow class 0.55 (2.00) −0.81 (1.85) −0.13 (2.03)Push class 0.22 (1.73) −1.28 (1.60) −0.53 (1.82)Tell class 1.38 (1.37) 2.64 (0.81) 2.01 (1.28)Whisper class 0.45 (1.84) −0.11 (2.01) −0.28 (1.92)mean 0.42 (1.85) 0.11 (2.22) 0.27 (2.05)

Note: M (SD)

In addition, there was a significant 3-way interactionbetween construction, verb class, and authenticity (F (3, 279) =43.87, p = 0.0001). This is consistent with Hypothesis 4, whichexpected a stronger effect of verb class on the ratings of the DODswhen the verbs are real. However, there was also a 4-way interac-tion between construction, verb class, authenticity, and language,not expected under Hypothesis 4.

Thus, the result of the ANOVA, in general, seems consistentwith the hypotheses; however, closer analysis of the ratings of theDODs is required to test the hypotheses more directly. For thispurpose, Figures 1 through 3 visually represent the mean ratingsof the DODs under different conditions for each language group.

Figure 1 indicates that the English NSs distinguished theDODs containing Throw-class verbs from those containing Push-class verbs, and the DODs containing Tell-class verbs from thosecontaining Whisper-class verbs, both when the verbs were real


Figure 1. Mean ratings of the DODs—native speakers

and when they were made-up. This supports Hypothesis 1. Figure2 indicates that the Japanese learners distinguished the DODscontaining Tell-class verbs from those containing Whisper-classverbs, but not the DODs containing Throw-class verbs from thosecontaining Push-class verbs, both when the verbs were real andwhen they were made-up. This runs counter to Hypothesis 2,which predicted that Japanese speakers would distinguish theDODs containing Throw-class verbs from those with Push-classverbs, but not the DODs containing Tell-class verbs from thosewith Whisper-class verbs. Figure 3 indicates that the Chineselearners, just like their Japanese counterparts, distinguished theDODs containing Tell-class verbs from those containing Whisper-class verbs, but not the DODs containing Throw-class verbs fromthose containing Push-class verbs, both when the verbs were realand when they were made-up, supporting Hypothesis 3.

Inagaki 655

Figure 2. Mean ratings of the DODs—Japanese speakers

Planned comparisons of the ratings of the DODs containingThrow-class verbs to those containing Push-class verbs, and of theratings of the DODs containing Tell-class verbs to those contain-ing Whisper-class verbs, for real and made-up verbs in the NSs,Japanese, and Chinese speakers, indeed confirm these results.The results appear in Table 5.9

However, Figure 1 also indicates that the English NSs distin-guished the DODs containing Tell-class verbs from those contain-ing Whisper-class verbs more strongly than the DODs containingThrow-class verbs from those containing Push-class verbs, bothwhen the verbs were real and when they were made-up. This, aswell as the results for the Japanese and Chinese speakers, revealsa general asymmetry between the Throw class and Push classes,on the one hand, and the Tell class and Whisper classes, on theother; that is, all 3 language groups differentiated between the


Figure 3. Mean ratings of the DODs—Chinese speakers

DODs containing Tell-class verbs and those containing Whisper-class verbs more clearly than between the DODs containingThrow-class verbs and those containing Push-class verbs, for bothreal and made-up verbs.

In addition, Figures 1 to 3 indicate that all 3 language groupsbetter distinguished the DODs containing Tell-class verbs fromthose containing Whisper-class verbs when the verbs were real;but, that only the English NSs better distinguished the DODscontaining Throw-class verbs from those containing Push-classverbs when the verbs were real. The former supports Hypothesis4, but the latter does not. In fact, the latter seems to have causedthe above-mentioned unexpected 4-way interaction between con-struction, verb class, authenticity, and language.

Twenty-seven NSs, 30 Japanese and 26 Chinese speakersresponded to the 2 questions between Part 1 and Part 2. Inanswering the first question, 8 (30%) of the NSs, 6 (20%) of the

Inagaki 657

Table 5

Results of Planned Comparisons

REAL MU

F P F P

Throw vs. Push classNS 63.94* 0.0001 10.46* 0.001JPN 1.25 n.s. 0.07 n.s.CHN 1.77 n.s. 0.87 n.s.

Tell vs. Whisper classNS 155.38* 0.0001 48.14* 0.0001JPN 99.18* 0.0001 24.53* 0.0001CHN 60.75* 0.0001 26.85* 0.0001*Statistically significant at 0.05; all df = 1, 31

Japanese speakers and 4 (15%) of the Chinese speakers reportedthat they substituted an English word for the made-up word. Thissuggests that some participants used a substitution strategy,despite the instruction not to do so; thus, the code problem was notentirely resolved. Furthermore, 3 (12%) of the Chinese speakersreported that they substituted a Chinese word for the made-upword, whereas no Japanese speakers reported that they substi-tuted a Japanese word for the made-up word.

In answering the second question, 10 (37%) of the NSs, 11(37%) of the Japanese speakers and 11 (42%) of the Chinese speak-ers reported that they did not find any principles. Two principleswere most frequently reported by the 3 language groups: (a) therewere fewer contexts for the DOD to be acceptable than for the PD;(b) there seemed to be a distinction between movement of a physi-cal object and communication of a message. Only one participant,a NS, described a narrow-range constraint fairly accurately; sheimplied that in English, verbs involving a manner of speakingcould not occur in the DOD construction. All of these suggest, notsurprisingly, that the participants’ awareness level of the NRRswas low.

Discussion

There are three possible interpretations of the results, thefirst based on the FDH, the second on “selective access to UG,” andthe third on the frequency of the DODs in the input.

Fundamental Difference Hypothesis

The FDH correctly predicted that the Chinese learners woulddistinguish the DODs containing Tell-class verbs from those con-taining Whisper-class verbs—due to the existence of such a dis-tinction in Chinese—but not the DODs containing Throw-classverbs from those containing Push-class verbs, because Chineselacks this distinction. Chinese speakers’ reliance on their L1 is cor-roborated by their low rating of the PDs containing real Tell-class


verbs and high rating of the corresponding DODs, which reflectsthe fact that in Chinese Tell-class verbs can occur only in the DODconstruction. That some Chinese speakers reported using an L1-based substitution strategy in rating sentences containing made-up verbs also seems to indicate their reliance on the L1.

However, contrary to the prediction by the FDH, the Japa-nese learners distinguished the DODs containing Tell-class verbsfrom those containing Whisper-class verbs despite the lack of sucha distinction in Japanese, but not the DODs containing Throw-class verbs from those containing Push-class verbs, despite theexistence of such a distinction in Japanese. These results suggestthat the FDH cannot account for the data.

Selective Access to UG

The second possible interpretation may be called “selectiveaccess to UG,” as I have suggested elsewhere (Inagaki, 1994). Itstates that some properties of UG can be accessed by adult L2learners but others cannot; or, alternatively, some properties ofUG are more or less easy for adult L2 learners to access than oth-ers. Applied to the present case, it states that adult L2 learnerscan access the distinction between the Tell class and the Whisperclass verbs, but not the distinction between the Throw class andthe Push class ones—or that the former is easier for adult L2learners to access than the latter. I speculated that the differencebetween the Throw class and the Push class (i.e., “instantaneouscausation of ballistic motion” vs. “continuous causation of accom-panied motion”) might be subtler and thus harder to access thanthe difference between the Tell class and the Whisper class (i.e.,“type of communicated message” vs. “manner of speaking”).

This notion seems to explain why both Japanese and Chinesespeakers distinguished the DODs containing Tell-class verbs fromthose containing Whisper-class verbs, but not the DODs contain-ing Throw-class verbs from those containing Push-class verbs. Itmight also explain why even NSs distinguished the DODs con-taining Tell-class verbs from those containing Whisper-class

Inagaki 659

verbs more strongly than they did the DODs containing Throw-class verbs from those containing Push-class verbs.

However, there are reasons this interpretation alone is insuf-ficient. First, it provides no explanation as to what determines theaccessibility or the degree of accessibility of UG to adult L2 learn-ers, rendering this explanation ad hoc. Making available the pos-sibility that access to UG is “selective” without any theoreticalrationale would rob a UG account of L2 acquisition of most of itsexplanatory power.

Frequency

Athird possible interpretation is that adult L2 learners judgethe acceptability of DODs according to how often they have actu-ally heard particular verbs occurring in the DOD construction ex-emplified in the input. That the DODs containing Tell-class verbswere more frequent in the input than the DODs containingThrow-class verbs could explain why the Japanese and Chineselearners distinguished the DODs containing real Tell-class verbsfrom those containing real Whisper-class verbs and why neitherdistinguished the DODs containing real Throw-class verbs fromthose containing real Push-class verbs. In addition, the fact thatthe English NSs showed a stronger distinction between DODs con-taining real Tell/Whisper-class verbs than between DODs contain-ing real Throw/Push-class verbs is consistent with the assumptionthat the DODs containing Tell-class verbs were more frequent inthe input than the DODs containing Throw-class verbs.10

However, it is not clear how the frequency interpretation canexplain why the Japanese and Chinese learners distinguished theDODs containing made-up Tell-class verbs from those containingmade-up Whisper-class verbs when I had used made-up verbs pre-cisely to control for this “frequency effect.”

One plausible argument appeals to the fact that some of theJapanese and Chinese learners reported substituting Englishverbs for the made-up verbs in rating test sentences containingmade-up verbs. This might in turn account for the fact that both


sets of learners distinguished the DODs containing Tell-classverbs from those containing Whisper-class verbs even when theverbs were made-up, though less clearly than when the verbs werereal. It might also explain why Japanese and Chinese speakersdid not distinguish the DODs containing made-up Throw-classverbs from those containing made-up Push-class verbs; obviously,substitution would not help when they could not even distinguishthe DODs containing real Throw-class verbs from those contain-ing real Push-class verbs. Likewise, the fact that the NSs distin-guished the DODs containing made-up Tell-class verbs from thosecontaining made-up Whisper-class verbs more strongly than theDODs containing made-up Throw-class verbs from those contain-ing made-up Push-class verbs might also be due to “washover”(Bley-Vroman & Yoshinaga, 1992, p. 193) from ratings of theDODs with real verbs to ratings of the DODs with made-up ones,because some NSs also reported using a substitution strategy.

In sum, the results for the Japanese learners are inconsis-tent with the FDH and can most plausibly be explained by the fre-quency interpretation, whereas the results for the Chineselearners can be handled by either the frequency interpretation orthe FDH. However, Chinese speakers’ reliance on their L1—evi-denced by their low rating of the PDs containing real Tell-classverbs and high rating of the corresponding DODs as well as bytheir reported L1-based substitution strategy in rating sentencescontaining made-up verbs—suggests the FDH as a more plausibleinterpretation.

Why two separate interpretations for the results from Japa-nese and Chinese learners when a single interpretation would bemore elegant? Due to the existence of a dative alternation in Chi-nese similar to that in English, Chinese learners of English couldoften identify the DOD in Chinese as equivalent to the DOD inEnglish and thus incorporate its properties into their interlan-guage grammar; on the other hand, due to the lack of a dative al-ternation in Japanese, Japanese learners of English may often failto do so. This in turn would result in their relying on the frequencyof particular verbs occurring in the DOD construction in English

Inagaki 661

in constructing their interlanguage grammar. Further, one couldargue that, in addition to the facts about dative alternation itself,the fact that Chinese and English share the basic SVO word ordermay serve to facilitate transfer from Chinese to English, whereasthe fact that Japanese, unlike English, is an SOV language mayserve to prevent transfer from Japanese to English.11

Summary and Implications

The main findings can be summarized as follows:

1. Japanese learners of English distinguished the DODs con-taining Tell-class verbs from those with Whisper-class verbs,despite the fact that these 2 verb classes are not distinct withrespect to their ability to occur in the DOD construction in Japa-nese; they failed to distinguish the DODs containing Throw-classverbs from those with Push-class verbs, despite the fact that these2 verb classes are distinct with respect to their ability to occur inthe DOD in Japanese.

2. Chinese learners of English distinguished the DODs con-taining Tell-class verbs from those with Whisper-class verbs, aspredicted by the fact that these 2 verb classes are distinct withrespect to dativizability in Chinese; they failed to distinguish theDODs containing Throw-class verbs from those with Push-classverbs, as predicted by the fact that these 2 verb classes are not dis-tinct with respect to dativizability in Chinese.

I argued (a) that the unexpected result for the Japanese speak-ers stems from their reliance on the frequency of a particularverb occurring in the DOD construction, triggered by the lackof a dative alternation in Japanese; and (b) that the Chinesespeakers’ results would depend on transfer from the L1 (aspredicted in the FDH) triggered by the existence of a dative al-ternation in Chinese.

In general, the results suggest that the acquisition of thedative alternation in English by adult L2 learners is governed by


the properties of an equivalent structure in the L1 relative to theproperties of the target structure. This study provides anothercase where simple (construction-specific) comparison of L1 and L2may not be sufficient to predict what will be transferred from L1and L2; more adequate comparison may involve similarities anddifferences between L1 and L2 in terms of the grammaticalsubsystem surrounding the target structure and even the typol-ogy (Sorace, 1993). Further, what is available in the input to thelearner should not be ignored.

Finally, I should point out some limitations of the study.First, because it focused on advanced L2 learners, it cannot tell ushow frequency and the L1 factor will interact at different profi-ciency levels. It will be interesting, for example, to test Japaneselearners of English at lower proficiency levels; with less exposureto English, they might more likely exhibit the kinds of L1 effectspredicted here.12 Second, the methodology employed here was notentirely successful in distinguishing speakers’ knowledge of theNRRs for the dative alternation from their frequency-basedknowledge of dativizability of particular verbs. To further under-stand the L2 acquisition of argument structures such as the dativealternation requires further research, especially on the refine-ment of methodology.

Revised version accepted 25 June 1997

Notes1See Pinker (1989) and Gropen et al. (1989) for details of verb classes.2In addition to the broad-range and narrow-range constraints on the occur-rence of the DOD, there is a “morphophonological” constraint (Pinker,1989). It restricts the application of the dative lexical rule to verbs with onemetrical foot (i.e., one syllable, or more than one syllable with stress on thefirst syllable or with an initial unstressed schwa; Grimshaw & Prince, 1986,cited in Pinker, 1989, p. 46); therefore, verbs with more than one metricalfoot cannot occur in the DOD construction even if they are similar in mean-ing to dativizable verbs with one metrical foot. Verbs with one metrical footare often native English verbs, whereas verbs with more than one metricalfoot are often Latinate verbs formed by a combination of prefixes and stems(Green, 1974; Mazurkewich & White, 1984; Oehrle, 1976). Thus, the mor-

Inagaki 663

phophonological constraint can, for example, explain the contrasts Marygave/*donated them a book and Mary told/*explained John a story.3Bley-Vroman and Yoshinaga’s experiments were reported initially in Yosh-inaga (1991). The results were summarized in Bley-Vroman and Yoshinaga(1992), who also discussed their general theoretical implications. In the restof this paper, I use “B & Y” as a cover term for Yoshinaga (1991) and Bley-Vroman and Yoshinaga (1992).4Nom = nominative case, Dat = dative case, Acc = accusative case, Pst = pasttense.5In order to save (10), Mary-ni has to be changed to Mary-no tokoro-nimeaning “Mary’s place,” as in (i):(i) John-ga Mary-no tokoro-ni booru-o osi-ta.

John-Nom Mary-Gen place-to ball-Acc push-Pst“John pushed a ball to Mary’s place.”

However, (i) is not a DOD because ni in Mary-no tokoro-ni is a postposition,rather than a dative case-marker. This is supported by the fact that Mary-no tokoro-ni cannot move to the subject position to form a passive sentence,as shown in (ii):(ii) *Mary-no tokoro-ga John-niyotte ball-o os-are-ta.

Mary-Gen place-Nom John-by ball-Acc push-Pass-Pst“Mary’s place was pushed a ball by John.”

Thus, (ii) indicates that ni in (i) is not case realization of the dative case as-signed by the verb, but a postposition.6Li and Thompson (1981, p. 375) listed jiao (“teach”) among the verbs whichcan occur both in the PD and DOD constructions. However, Huang (1994)asked ten or so Mandarin speakers about this and found that they allagreed that jiao allowed only the DOD construction.7A reviewer pointed out that Hypothesis 4 is not theoretically grounded and,in particular, that it is not clear that the Chinese speakers should be ex-pected to behave like the Japanese. Nevertheless, I take it as a working hy-pothesis that made-up verbs will be more problematic in general.8A reviewer expressed concern about the large SDs of the TOEFL scores,pointing out the possibility that the NNSs might not have been homogene-ous with respect to English proficiency. However, the SDs of the TOEFLscores probably overestimate the variation among the NNSs, since theseTOEFL scores were often several years old, with TOEFL taken before arri-val in the U.S. and thus before their natural exposure to English began.Given their considerable exposure to English subsequent to taking theTOEFL, it is not unreasonable to consider these NNSs advanced learners ofEnglish.9Juffs (1996a, pp. 162–163) pointed out that B & Y’s claim that their Japa-nese speakers did not know NRRs is not conclusive. Another interpretationis possible; that is, that their Japanese speakers may have merely been con-servative in rating DODs containing dativizable made-up verbs. However,the fact that in the present study, which used basically the same methodol-


ogy as B & Y, Japanese speakers distinguished DODs containing the Tell-class made-up verbs from DODs with the Whisper-class made-up verbscasts doubt on Juffs’ claim. In my opinion, Japanese speakers’ apparent in-sensitivity to the narrow-range verb classes in B & Y’s study was more plau-sibly due to the fact that B & Y did not look at specific narrow-range verbclasses.10As the reviewers have pointed out, this needs to be shown by using a cor-pus of some sort. However, (as far as I am aware) no available corpus pro-vides the frequency of a particular verb occurring in the DOD construction.The often-used corpus (Kuc

6era & Francis, 1967), for example, only provides

the frequency counts of particular verbs, which are not very informative inview of the verbs in question allowing multiple subcategorization frames(John threw a ball to Mary/Mary a ball/a ball, John told a secret toMary/Mary a secret/Mary to keep a secret, etc.). Nonetheless, data from theKuc

6era-Francis corpus, shown in Appendix B, indicate that Tell-class verbs

are in fact more frequent than Throw-class verbs, although it remains anopen question whether the former are more frequent than the latter in theDOD construction.11Kellerman (1983) expressed a similar idea, citing a number of early trans-fer literature sources, that learners’ “perception of language distance” be-tween L1 and L2, or “psychotypology,” serves to facilitate/constraintransfer; that is, that when learners perceive the distance between L1 andL2 as close, transfer will be facilitated, and when learners perceive the dis-tance between L1 and L2 as remote, transfer will be constrained. In addi-tion, Sorace (1993, p. 44) argued that depending on the nature of the L1with respect to the target structure and on how the L1 is typologically con-sistent with the L2, a certain L1 may provide a more or less favorable initialrepresentation for the acquisition of that structure (see also Adjémian,1983; White, 1991).12In a recent study, Sawyer (1996), using an elicited production task, foundthat Japanese learners of English were sensitive (although to a lesser ex-tent than English speakers) to the distinction between the Throw class andthe Push class; his Japanese participants were more willing to produce theDODs containing Throw-class novel verbs (22%) than the DODs containingPush-class novel verbs (12%). Interestingly, Sawyer’s Japanese participants(who were learning English in Japan) were less advanced than theJapanese participants in the present study, with the TOEFL scores of380–550 (M=472, SD=45). Although direct comparison is impossible due tothe task difference between the present study (an acceptability judgementtask) and Sawyer’s study (a production task), Sawyer’s finding is consistentwith the possibility that beginning Japanese learners’ knowledge of the da-tivizability of particular narrow-range verb classes in English will be de-pendent on the status of their L1 counterparts, due to limited exposure toEnglish.

Inagaki 665

References

Adjémian, C. (1983). The transferability of lexical properties. In S. Gass & L.Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 250–268).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. LinguisticInquiry, 10, 533–81.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign languagelearning? In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on sec-ond language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning.Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.

Bley-Vroman, R., & Yoshinaga, N. (1992). Broad and narrow constraints onthe English dative alternation: Some fundamental differences betweennative speakers and foreign language learners. University of Hawai’iWorking Papers in ESL, 11, 157–99.

Green, G. M. (1974). Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indi-ana University Press.

Grimshaw, J., & Prince, A. (1986). A prosodic account of the to-dative alterna-tion. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.

Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). Thelearnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Lan-guage, 65, 203–57.

Hawkins, R. (1987). Markedness and the acquisition of the English dative al-ternation by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 3, 20–55.

Huang, S. (1994). A comparative study of the dative alternation in Mandarinand Taiwanese. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

Inagaki, S. (1993). The double object construction in Japanese. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

Inagaki, S. (1994). The acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative al-ternation in English by Japanese and Chinese adult learners of English.Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. (Revised ver-sion in University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 13, 89–120).

Inagaki, S. (1996). The acquisition of the dative alternation by adult L2learners of English. In C. Reves, C. Steele, & C. S. P. Wong (Eds.), Linguis-tics and language teaching: Proceedings of the Sixth Joint LSH-HATESLConference (Technical Report #10, pp. 301–327). Honolulu: University ofHawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Juffs, A. (1996a). Learnability and the lexicon: Theories and second languageacquisition research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


Juffs, A. (1996b). Semantics-syntax correspondences in second language ac-quisition. Second Language Research, 12, 177–221.

Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass & L. Selinker(Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 112–134). Rowley,MA: Newbury House.

Kuc6era, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day

American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference

grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Mazurkewich, I. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation by second

language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning, 34, 91–109.Mazurkewich, I., & White, L. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alterna-

tion: Unlearning overgeneralization. Cognition, 16, 261–283.Oehrle, R. T. (1976). The grammatical status of the English dative alterna-

tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument

structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Sawyer, M. (1996). L1 and L2 sensitivity to semantic constraints on argu-

ment structure. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes, & A.Zukowski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th annual Boston University Con-ference on Language Development (pp. 646–657). Somerville, MA: Casca-dilla Press.

Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativityin non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9, 22–47.

Sorace, A. (1995). Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a sec-ond language: The unaccusative/unergative distinction. In L. Eubank, L.Selinker, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage:Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 153–175). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

SuperANOVA. (1989). [Computer program]. Berkeley, CA: Abacus Concepts,Inc.

White, L. (1987). Markedness and second language acquisition: The questionof transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 261–286.

White, L. (1991). Argument structure in second language acquisition. FrenchLanguage Studies, 1, 189–207.

White, L., Brown, C., Bruhn-Garavito, J., Chen, D., Hirakawa, M., & Mon-trul, S. (in press). Psych verbs in second language acquisition. In E. Klein& G. Martohardjono (Eds.), Second language acquisition and generativegrammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Yoshinaga, N. (1991). Acquisition of the English dative construction by theJapanese: A learnability approach to second language acquisition. Unpub-lished M.A. thesis, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. (Reprinted 1992 as Oc-

Inagaki 667

casional Paper #20, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Department ofEnglish as a Second Language.)

Wolfe-Quintero, K. (1992). The representation and acquisition of the lexicalstructure of English dative verbs: Experimental studies of native Englishspeakers and Japanese and Chinese adult learners of English. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

Appendix A

Example Test Paragraph—Whisper-Class Verb

Bill wanted to cancel his meeting with Professor Smith thenext day because he hadn’t done his homework yet. But, of course,he didn’t want to tell the truth. So, Bill called Professor Smith andspoke in a special voice, which he calls doaking, to pretend thathe had a bad cold. It seems that Bill doaked words to ProfessorSmith successfully because the meeting was canceled.

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 Bill doaked the words to Prof. Smith.−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 Bill doaked Prof. Smith the words.


Appendix B

Frequency Counts of Tell-Class and Throw-Class Verbsfrom Kuc

6era and Francis (1967).

Tell class Frequency Throw class Frequency

tell 413 shootb 112ask 398 throw 86writea 335 toss 31show 307 kick 18read 173 fling 14teach 50 slap 8Note: The six most frequent verbs in each subclass (from Gropen et al., 1989, pp.243–244) are presented in order of descending frequencies. Each number shows thefrequency count of the verb in either the past tense or the past participle form. This wasto avoid overestimating the frequency by including homographic nouns, such askick(s)/show(s) (N) and teaching/reading/writing (N).a,bThe frequencies of write and shoot are probably overestimated by the inclusion of theoccurrences of written (Adj) and shot (N), respectively.

Inagaki 669

japanese and chinese learners’ acquisition of the narrow

Documents