satomi kawaguchi: lexical and syntactic development in english as a second language: a...

8/4/2019 Satomi Kawaguchi: Lexical and syntactic development in English as a second language: A cross-sectional study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/satomi-kawaguchi-lexical-and-syntactic-development-in-english-as-a-second 1/35

Lexical and syntactic development in

English as a second language: A cross-sectional study

Satomi Kawaguchi

University of Western Sydney

1

11th PALA International Symposium

Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition (PALA),

12-13 September, 2011

PT: State of the Art and the Future



Please cite as…

Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Lexical and syntactic

development in English as a second language: A

cross-sectional study. Presentation delivered at 11th

PALA Symposium-Processability Approaches to

Language Acquisition.

Innsbruck, Austria, September 12-13, 2011.

Copyright © Satomi Kawaguchi 2011

2



Aim of the study

This study investigates the acquisition of canonical and non-

canonical mapping in ESL within the framework of Processability Theory (Pienemann, Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2005).It also looks at the relationship between lexical and syntacticlearning.

In particular, it investigates :1) Acquisition of canonical and non-canonical mapping

(including verbs of intrinsically non-canonical mapping) basedon the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis;

1) the relationship between learners’ lexical size as measured byNation and Bagler (2007) Vocabulary Level Test and theacquisition of canonical and non-canonical mapping.

3



• Following LFG (e.g., Bresnan 2001), PT

believes that grammatical constructions are

lexically restricted in L2 learning (cf. Pinker

1984, Tomasello 1992 in L1 acquisition).

• Verbs are important as they lead to the

development of complex sentences

4



5

Lexical Mapping Hypothesis

This hypothesis is based on non-default mapping of semanticargument roles onto grammatical structure (technicallyassociation between argument- and functional-structures).

In second language acquisition learners initially map the mostprominent role available onto SUBJ (i.e., Canonical Mapping).

The L2 learner gradually learns how to attribute prominence

to a particular thematic role as well as how to de-focus orsuppress a thematic role e.g. suppressing the Agent role andpromoting the Patient role to SUBJ – rather than mappingcanonically Agent onto SUBJ.



Greater processing load with Non-canonical Mapping

Evidence from brain activities

• Yokoyama et. al. (2006a):

three types of lexical processing in Japanese L1

Noun < Unmarked Active Verb < Inflected Passive Verb

(the left middle temporal gyrus LMTG)

“..verbs have richer lexical information than nouns, includinginformation relating to subcategorization, argument structure,

thematic structure, and so on, all of which are critical to

sentence processing” (p1309)

6



Greater processing load with Non-canonical Mapping

Evidence from brain activities

•

Yokoyama et. al. (2006b): active / passive sentences inJapanese L1 – English L2 (late bilingual)

Active sentence < Passive counterpart

(both L1 and L2)significant interaction between sentence type (activeVs. passive) and language (Japanese Vs. passive)

“… late bilinguals use language-related regions of thebrain differently when processing structurally complexsentences in L1 Vs. L2” (p575).

7



Research Questions

1) Do Japanese L1 – English L2 learners acquirenon-canonical mapping after canonical

mapping regardless of different types of verb

(e.g., intrinsically non-canonical verbs,passive construction)?

2) Is there a relationship between learners’lexical size (Nation and Bagler ibid.) and

acquisition of canonical and non-canonical

mapping.8



Canonical and non-canonical mapping investigated in the study

9

Canonical Non-canonical

Canonical

transitive

Intrinsically non-canonical Special structures

Intransitve:

Unaccusative

Transitive: Psych

Verb (OBJexperiencer (OE))

Passive* Causative,

(* including adjectival & stative passive)

“These constructions allow English speakers to

impart different “perspectives” on discourse

world situations” (Payne 2011)



Thematic Hierarchy

Thematic hierarchy (Bresnan 2001, 307)

Agent > Beneficiary > experiencer/goal >

Instrument > Patient/Theme > Locative

Canonical mapping

• Agent-like role is mapped on to SUBJ, Patient-like(or Theme-like) is mapped on to OBJ

10



1 Canonical TransitiveAgent > Beneficiary > Experiencer/goal > Instrument > Patient/Theme > Locative

11

Agent Patient

SUBJ OBJ

(b) Transitive

Break <Agent, Patient> “I broke the stick”

(a)Intransitive

Sleep <Experiencer> “dogs sleep (around 18 hours a day)

Experiencer

SUBJ



12

(b) Psych Verb: OBJ Experiencer (OE)

Please <Theme, Experiencer> “His gifts please me”

(c.f. “I like his gifts”) Theme Experiencer

SUBJ OBJ

(a) Intransitive Unaccusative

Freeze <Theme> “water freezes at 0 degree”

2. Intrinsically non-canonical transitive (lexical)Agent > Beneficiary > Experiencer/goal > Instrument > Patient/Theme > Locative

Theme

SUBJ

c.f., White 1998

c.f., Hirakawa 2003



(a) Passive “The dog was kicked by Tom”

be kicked <Patient, Agent>

13

3. non-canonical constructions (structural mapping):

c.f., Kawaguchi 2007

(b) CausativeMapping of a-structure onto f-structure for the transitive causative sentence

“Mary makes Tom wash the car”

„cause < [agent] [recipient patient] wash < [agent] [patient] >>‟ a-structure

SUBJ OBJ OBJ patient f-structure

Masako Takashi kuruma[car] c-structure

agent patient thematic roles

ø Subject Adjunct grammatical functions

The dog Tom word order



Hypothesis

14

1) Canonical Vs. intrinsically Non-canonical mapping

Canonical (Transitive )>> Intrinsically non-canonical Intransitive>

> Intrinsically non-canonical Transitive

2) Canonical Vs. Non-canonical constructions

Canonical Active > Passive > Causative

3) Lexical acquisition and syntactic acquisition

There is a positive relationship between lexical size and

syntactic acquisition (lexical acquisition precedes the

acquisition of syntax).



Research Design

a. Informants

22 Japanese L1 - English L2 (male 5, female

17), with a length of stay in Australia, ranging

from 9 days to 27 years. Their age range is

between 20 and 56 years (mean 31, SD 9.9).

One native control (simultaneous bilingual

first language speaker of English and

Japanese): 18 year old.

15



b. Tasks

1) Production (translation) task

•

Most tasks utilised for acquisition of differenttypes of verbs are either comprehension test orgrammatical judgement.

• There are not many studies to look atPRODUCTIVE abilities in the field.

•

A few studies utilised the fill-in-the bracket taskand/or translation task to measure productiveability of different mappings.

16



Production (translation) task:

Japanese -> English• with time limitation (20 min. for 25 sentences)

• pen & paper (without eraser)

(6 sentences involving ditransitive verbs are not

used in this study)

17



The 19 verbs used in the translation production task

18

Canonical Non-cannoical

Canonical

transitive

Intrinsically non-

canonical transitive

(Psych Verb: OBJ

experience (OE))

Intrinsically non-

canonical

Intransitve

(Unaccusative)

Passive

(including: adjectival &

stative passive

Causative

Causative-

Passive

Break

Wash

Kill

Close

Stop

Please

Confuse

Shock

Freeze

Fall

Fall from

Kill (be killed)

(Stative passive)

Break (be broken)(In between stative and

adjectival passive)

Close (be closed)

(Adjectival passive)

Confuse (be confused)

Interest (be interested)

Surprise (be surprised)

Wash (make X

wash Y)

Work (be made

to work)

•All verbs are selected from 0-1K English frequency list except “shock” and “confuse” •“freeze” is an alternating unaccusative; “fall” is a non-alternating unaccusative

•Unaccusative intransitives are non-canonical BUT Unergative intransitives are canonical.

T l ti T k ( d



19

日本語の文動詞英語の文 1 わたしは、オーストラリアの映画に興味がある。 interest I have an interest in Australian movies.

2 私の犬が娘の人形をこわした。 break My dog broke my daughter's doll.

3 私が料理をつくって、主人がお皿を洗う。 wash

I make the meals and my husband washes the

dishes.

4 私が料理をつくって、主人がお皿を洗う。 washI make the meals and my husband washes thedishes.

5 テストの結果を見て、私はびっくりした。 surprise I was surprised by my test mark.

6 山本さんの猫が、私の鳥を殺した。 kill Yamamoto's cat killed my bird!

7 けい子は、博史にプレゼントをもらった。 receive Keiko-san received a presnt from Hiroshi.

8 私たちは、この事故を警察に届けなければならない。 report I have to report this accident to the police.

9 私は、いつも店のドアを７時にしめる。 close I always close the shop door at 7.

10 猫が木から落ちた。 fall The cat fell out of the tree.

11 山田さんは、みんなに旅行の写真を見せた。 show

Yamada-san showed her vacation photos to

everyone.

12 この時計は、高そうだ。 seem This watch seems expensive.

13 トムのプレゼントは、たいへん私を喜ばせた。 please Tom's present really pleased me!

14 この店のドアは、いつも閉まっている。 close This shop's door is always closed.

15 そのニュースを聞いて、私は、とても混乱した。 confuse I was very confused upon hearing this news.

16 この時計は、壊れている。 break This watch is broken.

17庭の木が倒れた。

fall The tree in the backyard has fallen.

18 母は、毎日私にお皿を洗わせる。 wash My mum makes me wash the dishes.

19 山田先生の説明は、いつも学生を混乱させる。 confuse

Ms. Yamada's explanation always confuses her

students.

20 トムは、メアリーに殺された。 kill Tom was killed by Mary!

21 わたしは、息子が大学に合格すると信じている。 believe pass I believe my son will pass at university.

22 水は、０度で凍る。 freeze Water freezes at 0 °C.

23 警察は、その車を止めた。 stop The police stopped the car.

24 その飛行機事故は、世界中の人にショックをあたえた。 shock That plane crash shocked the world.

25 わたしは、ボスに毎日８時まで仕事をさせられる。 work My boss forces me to work til 8.

Translation Task (answered

by NS control)

2) V b l i t t (N ti 2001)



2) Vocabulary size test (Nation 2001)

Vocabulary size shows significant correlation especially with

receptive language abilities (i.e., reading and listening)

Band

Question including Verb

(TOTAL 21 verbs /140) Question No. and question sentence

1st 100 3 verbs/10 questions 1. SEE: They saw it. 6. DRIVE: He drives fast. 7,

2nd 1000 1 verbs 1. MAINTAIN: Can they maintain it?

3rd 1000 5 verbs

2. RESTORE: It has been restored. 4, SCRUB: He is scrubbing

it. 7. PAVE: It was paved. 8. DASH: They dashed over it. 9.

ROVE: He couldn't stop roving.

4th 1000 1 verb 10. ALLEGE: They alleged it.

5thh 1000 3 verbs

2. WEEP: He wept. 4. HAUNT: The house is haunted. 8. PEEL:

Shall I peel it?

6th 1000 2 verbs 7. STRANGLE: He strangled her. 10. VEER: The car veered.

7th 1000 1 verb 4. SHUDDER: The boy shuddered.

8th 1000 1 verb 10. MUMBLE: He started to mumble.9th 1000 1 verb 6. PERTURB: I was perturbed.

10th 1000 None

11th 1000 1 verb 1. EXCRETE: This was excreted recently.

12th 1000 1 verb 8. IMPALE: He nearly got impaled.

13th 1000 None

14th 1000 1 verb 4. AUGUR: It augured well.20



Results

21



(i) Lexical size test

Informant Lexical size /14K Top, Mid & Bottom three

JA03 12.7 High

JA13 11.2 High

JA02 10.1 HighJA01 9.7

JA04 9.0

JA10 9.0

JA12 8.8

JA07 8.1

JA05 7.7JA06 6.9 Middle

JA21 6.8 Middle

JA08 6.8 Middle

JA14 6.4 Middle

JA22 6.2 Middle

JA17 5.8

JA09 5.4

JA18 5.1

JA15 5.0

JA16 4.7 Low

JA19 4.6 Low

JA20 4.1 Low

JA11 3.0 LowNS control 11.3 NS control

22

(ii) Argument mapping:



(ii) Argument mapping:

Examples of Canonical structure

23

NS Yamamoto's cat killed my bird!

(H: JA 3) Yamamoto's cat killed my bird.

(M: JA 22) Yamamoto's cat killed my bird.

(L: JA 11)

(L: JA 19)

Yamamoto's cat kill my bard

Mr. YAMAMOT's cat was killed by may

bird.



Examples: Non-canonical Intransitive (Unaccusative)

24

NS The tree in the backyard has fallen.

(H: JA13) A tree in a garden fell down.

(M: JA06) The tree felt in my garden.

(L:JA11) fall in down gerden tree.



Examples: Psych Verb

25

NS Ms. Yamada's explanation always

confuses her students.

(H: JA3) Professor Yamada's explanation always

confuses his students.

(M: JA22) The explanation of Teacher, Yamada is

confused.

(L:JA19) YAMADA thecher's expreine was

confuse to student



Examples: Passive

26

NS Tom was killed by Mary!

(H: JA03) Tom was killed by Mary.

(M: JA14) Tom was killed by Meary.

(L:JA16) Tom kill maly.



Examples: Causative

27

NS My mum makes me wash the dishes.

(H: JA03) My mother makes me wash the dishes

every day.

(M: JA20) Everyday I wash dishes by my mother

(L:JA20) I am washed dishes by mother everyday.

Results: Canonical <Intransitive Unaccusative < Transitive Psych Verb



Results: Canonical <Intransitive Unaccusative < Transitive Psych Verb(applying PT’s emergence criterion)

28

Informant Lexical size /140

Top, Mid &

Bottom three Canonical Tr (5)

Intransitive

Unaccusative (3) Psych V (3)

JA15 50 40% (?40%) 33%* 33%

JA19 46 Low 60% 33% 0/3

JA11 30 Low 80% 33% 0/3

JA21 68 Middle 100% 33% 1/?1/3

JA16 47 Low 100% 67% 0/3

JA18 51 100% 67% 0/3

JA17 58 100% 67% 0/3

JA20 41 Low 100% 100% 0/3

JA09 54 100% 67% 0/3

JA14 64 Middle 100% 100% 0/3

JA08 68 Middle (M3) 80% 67% 0/3

JA06 69 Middle (M1) 80% 100% 0/3

JA04 90 100% 100% 0/1(?)/*2

JA07 81 100% 67% 33%JA22 62 Middle 100% 100% 33%

JA05 77 100% 100% 33%

JA12 88 100% 100% 100%

JA10 90 100% 100% 100%

JA01 97 100% 100% 100%

JA02 101 High (H3) 100% 100% 100%

JA13 112 High (H2) 100% 100% 100%

JA03 127 High (H1) 100% 100% 100%

NS control 113 100% 100% 100%



Results: Canonical < Passive < Causative

29

Informant Lexical size /140

Top, Mid &

Bottom three Canonical Tr (5) Passive (6)

Semantic fusion of a

GF (2)

JA16 47 Low 40% (?40%) 0% 0/2

JA19 46 Low (L1) 60% 17% 0/2

JA11 30 Low (L3) 80% 17% 0/2

JA20 41 Low (L2) 100% 33% 0/2

JA18 51 100% 50% 0/2

JA09 54 100% 50% 0/2

JA15 50 100% 67% 0/2

JA04 90 100% 67% 0/2

JA22 62 Middle 100% 100% 0/2

JA08 68 Middle (M3) 100% 33% * 1/2

JA17 58 80% 67% 1/2

JA06 69 Middle (M1) 100% 67% 1/2

JA05 77 80% 50% 100%

JA14 64 Middle 100% 33% 100%

JA21 68 Middle (M2) 100% 83% 100%JA07 81 100% 100% 100%

JA12 88 100% 100% 100%

JA10 90 100% 100% 100%

JA01 97 100% 100% 100%

JA02 101 High (H3) 100% 100% 100%

JA13 112 High (H2) 100% 83% 100%

JA03 127 High (H1) 100% 100% 100%

NS control 113 100% 83% 100%

* 1 canonical Tr stimulus translated as passive

Relationship between Lexical and syntactic acquisition



Relationship between Lexical and syntactic acquisition

a. Canonical structure

30

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

p e r c e n t a g e

Lexical Size (x100)

Correct Mapping with Canonical Verbs

Non-canonical mapping



31

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Correct Mapping with Unaccusative (Int)

& Psych V (Tr) (n=6)

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Correct Mapping with Passive and Causative

structure (n=8)

Intrinsically(lexically) non-

canonical verbs

structurally

non-canonical

Non-canonical mapping

Results summary



Results summary

1. (Canonical Vs. Non-canonical mapping)

Acquisition follows canonical to non-canonical mapping.

Canonical > Intransitive Unaccusative > Trans. Psych Verb

Canonical > Passive > Causative

(structural non-canonical mapping relates closer to developmentalstages)

2. (lexical size and syntactic ability with different verb types)

Only high vocabulary size (9 k or over) predicts thegrammatical ability of producing all types of non-canonical

mapping. Both middle and low lexical size groups showed

problems with non-canonical mapping.

32

C l i



Conclusion

•

Productive ability relating to non-canonicalmapping seems to be a good indicator of syntactic

development. On the other hand, learner’s lexical

size can only partly predict L2 learners’ syntactic

development.

• This requires further cross-linguistic confirmation.

• From the learning and teaching point of view an

awareness of the role of non-canonical mappingmay help towards pushing development forwards.

33



References

Bowerman, M. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: are children helped by innate ‘linking

rules’? Linguistics 28: 1253-1289.

Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical Functional Syntax . Oxford: Blackwell Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2005

Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi, S. (in press 2011). Development across languages: English, Italian and Japanese. In C.

Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.). Processability Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam:

Benjamins.

Hasagawa, M., Carpenter, P. & Just, M. (2002). An fMRI Study of Bilingual Sentence Comprehension and

Workload. NeuroImage. 15, 647-660.

Hirakawa, M. (2003). Unaccusativity in second language Japanese and English. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.

Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument Structure and Syntactic Development in Japanese as a Second language. In M.

Pienemann. (Ed.). Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory . (pp. 253-298). Amsterdam and

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kawaguchi, S. (2007). Lexical Mapping in Processability Theory: a Case Study in Japanese. In F. Mansouri (ed.).

Second Language Acquisition Research: Theory-Construction and Testing. (pp. 39-80). Newcastle, UK:

Cambridge Scholars Press.

Kawaguchi, S. (2009). Acquiring Causative Constructions in Japanese as a Second Language, The Journal of

Japanese Studies, Vol. 29. 2, 273-291.

Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. MIT Press, MA:

Cambridge.

Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Complex predicates in Japanese - A syntactic and semantic study of the notion ‘word’ .

California and Tokyo: CSLI Publications and Kurosio Publishers.

Nation, P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language, Cambridge University Press.

Payne, T. E., (2011). Understanding English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language Processing and Second Language Development - Processability Theory.Amsterdam: Benjamins.

34



References

Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). ‘Extending processability theory’, in M. Pienemann (ed.),

Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 199-251). Amsterdam: Benjamins,.

Tomasello, M. 1992. First Verbs. Cambridge U Press.

Wang, K.(2010). The acquisition of English passive constructions by Mandarin speakers: A developmental

perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Western Sydney.

White, L., Brown, C., Bruhn-Garavito, J., Chen, D., Hirakawa, M. & Montrul, S. (1998). Psych verbs in second

language acquisition. In E. C. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.). The development of second languagegrammars: A Generative Approach, pp. 171-196. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Yokoyama, S., Miyamoto, T, Riera, J., Kim, J., Akitsuki, Y., Iwata, K., Yoshimoto, K., Horie, K., Sato, S. & Kawashima,

R. (2006). Cortical Mechanisms Involved in the Processing of Verbs: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive

Neuroscience. 18:8, 1304-1313.

Yokoyama, S., Okamoto, H., Miyamoto, T., Yoshimoto, K., Kim, J., Iwata, K., Jeong, H., Uchida, S., Ikuta, N., Sassa,

Y., Nakamura, W., Horie, K., Sato, S. & Kawashima, R. (2006). Cortical activation in the processing of passive

senteces in L1 and L2: An fMRI study. NeuroImage. 30 570-579.

35

satomi kawaguchi: lexical and syntactic development in english as a second language: a...

Documents