L1 Transfer in L2 Acquisition of English Verbal Morphology by Japanese Young Instructed Learners
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Tense−Aspect Morphology in English and Japanese
1. | a. | I watched that match yesterday. |
b. | I have already watched that match |
2. | a. | Boku-wa | kinoo | ano siai-o | mi-ta. | (past tense) |
I-TOP | yesterday | that match-ACC | watch-PAST | |||
‘I watched that match yesterday.’ | ||||||
b. | Boku-wa | moo | ano siai-o | mi-ta. | (perfective aspect) | |
I-TOP | already | that match-ACC | watch-PERFECTIVE | |||
‘I have already watched that match.’ |
2.1. Simple Past Tense Marker: English −ed and Japanese −ta
3. | a. | Yutaro walked in the park. | [Activity] | |||
b. | Yutaro-ga | kooen-de | arui-ta. | |||
Yutaro-NOM | park-LOC | walk-PAST | ||||
‘Yutaro walked in the park.’ | ||||||
c. | Yutaro painted a picture. | [Accomplishments] | ||||
d. | Yutaro-ga | e-o | kai-ta. | |||
Yutaro-NOM | picture-ACC | paint-PAST | ||||
‘Yutaro painted a picture.’ | ||||||
e. | Yutaro arrived at the airport. | |||||
f. | Yutaro-ga | kuukoo-ni | tui-ta. | [Achievement] | ||
Yutaro-NOM | airport-LOC | arrive-PAST | ||||
‘Yutaro arrived at the airport.’ | ||||||
g. | Yutaro wanted a bike. | |||||
h. | Yutaro-wa | jitensya-ga | hosikat-ta. | [Stative] | ||
Yutaro-TOP | bike-ACC | want-PAST | ||||
‘Yutaro wanted a bike.’ |
- adverbs (e.g., moo ‘already’)
- adverbial phrases
- (1)
- frame (e.g., 30−pun de ‘in 30 minutes’)
- (2)
- durative (e.g., 30−pun kan ‘for 30 minutes’)
- overt numerals (e.g., 10−satu)
4. | a. | Yutaro-wa | moo | san-satu | hon-o | kari-ta. |
Yutaro-TOP | already | three-CL | book-ACC | borrow-PERFECTIVE | ||
‘Yutaro has already borrowed three books.’ | ||||||
b. | Yutaro-wa | sanjyu-pun-de | ni-satu | hon-o | yon-da. | |
Yutaro-TOP | 30 minutes-in | two-CL | book-ACC | read-PERFECTIVE | ||
‘Yutaro has read two books in 30 minutes.’ |
2.2. Imperfective Aspect Marker: English be + −ing and Japanese −tei−ru
5. | [+progressive] | ||
a. | Yutaro is swimming. | [Activity] | |
b. | Yutaro is swimming one kilometre. | [Accomplishment] | |
c. | The plane is arriving at the airport. | [Achievement] |
6. | [+progressive] | ||||
a. | Yutaro-wa | hon-o | yon-de-iru. | ||
Yutaro-TOP | book-ACC | read-PROGRESSIVE | [Activity] | ||
‘Yutaro is reading a book.’ | |||||
b. | Yutaro-wa | iti-kiro | oyoi-dei-ru. | ||
Yutaro-TOP | one kilo | swim-PROGRESSIVE | [Accomplishment] | ||
‘Yutaro is swimming one kilometre.’ |
7. | [+resultative] | [Achievement] | ||
a. | Yutaro-wa | himitu-ni | kizui-tei-ru. | |
Yutaro-TOP | secret-ACC | discover-RESULTATIVE | ||
‘Yutaro has discovered the secret (and he is aware of it).’ | ||||
b. | Booru-ga | oti-tei-ru. | (from (Sugaya and Shirai 2007, p. 6) | |
Ball-NOM | fall-RESULTATIVE | |||
‘The ball has fallen (and it is there).’ | ||||
c. | Hikooki-ga | kuukoo-ni | tui-tei-ru. | |
Plane-NOM | airport-at | arrive-RESULTATIVE | ||
‘The plane has arrived at the airport (and it is there).’ |
8. | [+resultative] | [Stative] = [Achievement] | |||
a. | Watashi-wa | anata-o | sit-tei-ru. | ||
I-NOM | you-ACC | know-RESULTATIVE | |||
‘I have got to know you (and I have known you since then). | |||||
b. | Taro-wa | kono riron-ga | wakat-tei-ru. | ||
(abridged and adapted from (Tsujimura 2007, p. 384) | |||||
Taro-TOP | this theory-ACC | understand-RESULTATIVE | |||
‘Taro has understood this theory (and he has a complete knowledge of this theory).’ |
9. | [+habitual] | |||||
a. | Watashi-wa | maiasa | oyoi-dei-ru. | [Activity] | ||
I-TOP | every morning | swim-HABITUAL | ||||
‘I swim every morning.’ | ||||||
b. | Watashi-wa | maiasa | iti-kiro | oyoi-dei-ru. | [Accomplishment] | |
I-TOP | every morning | one kilometre | swim-HABITUAL | |||
‘I swim one kilometre every morning.’ |
10. | a. | *Yutaro is swimming one kilometre every morning. | *[habitual+Accomplishment] |
b. | *Yutaro is discovering the secret. | *[resultative+Achievement] |
3. The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis
11. | Two learning tasks in L2 acquisition (F: features/ML: morpholexical items) | ||||
1. | Feature Selection | [F L1] | → | [F L2] | |
2. | Feature Assembly | [ML L1] | → | [ML L2] |
12. | Three determinants of L2 learnability | ||||
1. | Same Features | [F L1] | = | [F L2] | |
2. | Different Configurations | [ML L1] | ≠ | [ML L2] | |
3. | Morpholexical Correspondences | [ML L1] | ⇔ | [ML L2] |
4. Previous L2 Studies
4.1. Previous Studies on L2 English Verbal Morphology
4.2. Previous Studies on the Role of L1 in the Acquisition of L2 Tense−Aspect Morphology
13. | Romanised version and gloss14 | |||
Takahashi: | Are, syatu-ni kutibeni (lipstick)-ga ___________ne. | |||
Oh, shirt-LOC lipstick-NOM __________-FP. | ||||
“Oh, there’s lipstick on your shirt.” | ||||
Yamamoto: | E, hontoo desu-ka !? | |||
Oh, true-COP-Q !? | ||||
“Oh, really !?” | ||||
A. tukimasu | B. tukimasita | C. tuiteimasu | D. tuiteimashita | |
attach: NONPAST | attach: PAST | attach: IMP-NONPAST | attach: IMP-PAST | |
“is attached” | “was attached” | “has been attached” | “had been attached” |
14. | (7) Arrive (achievement) | ||
Picture 1: This is the plane to Tokyo. At 4:00 the plane is near the airport. | |||
a. Complete story context (preemption) | |||
Picture 2a: At 5:00 the passengers are at the airport. | |||
i. Past: The plane arrived at the airport. | |||
(Expected rating of NSs: 5; L2 English learners: 5) | |||
ii. Present Progressive: The plane is arriving at the airport. | |||
(Expected rating of NSs: 1; L2 English learners: 5) | |||
b. Incomplete story context (addition) | |||
Picture 2b: There is a lot of wind. At 4:30 the plane is still in the air. | |||
i. Past: The plane arrived at the airport. | |||
(Expected rating of NSs: 1; L2 English learners: 1) | |||
ii. Present Progressive: The plane is arriving at the airport. | |||
(Expected rating of NSs: 5; L2 English learners: 1) |
5. Study
5.1. Research Question and Predictions
- (1)
- L2 Japanese learners will easily be able to reassemble [+past] into an L2 item −ed.
- (2)
- L2 Japanese learners will have more difficulty in realising an unfamiliar composition of [-past] with [3rd person] [+singular] on a single new morpholexical form −s.
- (3)
- L2 Japanese learners will face even more of a challenge in reconfiguring only one feature [+progressive] into a pair of L2 items be + −ing.
5.2. Participants
5.3. Materials
15. | 例題(Practice test items) | |||
1. | 栄作は昨夜ビーフシチューを食べましたか。 | (答え) | ||
Did Eisaku eat beef stew last night? | (Answer) | |||
No. beef stew, last night ⇒ (答え) He didn’t eat beef stew last night. | ||||
(Answer) | ||||
16. | 18. 小百合は朝どうしていますか? | (答え) |
‘What does Sayuri do in the morning?’ | ‘Answer’ | |
nine, usually, breakfast [An expected answer] She usually eats breakfast at nine. |
5.4. Procedure
5.5. Scoring Criteria
17. | a. | He woke up at seven yesterday. | (He got up at seven yesterday.) | [JH1st No.2, Written] |
---1 point for verbal morphology | ||||
b. | I’m happy today. | (He is happy today). | [JH2nd No.11, Written] | |
---1 point for verbal morphology |
6. Results
6.1. Accuracy Rates of Tense−Aspect Morphology
6.2. Error Types of Tense−Aspect Morphology
18. | a. | *She sometimes drinks milk last year. | [JH 1st, No. 11, Spoken] |
(No.30 She sometimes drank milk last year.) | |||
b. | *She often plays_ piano last year. | [JH 3rd, No.1, Written] | |
(No.2 She often played the piano last year.) | |||
c. | *She doesn’t go to school yesterday. | [JH 2nd, No.20, Written] | |
(No.15 She didn’t go to school yesterday.) | |||
d. | *She didn’t go to bed early every night. | [JH 3rd, No.12, Written] | |
(No.42 She doesn’t go to bed early every night.) | |||
19. | a. | *He studies Japanese now. | [JH 1st, No.2, Spoken] |
(No. 33 He is studying Japanese now.) | |||
b. | *She eats breakfast now. | [U 2nd, No.10, Written] | |
(No.8 She is eating breakfast now.) | |||
c. | *He didn’t read _ book now. | [JH 1st, No.12, Spoken] | |
d. | *He doesn’t read _ book now. | [JH 1st, No.2, Written] | |
(No.33 He isn’t reading a book now.) |
7. Discussion and Conclusions
7.1. Discussion of Findings
- (1)
- L2 Japanese learners will easily be able to reassemble [+past] into an L2 item −ed.
- (2)
- L2 Japanese learners will have more difficulty in realising an unfamiliar composition of [-past] with [3rd person] [+singular] on a single new morpholexical form −s.
- (3)
- L2 Japanese learners will face even more of a challenge in reconfiguring only one feature [+progressive] into a pair of L2 items be + −ing.
20. | *She sometimes drinks milk last year. | [JH 1st, No. 11, Spoken] | |
21. | a. | *He studies Japanese now. | [JH 1st, No.2, Spoken] |
b. | *She eats breakfast now. | [U 2nd, No.10, Written] |
7.2. Conclusions and Directions of Future Research
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Andersen, Roger W., and Yasuhiro Shirai. 1994. Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 133–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Stey by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Edited by Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 89–155. [Google Scholar]
- Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phrase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Edited by Michael Kenstowicz. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 1–52. [Google Scholar]
- Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Dekeyser, Robert M. 2005. What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55: 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz, Lourdes, Aurora Bel, and Konstantina Bekiou. 2008. Interpretable and Uninterpretable Features in the Acquisition of Spanish Past Tenses. In the Role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition. Edited by Juana M. Liceras, Helmut Zobl and Helen Goodluck. London: Routledge, pp. 484–512. [Google Scholar]
- Fujii, Tadashi. 1996. Doushi + te iru no imi [The Meaning of verb + te iru]. Kokugo Kenkyuu Shitsu 5. In Nihongo doshi no asupekuto [The Aspect of Japanese Verbs]. Edited by Haruhiko Kindaichi. Tokyo: Mugi Shobo, pp. 97–116. [Google Scholar]
- Gabriele, Alison, and Mamori Sugita Hughes. 2015. Handbook of Japanese Psycholinguistics. In Tense and Aspect in Japanese as a Second Language. Edited by Mineharu Nakayama. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 271–302. [Google Scholar]
- Gabriele, Alison. 2008. Calculating Telicity in Native and Non-Native English. In Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2007). Edited by Roumyana Slabakova, Jason Rothman, Paula Kempchinsky and Elena Gavruseva. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 37–46. [Google Scholar]
- Geçkin, Vasfiye, and Belma Haznedar. 2008. The morphology/syntax interface in child L2 acquisition: Evidence from verbal morphology. In Current Trends in Child Second Language Acquisition: Generative Perspective. Edited by Belma Haznedar and Elena Gavruseva. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 237–267. [Google Scholar]
- Goad, Heather, Lydia White, and Jeffry Steele. 2003. Missing inflection in L2 acquisition: Defective syntax or L1-constrained prosodic representation? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 48: 243–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grüter, Theres, and Simone Conradie. 2006. Investigating the L2 initial state: Additional evidence from the production and comprehension of Afrikaans-speaking learners of German. In Inquiries in Linguistic Development: In Honor of Lydia White. Edited by Roumyana Slabakova, Silvina Montrul and Philippe Prévost. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 89–114. [Google Scholar]
- Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Edited by Kenneth Locke Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 111–76. [Google Scholar]
- Hawkins, Roger, and Gabriela Casillas. 2008. Explaining frequency of verb morphology in early L2 speech. Lingua 118: 595–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawkins, Roger, and Hajime Hattori. 2006. Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research 22: 269–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haznedar, Belma. 2001. The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23: 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopp, Holger. 2010. Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua 120: 901–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ionin, Tania, and Kenneth Wexler. 2002. Why is ‘is’ easier than ‘−s’?: Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child second language learners of English. Second Language Research 18: 95–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ionin, Tania, and Silvina Montrul. 2010. The role of transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite pluralsin L2 English. Language Learning 60: 877–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ionin, Tania. 2013. Morphosyntax. In The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Edited by Julia Herschensohn and Martha Young-Scholten. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 505–28. [Google Scholar]
- Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2013. Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. [Google Scholar]
- Kibort, Anna, and Greville G. Corbett. 2010. Features: Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Lardiere, Donna. 2008. Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In The Role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition. Edited by Juana M. Liceras, Helmut Zobl and Helen Goodluck. New York: Routledge, pp. 106–40. [Google Scholar]
- Lardiere, Donna. 2009. Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 25: 173–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1999. Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 75–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1999. Tense and Aspect. In The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Edited by Natsuko Tsujimura. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 326–48. [Google Scholar]
- Olsen, Mari Broman. 1997. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. New York: Garland Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Radford, Andrew. 2009. Analysing English Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, Richard R. 1995. The Aspect Hypothesis revisited: A cross-sectional study of tense and aspect marking in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics 16: 344–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
- Shirai, Yasuhiro. 2002. The Aspect Hypothesis in SLA and the acquisition of Japanese. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 5: 42–61. [Google Scholar]
- Slabakova, Roumyana. 2008. Meaning in the Second Language (Studies in Language Acquisition Series 34). New York: De Gruyter Mouton. [Google Scholar]
- Slabakova, Roumyana. 2016. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, Carlota. 1991. The Parameter of Aspec. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, Carlota. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect, 2nd ed. Kluwer: Dordrecht. [Google Scholar]
- Song, Hyang Suk, and Bonnie D. Schwartz. 2009. Testing the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis: L2 Adult, L2 Child, and L1 Child Comparisons in the Acquisition of Korean “Wh”-Constructions with Negative Polarity Items. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31: 323–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sugaya, Natsue, and Yasuhiro Shirai. 2007. The acquisition of progressive and resultative meanings of the imperfective aspect marker by L2 learners of Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29: 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sugita, Mamori. 2009. Japanese -te iru and -te aru: The Aspectual Implications of the Stage-Level and Individual-Level Distinction. Graduation Dissertation. New York: City University of New York. [Google Scholar]
- Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria, and Maria Mastropavlou. 2008. Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. In The Role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition. Edited by Juana-M. Liceras, Helmut Zobl and Helen Goodluck. London: Routledge, pp. 142–83. [Google Scholar]
- Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2007. An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics, 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing: Malden. [Google Scholar]
- Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics and Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- White, Lydia. 2003a. Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6: 129–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, Lydia. 2003b. Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- White, Lydia. 2008. Some puzzling features of L2 features. In The Role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition. Edited by Juana M. Liceras, Helmut Zobl and Helen Goodluck. London: Routledge, pp. 300–26. [Google Scholar]
- Yoshimura, Noriko, and Mineharu Nakayama. 2009. Nominative case marking and verb inflection in L2 grammar: evidence from Japanese college students’ compositions. In The Proceedings of the 2009 Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo, pp. 359–83. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, Boping. 2010. Domain-wide or variable-dependent vulnerability of the semantics-syntax interface in L2 acquisition? Evidence from wh-words used as existential polarity words in L2 Chinese grammars. Second Language Research 26: 219–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
1 | Under the DM, it is assumed that lexical items are inserted into a syntactic node, where features on the lexical item have to form a subset of the features on the syntactic node. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | The results of this study do not provide evidence for or against the IH, as the main goal of the study was to examine the predictive power of the FRH. However, further research aims to compare the two approaches. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | “a marker of perfect aspect” (Gabriele and Sugita Hughes 2015, p. 275); ‘perfect’ can be analysed as a tense (Kibort and Corbett 2010). Gabriele and Sugita Hughes (2015) refers to debate over whether the morpheme −ta is a past tense or perfect aspect marker and introduces Shirai’s (2002, p. 43) proposal that −ta is grammatically developed from a perfect marker to a simple past tense marker. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Unlike English, Japanese, has no object−telicity marking mechanism because of limited plural marking and no article system (Slabakova 2008, p. 148). For example, the following sentence is unspecified for telicity: Yutaro-wa _hon_-o kari-ta. Yutaro-TOP book-ACC borrow-PERFECTIVE or PAST. ‘Yutaro has borrowed or borrowed _book_[a/the/Ø book (s)].’ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | The principles of language structure which are innately present. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Following Li (1999, p. 87), such impossibility of qualified plural nouns in Chinese is attributed to the phenomenon that “a Classifier head (e.g., san−ge ‘three-CL’) intervenes between N and D”, which allows no raising of noun (e.g., xuesheng ‘student’) to Number for checking [+plural], and further to Determiner for checking [+definite] (Lardiere 2009, p. 196). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | In English, the [+definite] feature is realised on the definite article the, not on the plural suffix −s. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | The figures shown here are from the results of a free story−telling task (spontaneous production data), similar to those of Hawkins and Casillas (2008, p. 596). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Auxiliary includes be, do, and have. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | There was no result of auxiliary be. Only the results of 3SG −s varied, depending on the subject as follows:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | There is no detailed description of the subjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | Eighteen German, eighteen Russian, three Ukrainian, and two Bulgarian (Sugaya and Shirai 2007, p. 12). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | FP = final particle, IMP = imperfective aspect marker (Sugaya and Shirai 2007, p. 36). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | Japanese junior high school students and university students fall into CEFR A1 and B1 respectively, based on the classification made by an advisory panel related to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Technology. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Primary School English language teaching was formally introduced in Japanese elementary schools (the fifth and sixth grades) in April 2011, which was after the experiment was finished in February 2011. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Grüter and Conradie (2006, p. 90) point out that in early production data it is hard to distinguish ‘absence of evidence’ (common and frequent failure to realise grammatical knowledge) from ‘evidence of absence’ (impaired grammar); White (2003b, p. 75) raises a falsifiability problem and assumes that it might be impossible for production data to investigate whether the earliest stages before the emergence of L2 speech lack functional categories or not. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | White (2003b, p. 55, 56) suggests that “the crucial question is whether or not interlanguage grammars are UG−constrained, rather than whether or not they are native−like”. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | Five hours per week × 40 weeks = 200 hours per year: eight weeks were excluded due to holidays (summer, winter and spring). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | The TOEIC reading and listening test is regarded as a reliable and standard measure to assess non−native English proficiency: because the test: (1) began in 1979 and is currently used over sixty countries and taken by 4.5 million people per year; (2) requires the candidate to answer 200 multiple−choice questions in two hours; (3) is scored from ten to 990 with no pass−fail mark. The TOEIC score sheet shows only the total score of reading and listening sections (e.g., Total 750: Listening 350/Reading 400). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | Japanese university students in the same year include students of different age who have received additional English teaching for a year or more to take an entrance exam again. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | The junior high schools set the time limit because junior and senior high schools in Japan are bound by a tightly−managed curriculum, which allowed only one kind of task to be carried out. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | A combination of three tasks was piloted with eighty−seven second grade junior high school students and fifteen British speakers in 2006: (1) an eighty−item translation task; (2) a thirty−three−item grammaticality judgement task; (3) a thirty−two−item picture−interpretation task. The overall results showed too high accuracy rates (90% to 98.7%). The results revealed that it was difficult to explore the nature of early L2 leaners’ unconscious competence in the comprehension−based tasks that allow them to use metalinguistic knowledge. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | The picture−stimulus task for this study was piloted with four first−grade junior high students (three for written and one for spoken) and twenty−three second−year university students (written only). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | Katakana is used to write loan words mainly from English. Katakana, like hiragana, represents forty−six symbols that consist of a single vowel (e.g., オ = o) and a pair of a consonant and a vowel (e.g., タ = ta) (e.g., タオル = ta-o-ru ‘towel’). They are both syllabaries (Iwasaki 2013). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | The junior high school students in this study were scheduled to learn the present perfect tense from the second term of the second grade onward. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Other examples from the study are: study Japanese, write letters, play tennis/baseball/the piano, cook dinner, read comic books, go to bed/a restaurant, watch TV. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | Confirmation that all learners understood the adverbs used in the tasks was obtained from the relevant teaching staff. |
Lexical Aspect Classes | Stative | Activities | Accomplishments | Achievements |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aspectual Features | know | swim | swim one kilo metre | recognise |
[stative] | ✔ | |||
[dynamic] | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | |
[durative] | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | |
[punctual] | ✔ | |||
[atelic] | ✔ | ✔ | ||
[telic] | ✔ | ✔ |
English | Japanese | ||
---|---|---|---|
Tense | Non-past | −Ø/−s | −(r)u |
Past | −ed | −ta | |
Grammatical Aspect | Perfective | have + −en | |
Imperfective | be + −ing | −tei−ru/ta |
1. Feature | Det.1 | 2. Feature | Det.2 | Det.3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Selection | Reassembly | ||||||
FL1 ⇒ FL2 | FL1 = FL2 | MLL1 ⇒ MLL2 | MLL1 ≠ MLL2 | MLL1 ⇔ MLL2 | |||
Tense | [+past] | [+past] | ◎ | −ta | −ed | X | ◎ |
[-past] | [-past] | ◎ | −(r)u | −Ø | ◎ | X | |
[1st person] | [1st person] | ||||||
[2nd person] | [2nd person] | ||||||
[-singular] | [-singular] | ||||||
− | [-past] | −s | ◎ | X | |||
[3rd person] | [3rd person] | ||||||
[+singular] | [+singular] | ||||||
Aspect | [+progressive] | [+progressive] | ◎ | −tei−ru | be+ −ing | ◎ | X |
[+habitual] | [+habitual] | −Ø/−s | ◎ | X | |||
[+resultative] | [+resultative] | have + −en | ◎ | X |
Age | L1 Background | Length of Exposure | Number of Participants | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ionin and Wexler (2002) | 3; 9–13; 10 | Russian | below 1 year 1–3 years | 20 |
Goad et al. (2003) | adults12 | Chinese | 6 months to 5 years | 12 |
Haznedar (2001) | 4 | Turkish | 1.5 months | 1 |
Geçkin and Haznedar (2008) | 4; 5 | Turkish | 1 year | 3 |
Grade/Year | Age | Number | L2 Data Mode | Years of English Study | Hours of English Class | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Junior High (CEFR A1) | 1st | 12–13 | 30 | Written | 8 months | 160 |
12 | Spoken | 160 | ||||
2nd | 13–14 | 30 | Written | 1.8 years | 360 | |
3rd | 14–15 | 30 | 2.8 years | 560 | ||
University (CEFR B1) | 2nd | 19–20 | 30 | 7.8 years | 1560 |
Morphemes | Tokens | Obligatory Contexts | Examples (Item Numbers) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Suppletive | Copula | 3 | Affirmative + Ø | He is happy today (No. 5). |
3 | Negative | She isn’t angry (No. 55). | ||
3 | Affirmative + VP−adverbs | He is always busy at work (No. 59). | ||
Auxiliary | 3 | Affirmative | She is eating breakfast now (No. 8). | |
3 | Negative | He isn’t laughing now (No. 20). | ||
Affixal | Regular-ed | 3 | Affirmative + Ø | He watched TV yesterday (No. 10). |
3 | Affirmative + VP−adverbs | She often played the piano last year (No. 2). | ||
Irregular | 3 | Affirmative + Ø | He went to school yesterday (No. 43). | |
3 | Affirmative + VP−adverbs | He often ate cake last year (No. 58). | ||
3SG-s | 3 | Affirmative + Ø | He likes sweets (No. 27). | |
3 | Affirmative + VP−adverbs | She usually eats breakfast at nine (No. 18). |
© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Muroya, A. L1 Transfer in L2 Acquisition of English Verbal Morphology by Japanese Young Instructed Learners. Languages 2019, 4, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4010001
Muroya A. L1 Transfer in L2 Acquisition of English Verbal Morphology by Japanese Young Instructed Learners. Languages. 2019; 4(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4010001
Chicago/Turabian StyleMuroya, Akiko. 2019. "L1 Transfer in L2 Acquisition of English Verbal Morphology by Japanese Young Instructed Learners" Languages 4, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4010001