Knowledge of Reflexives in a Second Language

244 Pages·1993·23.452 MB·

by  Margaret Thomas

KNOWLEDGE OF REFLEXIVES IN A SECOND LANGUAGE
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION & LANGUAGE DISORDERS
EDITORS
Harald Clahsen William Rutherford
University of Essex University of Southern California
EDITORIAL BOARD
Melissa Bowerman (Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik, Nijmegen)
Patricia Clancy (University of California at Santa Barbara)
Werner Deutsch (Universität Braunschweig)
Kenji Hakuta (Stanford University)
Kenneth Hyltenstam (University of Stockholm)
Peter Jordens (Free University, Amsterdam)
Barry McLaughlin (University of California at Santa Cruz)
Jürgen Meisel (Universität Hamburg)
Anne Mills (University of Amsterdam)
Csaba Pleh (University of Budapest)
Michael Sharwood Smith (University of Utrecht)
Catherine Snow (Harvard University)
Jürgen Weissenborn (Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik, Nijmegen)
Lydia White (McGill University)
Helmut Zobl (Carleton University, Ottawa)
Volume 6
Margaret Thomas
Knowledge of Reflexives in a Second Language
KNOWLEDGE
OF REFLEXIVES
IN A SECOND LANGUAGE
MARGARET THOMAS
Boston College
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
1993
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Thomas, Margaret (Margaret Ann), 1952-
Knowledge of reflexives in a second language / Margaret Thomas.
p. cm. -- (Language acquisition & language disorders : ISSN 0925-0123; v. 6)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Second language acquisition. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general-Reflexives. 3.
Anaphora (Linguistics) I. Title. II. Series.
P118.2.T47 1993
418.007-dc20 93-8483
ISBN 90 272 2469 2 (Eur.) / 1-55619-241-X (US) (alk. paper) CIP
© Copyright 1993 - John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or
any other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 75577 · 1070 AN Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · 821 Bethlehem Pike · Philadelphia, PA 19118 · USA
Contents
Acknowledgments ix
List of Abbreviations xi
Chapter 1 Language acquisition and linguistic theory 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Language acquisition and linguistic theory 2
1.2.1 The logical problem of first language acquisition 2
1.2.2 Second language acquisition and linguistic theory 4
1.3 Debate about the availability of UG to L2 learners 5
1.3.1 Evidence of access to UG 5
1.3.2 Evidence of lack of access to UG 11
1.3.3 Current state of the debate 14
1.4 Three hypotheses about the role of UG in adult L2 acquisition 15
Chapter 2 Constraints on the interpretation of anaphors 19
2.1 Introduction 19
2.2 Binding Theory 20
2.2.1 Why study reflexives? 20
2.2.2 Binding theory 21
2.2.3 Cross-linguistic variation 24
2.2.4 The subset principle 29
2.3 Preferences 30
2.4 Critique of Manzini and Wexler 32
Chapter 3 Acquisition of constraints on anaphors 35
3.1 Introduction 35
3.2 Research on L1 learners' knowledge of anaphors 35
3.2.1 C-command and locality constraints 36
3.2.2 Constraints on the grammatical roles of antecedents 40
3.2.3 Summary 41
3.3 Hypotheses A, B, and  and the interpretation of anaphors in L2 42
3.3.1 Hypothesis A: UG is unavailable 42
3.3.2 Hypothesis B: UG is available as instantiated in L1 42
3.3.3 Hypothesis C: UG is fully available 43
3.4 L2 learners' knowledge of anaphors 44
3.4.1 Early work 44
3.4.2 Recent work 45
vi KNOWLEDGE OF REFLEXIVES
3.5 Unresolved issues 55
3.5.1 Improving experimental design 55
3.5.2 Additional aspects of L2 learners' knowledge of anaphora 57
3.5.3 Do L2 learners set parameters to values not sanctioned by UG? 58
3.5.4 Summary 61
Appendix 62
Chapter 4 L2 learners' knowledge of English reflexives 67
4.1 Introduction 67
4.2 Subjects 67
4.2.1 Background information 67
4.2.2 Exposure to L2 70
4.3 Materials 73
4.3.1 The placement test 73
4.3.2 The vocabulary list 74
4.3.3 The test stimuli 74
4.3.4 Non-formal considerations in the design of the test stimuli 83
4.3.5 The comprehension task battery 84
4.4 Procedure 85
4.4.1 Recruitment of the subjects 85
4.4.2 The first test session 85
4.4.3 The second test session 86
4.4.4 Analysis of the data 89
4.5 Results 91
4.5.1 Percent of coreference 91
4.5.2 Validity of the data 101
4.5.3 Consistency of the data 103
4.5.4 Early vs. late learners 107
4.5.5 Summary 107
4.6 Discussion 109
4.6.1 UG and interpretation of English anaphors by L2 learners 109
4.6.2 Hypotheses A, B, and  110
4.6.3 Unresolved issues 111
Appendices 112
Chapter 5 L2 learners' knowledge of Japanese zibun 115
5.1 Introduction 115
5.2 Subjects 115
5.2.1 Background information 115
5.2.2 Exposure to L2 118
CONTENTS vii
5.3 Materials 120
5.3.1 The placement test 120
5.3.2 The vocabulary list 120
5.3.3 The test stimuli 121
5.3.4 Non-formal considerations in the design of the test stimuli 124
5.3.5 The comprehension task battery 127
5.4 Procedure 127
5.4.1 Recruitment of the subjects 127
5.4.2 The experimental session 128
5.4.3 Analysis of the data 129
5.5 Results 132
5.5.1 Percent of coreference 132
5.5.2 Validity of the data 138
5.5.3 Consistency of the data 139
5.5.4 Summary 141
5.6 Discussion 142
5.6.1 UG and the interpretation of Japanese zibun by L2 learners 142
5.6.2 Hypotheses A, B, and  143
Appendices 145
Chapter 6 Alternative views 151
6.1 Introduction 151
6.2 Reappraisal of Manzini and Wexler 151
6.3 Alternative approaches to the grammar of anaphors 152
6.3.1 Two sets of proposals 152
6.3.2 Two common denominators 157
6.4 Acquisition of reflexives under movement hypotheses 158
6.4.1 Research on L1 acquisition 159
6.4.2 Research on L2 acquisition 160
6.5 Acquisition of reflexives in L2 revisited 162
6.5.1 Hypotheses A, B, and  revisited 163
6.5.2 The data revisited 164
6.5.3 Discussion 168
Chapter 7 Conclusion 173
7.1 Introduction 173
7.2 Second language learners' knowledge of reflexives 173
7.2.1 Summary of results 173
7.2.2 Three hypotheses about the interpretation of anaphors in L2 175
7.2.3 Influence of preferences on the data 181
viii KNOWLEDGE OF REFLEXIVES
7.3 Implications 182
7.3.1 Implications for the notion of parameterized binding principles 182
7.3.2 Implications for research on second language acquisition 183
7.3.3 Implications for linguistic theory 184
7.4 Future prospects 184
Notes 187
References 215
Index 229
Acknowledgments
This study is a revised and extended version of my Ph.D. dissertation, completed
in January 1991 at the Department of Linguistics of Harvard University. My first
thanks go to the three members of my thesis committee, for whose guidance I am
sincerely grateful: Susumu Kuno and Catherine Snow of Harvard University, and
Suzanne Flynn of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I am also indebted
to Lydia White of McGill University for her comments on the manuscript.
I would like to express my appreciation to the students of several institutions
who participated in the experiments described in this study, including the Cam­
bridge Center for Adult Education, Boston College, Boston University, Dokkyo
University, Harvard University, Harvard University Extension, Harvard Univer­
sity Spouses' Program, International Christian University, Showa Women's
Institute, and YMCA Boston.
For help in developing the experimental materials, I thank Robert Chibka,
Kohji Hoshi, Akio Kamio, Masatoshi Koizumi, Yuiko Ogura, Kazutaka Ohta,
Seiji Naito, Daniel Radzinski, and Kenneth Wexler.
For help locating subjects, I would like to thank Faith Barcus, Joan Bartel,
Bill Biddle, Ray Biggar, Steven Christenson, Becky Copeland, Jackie Dailey,
Andrew Garrett, Kurumi Hiki, Madelyn Kissock, Miriam Kurland, Dorothy
Linde, Ryooko Murano, Yuki Sakamaki, James Smith, James Sullivan, and Keno
Valenzuela.
For statistical assistance, I am indebted to Cliff Mulligan and Larry Zubor-
ski; for bibliographical help, Susan Bennett, Patricia Balcom, Gerald Berent,
Makiko Hirakawa, Dami Lee, Joyce Neu, and Yukio Otsu; for their comments on
Chapter 6, Susan Bennett and Dawn MacLaughlin; and for help in numerous
practical matters during my stay in Japan, Akio Kamio.
I am grateful for the financial support of the Office for Educational Research
and Improvement through a Center for Language Education and Research sub­
contract to Harvard Graduate School of Education (Catherine Snow, project
Principal Investigator). The generous support of a Dokkyo University Interna­
tional Cooperation Research Fellowship made collection of the Japanese data
possible.
Finally, I thank the editors of Studies in Second Language Acquisition and of
Language for their permission to use data which first appeared in those journals.
List of Abbreviations
ACC Accusative case
AGR Agreement
COMP Complementizer
CP Maximal projection of COMP; equivalent of S-bar
DAT Dative case
DET Determiner
GEN Genitive case
INFL Inflectional element
IP Maximal projection of INFL; equivalent of S
LF Logical Form
L1 First language
L2 Second language
NOM Nominative case
NP Noun phrase
OP Operator
PP Prepositional phrase
PROG Progressive aspect
Q Question particle
QUOT Quotative particle
SPEC Specifier
TOP Topic marker
UG Universal grammar