L1 Transfer in Japanese L2 in learners of typologically distant languages

1
L1 Transfer in Japanese L2 in learners of
typologically distant languages

• Satomi Kawaguchi
• s.kawaguchi_at_uws.edu.au

University of Western Sydney School of Languages
Linguistics, MARCS
2
Introduction

• This presentation reports on part of my PhD
  research result
• The objective of my PhD research is to apply
  Processability Theory (PT) to Japanese L2,
  establish developmental stages of JSL and test
  the validity of the stages with empirical studies
• This presentation focuses on the cross-linguistic
  influence on early development of JSL in learners
  whose L1 is distant from Japanese Two English
  and two Romance background learners

3

• Test the validity of two competing hypothses on
  L1 transfer
• 1. Full Transfer / Full Access Hypothesis
  (Schwartz and
• Sprouse 1994, 1996)
• 2. Developmentally Moderated Transfer
  Hypothesis (Pienemann 1998, HÜkansson, Pienemann
  Sayehli 2002)
• More specifically, I look at the acquisition of
  Japanese L2 features/structures hypothesised at
  Stage 2 which requires categorial procedure by
  the learners with typological distant L1. Then
  the results will be examined in the light of the
  predictions led by the two hypotheses.

4
1. Competing theoretical approaches to L1
Transfer (summary from Pienemann, Di
Biase, Kawaguchi and Håkansson to
appear)
5
a. Full access to UG

• Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996)
• Full Transfer / Full Access Hypothesis (FT/FA)
• ...the initial state of L2 acquisition is the
  final state of L1 acquisition
• (Schwartz and Sprouse 1996 p40)
• According to this hypothesis, second language
  acquisition is the process of re-setting the
  parameters which are already set while learning
  L1. This position assumes that L2 learners have
  full access to UG.

6

• Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994, 1996)
• Transfer is limited to lexical categories but
  not functional categories
• Eubank (1993)
• Both lexical and functional categories can be
  transfer to L2
• Platzack (1996)
• a universal initial hypothesis of syntax based
  on the Minimalist Program -a universal defalult
  word order is S-V-Complement

7

• b. Limited or indirect access to UG
• Meisel (1983, 1991), Felix (1984), Clahsen
  (1986)
• c. Whatever can transfer will
• The Competition Model
• (Bates MacWhinney 1981, 1982, 1997)

8

• d. Processing constraints on L2
• PTs Developmentally Moderated Transfer
  Hypothesis
• Second language acquisition is constrained by
  processing resources (cf Pienemann 1998, 81f) and
  this implies
• (1) that first language (L1) transfer is
  constrained by the processability of the given
  structure and
• (2) that the initial state of the second language
  (L2) does not necessarily equal the final state
  of L1 (contrary to the assumption made by
  Schwartz and Sprouse , 1996), because there is no
  guarantee that the given L1 structure is
  proccessable by the under-developed L2 parser.
• (Håkansson, Pienemann Sayehli 2002, p250-51)

9

• Håkansson, Pienemann Sayehli (2002)
• Look at the transfer of Verb-Second (i.e. Adv
  V NSUBJ X) in Swedish L1 - German L2 learners,
  which exist in both Swedish and German
• If FT/ FA H is correct, Swedish L1 - Geman L2
  learners should be able to use this structure in
  German straight away
• PT predicts that Verb-Second requires
  S-procedure and therefore the structure belongs
  to Stage 4
• Result the structure is not transferred
  initially but the learners needed to go through
  the Stage 1-3 before acquiring Verb-Second

10

• So, typological proximity does not always bring
  in advantages for L2 learning
• PTs explanation of the result Acquisition
  happens only when the learner develops L2
  procedural skill required for processing a given
  structure in L2

11
2. Predictions for learning Japanese L2 based on
FT/FA and PTs DMT

• Japanese is characterised by an SOV canonical
  word order and morphological marking of semantic
  role on noun.
• These structures do not exist in English, French
  and Portuguese which are the languages I am
  looking at.
• These languages are characterised by SVO
  canonical word order, no postnominal marking and
  more configurational.

12

• FT/FA predicts that all L1 features will
  transfer to L2. So the learners will produce SVO
  word order with absence of nominal marking at
  early stages in learning Japanese L2
• DMT predicts that both SOV and nominal marking
  are learnable at initial syntactic stages
  regardless of typological distance of the
  learners
• It is because Japanese L2 structures SOV
  canonical word order and nominal marking are both
  hypothesised at Stage 2 (category procedure) in
  Japanese L2 PT hierarchy.

13
LFG Formalisation of Japanese Word Order

• (R1) S XP V, A
• (XCOMPGF)
• (Matsumoto
  1996 p57)

14

• (R2) a. N N
• b. N N Aff
• (GF)

15
(No Transcript)
16
Table 1. Three features in English Romance
languages (L1) and Japanese (L2) (based on
Harris (1987) for French, Parkinson (1987) for
Portuguese and Shibatani (1990) for Japanese)
17
3. Study
18
The informantTable 2 Summary of the
longitudinal studies
19
Type of data

• Longitudinal study (data from first one year is
  presented here)
• Oral data was elicited by unrestricted interview
  and the tasks

20
HypothesesTable 3. Hypothesis on L1 transfer
in learning Japanese L2 with typologically
different L1s based on FT/FA and DMT
21
5. Results
22
a. Verb-final (main clause only)

• An example of V-final
• (Jaz T1) and er burakkuboodo erm -ga arimasu
  blackboard
  -NOM exist-POL.PRES
• and there is a blackboard.

23
(No Transcript)
24
b. Null subject

• An example of subject omission
• (Lou T2) er.. sandoitti-o tabemasu
• sandwich-ACC eat-POL.PRES
• er.. (I) eat sandwich

25
(No Transcript)
26
c. Nominal marking

• An example of nominal marking
• (Lou T2) er.. sandoitti-o tabemasu
• sandwich-ACC eat-POL.PRES
• er.. (I) eat sandwich

27
(No Transcript)
28
Summary of the learners initial syntax in
Japanese L2
29
(No Transcript)
30
6. Discussion
31

• Contrary to FT/FA, regardless of their L1, all
  four learners acquired early the same syntactic
  structures in Japanese L2 (S)(O)V canonical word
  order, null subject and the marking of semantic
  roles on noun.
• This is what PT predicted.
• In fact, in PT terms canonical word order (both
  SOV and SVO), nominal marking of semantic roles
  and null subject involve low demand in terms of
  processing capacity, therefore, they are
  processed at the initial stage by the learners.
  (Pienemann, Di Biase, Kawaguchi Håkansson to
  appear, Pienemann, Håkansson Sayehili 2002).

32

• Thus my findings support PTs developmentally
  moderated transfer hypothesis and falsifies
  Full Access/ Full Transfer hypothesis.
• So typological distance is not always a
  disadvantage.

33
7. Conclusion

• My findings lend support to PT-based
  Developmentally moderated transfer hypothesis
  and they also falsify the common belief that L2
  acquisition is always more difficult where
  typological distance between the learners first
  language and the target language is greater.
• Indeed the findings indicate that processability
  constraints, rather than typological proximity or
  distance, are more relevant to an explanation of
  why certain structures are learned earlier or
  later (Pienemann, Di Biase, Kawaguchi
  Håkansson, in press).

34
References

• Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1981)
  Second-language acquisition from a functionalist
  perspective pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual
  strategies. In Winity, H. (Ed.) Native Language
  and Foreign Language Acquisition. New York
  Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 379,
  190-214.
• Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1982) Functionalist
  approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. and
  Gleitman, L. R. (Eds.) Language Acquisition The
  States of the Art. Cambridge Cambridge
  University Press, 173-218.
• Eubank, L. (1993) On the transfer of parametric
  values in L2 development. Language Acquisition 3.
  183-53.
• Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M. Sayehli, S.
  (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the
  context of second language processing. Second
  Language Research Vol 18 No 3 pp250-273.

35

• Harris, M. (1987). French. In B. Comrie (Ed.) The
  major languages of Western Europe. pp.200-225.
  London Routledge.
• Ishikawa, A. (1985). Complex predicates and
  lexical operations in Japanese. PhD thesis.
  Stanford University.
• MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second Language
  Acquisition and the Competition Model. in A. M.
  B. de Groot and J. F. Kroll (Eds.) Tutorials in
  Bilingualism. Mahwah, New Jersey Laurence
  Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. pp113-142.
• Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Complex predicates in
  Japanese A syntactic and semantic study of the
  notion of word. Stanford, CA, and Tokyo CSLI
  and Kurosio.
• Parkinson, S. (1987). Portuguese. In B. Comrie
  (Ed.) The major languages of Western Europe.
  pp.250-268. London Routledge.
• Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and
  second language development Processability
  Theory. Amsterdam Philadelphia John Benjamins
  Publishing Company.

36

• Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S.
  Håkansson, G. (to appear) Processing constraints
  on L1 transfer. in Kroll, J. F. De Groot, A. M.
  B. (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism
  Psycholinguistic Approaches, Oxford University
  Press.
• Platzack, C. (1996) The initial hypothesis of
  syntax A Minimalist perspective on language
  acquisition and attrition. In H. Clahsen (Ed.)
  Generative perspectives on language acquisition,
  Amsterdam Benjamins.
• Schwartz, B. D. Sprouse, R. A. (1994). Word
  order and nominative case in non-native language
  acquisition. A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish)
  German interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra and D. B.
  Schwartz (Eds.) Language acquisition studies in
  generative grammar papers in honour of Kennth
  Waxler from the 1991 GLOW workshops.
  Philadelphia, PA J. Benjamins, 317-68.
• Schwartz, B. D. Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2
  cognitive states and the Full Transfer/ Full
  Access model. Second Language Research 12 (1)
  40-72.

37

• Shibatani, M. (1987). Japanese. in B. Comrie
  (Ed.) The Major Language of East and South-East
  Asia. London Routledge. pp127-152.
• Shibatani, M. (1990). The languages of Japan.
  Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
• Vinikka, A. Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct
  access to X-theory evidence from Korean and
  Turkish adults learning German. In T. Hoekstra
  and B. D. Schwartz (Eds.) Language acquisition
  studies in generative grammar Papers in honour
  of Kennth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW workshops.
  Philadelphia, PA J. Benjamins, 7-39.
• Vinikka, A. Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual
  development of L2 phrase structure. Second
  Language Research 12. 7-39.
• Meisel, J. (1983) Strategies of second language
  acquisition More than one kind of
  simplification. In R. W. Anderson (Ed.)
  Pidginisation and creolisation as language
  acquisition. pp.120-157. Rowley, Mass. Newbury
  House.

38

• Meisel, J. (1991) Principles of Universal Grammar
  and strategies of language use On some
  similarities and differences between first and
  second language acquisition. In L. Eubank (Ed.)
  Point - Counterpoint. Universal Grammar in the
  second language. pp.231-276. Amsterdam,
  Philadelphia John Benjamins.
• Felix, S. W. (1984). Maturational aspects of
  universal grammar. In A. Davies, C. Criper and A.
  Howatt (Eds.) Interlanguage. pp.133-161.
  Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press.
• Clahsen, H. (1986) Connecting theories of
  language processing and (second) language
  acquisition. In C. W. Pfaff (Ed.) First and
  second language acquisition processes.
  pp.102-116. Cambridge Newbury House.

39
(No Transcript)