Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:19:21.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DOES THE NOUN PHRASE ACCESSIBILITY HIERARCHY PREDICT THE DIFFICULTY ORDER IN THE ACQUISITION OF JAPANESE RELATIVE CLAUSES?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2007

Hiromi Ozeki  and
Yasuhiro Shirai
Hiromi Ozeki
Affiliation:
University of Tokyo
Yasuhiro Shirai
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although Keenan and Comrie's (1977) noun phrase accessibility hierarchy (NPAH) has been shown to predict the difficulty order of relative clauses (RCs) in SLA, most studies of the NPAH have been on European languages. This paper tests the prediction for Japanese. Study 1 analyzes RCs in an oral interview corpus from 90 learners of Japanese at four different levels of proficiency (first language = Mandarin Chinese, English, and Korean; N = 30 for each). Analysis of 1005 RCs from nonnative data and 231 RCs from 15 native speakers (NSs) of Japanese revealed that even lower proficiency learners used direct object (DO) and oblique (OBL) relatives, suggesting that subject (SU) relatives are not easier than DO or OBL relatives for second language learners of Japanese. The learners (except Korean NSs) also made strong associations between SU and animate heads and between DO/OBL and inanimate heads. Study 2 employed a sentence-combining experiment. Fifty NSs of Cantonese studying Japanese in Hong Kong took the test, which controlled for the animacy of head noun phrases and arguments of the verbs. Results revealed no significant difference between SU and DO, which were both easier than OBL, with only a minimal effect of animacy. However, errors of converting DO and OBL target items into SU relatives almost exclusively involved animate-head items. The results suggest that the NPAH does not predict the difficulty order of Japanese RCs, and that learners use different types of RCs based on the animacy of the head noun.This paper is based on a paper presented at the Workshop on the L2 Acquisition of Relative Clauses (January 28, 2005, Cornell University). We thank the participants at the workshop (in particular, Stephen Matthews and John Whitman), Kevin Gregg, Zoe Luk, William O'Grady, Wataru Suzuki, and the two anonymous SSLA reviewers for their invaluable comments and discussions. Study 1 is part of the first author's doctoral dissertation, submitted to Ochanomizu University, and has appeared in Japanese (Ozeki, 2005b). Study 2 was conducted at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, supported by a Direct Grant for Research from the university. We thank Alexis Chu, Yumi Inoue, Zoe Luk, and Chi-Ming Ho for their assistance in data collection and/or the construction of the test material and the statistical consultants at Cornell University (in particular, Freedom King) for their assistance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 169 - 196
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Braidi, S. M. (1999). The acquisition of second-language syntax. London: Arnold.
Comrie, B. (1996). The unity of noun-modifying clauses in Asian languages. In Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, January 8–10, 1996 (pp. 1077–1088). Salaya, Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University at Salaya.
Comrie, B. (1998). Attributive clauses in Asian languages: Towards an areal typology. In W. Boeder, C. Schroeder, K. H. Wagner, & W. Wildgen (Eds.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In memoriam Johannes Bechert, Band 2 (pp. 51–60). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Comrie, B. (2002). Typology and language acquisition: The case of relative clauses. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 19–37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Comrie, B. & Horie, K. (1995). Complement clauses versus relative clauses: Some Khmer evidence. In W. Abraham, T. Givón, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse grammar and typology: Papers in honor of John W. M. Verhaar (pp. 65–75). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Croteau, K. C. (1995). Second language acquisition of relative clause structures by learners of Italian. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 115–128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2000). The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 131–151.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81, 1–25.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315–330.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1–20.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. M. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327–344.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL '81: Selected Papers of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 129–139). Washington DC: TESOL.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haig, J. (1996). Subjacency and Japanese grammar: A functional account. Studies in Language, 20, 53–92.Google Scholar
Hamilton, R. L. (1995). The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy in SLA: Determining the basis for its developmental effects. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 101–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hansen-Strain, L. & Strain, J. E. (1989). Variation in the relative clause of Japanese learners. JALT Journal, 11, 211–237.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, T. (2005). Relative clause production by JSL children. In M. Minami, H. Kobayashi, M. Nakayama, & H. Sirai (Eds.), Studies in language sciences 4: Papers from the Fourth Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences (pp. 189–204). Tokyo: Kurosio.
Hsiao, F. & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90, 3–27.Google Scholar
Huter, K. (1996). Atarashii no kuruma and other old friends: The acquisition of Japanese syntax. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 39–60.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 39–60). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53, 285–323.Google Scholar
Kamada, O. (1999). KY-koopasu to dainigengo tosite no nihongo no syuutoku kenkyuu [KY corpus and acquisition research of Japanese as a second language]. In Heisei 8∼10nendo kagaku kenkyuuhi hoztokin kenkyuu seika hookokusyo, Kiban kenkyuu: Dainigengo tosite no Nihongo syuutoku kenkyuu ni kansuru soogoo kennkyuu [The Report for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, 1996–1998: Comprehensive research on the acquisition of Japanese as a second language] (pp. 335–350). Nagoya: Nagoya University.
Kamada, O. (2006). KY-koopasu to nihongo kyooiku kenkyuu [KY corpus and Japanese language education research]. Nihongo Kyoiku [Journal of Japanese Language Teaching], 130, 42–51.Google Scholar
Kanno, K. (2000, September). Sentence processing by JSL learners. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum 2000, Madison, WI.
Kanno, K. (2001). On-line processing of Japanese by English L2 learners. Dainigenngo-tositeno Nihongo-no Syuutoku Kenkyuu [Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language], 4, 23–38.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mak, W., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 50–68.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Semantics and pragmatics of noun-modifying constructions in Japanese. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 166–175.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1997). Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame-semantic approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mellow, D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 620–644.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. G. (2001). The acquisition of relative clause structures in French as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Miyamoto, E. & Nakamura, M. (2003). Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 342–355). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
O'Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M. (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 433–448.Google Scholar
Ozeki, H. (2003). Nani-ga kankeisetsu syuutoku no nan'i o kimerunoka [What determines the difficulty of relative clause acquisition: Review of research and its implication for the L2 acquisition of Japanese]. In Nihon Gengo Bunkagaku Kenkyuukai (Ed.), The state of the art in second language acquisition and instruction research: 2003 (pp. 32–50). Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Ozeki, H. (2005a). Dainigengo ni okeru Nihongo no meisi syuusyokusetu no sansyutu wa huhenteki syuutoku nan'ido kaisoo ni sitagau ka [Does the acquisition of noun-modifying constructions in L2 Japanese follow the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy?]. Dainigengo Tosite no Nihongo no Syuutoku Kenkyuu [Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language], 8, 64–82.Google Scholar
Ozeki, H. (2005b). Daiiti daini gengo ni okeru nihongo meisi syuusyokusetu no syuutoku katei: Ruikeiron teki apurooti [The acquisition process of Japanese noun-modifying clauses by first and second language learners: A typological approach]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japan.
Ozeki, H. & Shirai, Y. (2007). The consequences of variation in the acquisition of relative clauses: An analysis of longitudinal production data from five Japanese children. In Y. Matsumoto, D. Oshima, O. Robinson, & P. Sells (Eds.), Diversity in language: Perspectives and implications (pp. 243–270). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal models, and relative clause formation in a formal and informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38–55.Google Scholar
Roberts, M. (2000). Implicational markedness and the acquisition of relativization by adult learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Honolulu.
Sakamoto, T. & Kubota, S. (2000). Nihongo no kankeisetu no syuutoku ni tuite [On the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses]. Nanzan-Daigaku Kyoiku Sentaa Kiyoo [The Bulletin of the Center for International Education, Nanzan University], 1, 114–126.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1980). The acquisition of English relative clauses by second language learners. In R. C. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers of the Los Angeles Second Language Acquisition Research Forum (pp. 118–131). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Slobin, D. I. (1986). The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkic and Indo-European languages. In D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 273–294). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Tarallo, F. & Myhill, J. (1983). Interference and natural language in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 33, 55–76.Google Scholar
Teramura, H. (1975). Rentai syuusyoku no sintakusu to imi: Sono 1 [Syntax and semantics of noun modification, No.1]. Nihongo Nihonbunka [The Japanese Language and Culture], 4, 71–119.Google Scholar
Traxler, M., Morris, R., & Seely, R. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69–90.Google Scholar
Weckerly, J. & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 26, 559–570.Google Scholar
Uemura, R. (1997). Deeta-beesu de siraberu [Research using databases]. Nihongo-gaku [Japanese Linguistics], 16(12), 60–68.Google Scholar