SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH DOUBLE OBJECT CONSTRUCTION BY KOREAN SPEAKERS

by Eunjeong Oh __________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (LINGUISTICS)

August 2006

Copyright 2006

Eunjeong Oh

Dedication

To two men in my life: Hongjoong Kim and Seonkyu Kim

ii

Acknowledgments

There is a little prayer that I have read before starting my day each day during the final stage of writing my dissertation. It is called the Serenity Prayer. I have experienced immense comfort after reading this little prayer and found enough energy to go on another day.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change Courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time, Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardship as the pathway to peace. Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will; That I may be reasonably happy in this life, And supremely happy with Him forever in the next.

I thank my Lord and God for giving me the chance to study in the U.S and for providing me the wisdom and courage to complete this task. When I cry in darkness and in despair, He cries with me, and when I jump with joy, He is right next to me, jumping with me. When I felt overwhelmed, He made me realize that I am not

iii

alone, and that He is with me as always, helping to make everything right. Without Him, I would not exist and, thus, this dissertation would not exist either. I am very grateful to the many professors and friends who have assisted me in one way or another to bring this work to completion. First and foremost, my deepest thanks go to my advisor Maria Luisa Zubizarreta for her constant care, unfailing support and much-needed guidance at every stage of my life at USC. Her immense knowledge of Syntax and Second Language Acquisition have tremendously influenced and shaped my general views in these fields, as is evident in every aspect of this dissertation. Words cannot express my gratitude, respect and love for her. Her role in my life has gone far beyond that of an advisor. Maria Luisa has been a superb teacher, a caring mother and a great mentor. At every stage, she has stood behind me with patience and love. It has been my great privilege and pleasure to work closely with her and to benefit from her expertise. I feel deeply indebted to Tania Ionin. Throughout the time that I have worked with her, she has supported me both academically and personally, for which I am grateful. She has always been very generous with her time and I have deeply benefited from every discussion weve had. Appointments with her have been always stimulating and constructive, which I have truly enjoyed. Thanks to her guidance, I became interested in a question of how my SLA work contributes to theoretical linguistics and how it impacts the linguistic claims in the literature. More

iv

importantly, though, I thank her for sharing a good friendship with me. It was truly a blessing to have her on my committee. I felt very fortunate to have had Prof. Jean-Roger Vergnaud on my committees. He served on my screening, qualifying and dissertation committees. Our numerous discussions and conversations were really fun, and his wide range of knowledge constantly amazed me. I would like to thank him for always being kind to me and to Hongjoong and for encouraging me with good advice and jokes. Thanks are also due to Bill Rutherford. Unfortunately, I didnt have a chance to take his class because he retired before I joined the department. Nevertheless, he served on almost all of my committees and his knowledge of language acquisition in general and his expertise on experiments in SLA in particular helped to improve the quality of my work. Mario Saltarelli also deserves special thanks. He served as an external member on my qualifying and dissertation committees. I benefited greatly from his knowledge of Romance linguistics. His questions and comments gave me a chance to compare Korean examples with their counterparts in Romance languages, which provided me a valuable way of looking at issues. I was also indebted to professors at USC outside my dissertation committee, who taught me in various areas of linguistics and trained me to be a linguist and researcher: Hagit Borer, Toben H. Mintz, Roumyana Pancheva, and Hajime Hoji. They have all contributed to my way of looking at linguistic analysis in many aspects.

I would also like to thank Hagit Borer for giving me an opportunity to be a T.A for her general education course for two semesters. I would like to express my gratitude to Dean of academic affairs Jane Cody, for whom I served as an R.A in spring 2003. In that semester, I worked on the College TA Handbook under the supervision of Dean Cody. It was very unique experience, during which I learned a lot. I also wish to thank my professors at SUNY Stony Brook for providing me with a good foundation in linguistics, encouraging me to go find a better me and to go beyond. Thanks are due to Richard Larson, Lori Repetti, Marie Huffman, Daniel Finer and John Bailyn. Among them, Richard Larson, Lori Repetti and Daniel Finer deserve special thanks. Richard Larson has been a wonderful teacher to me. I have greatly benefited from numerous meetings with him. He has taught me how to think critically and how to make arguments. He also helped me a lot when I had to transfer to USC. Lori has made a tremendous impact on my life. I owe my knowledge of phonology to her, as well as much of what I know about doing solid phonological research. Furthermore, with her, I learned that a teacher and student can be good friends. Lori was also the one who encouraged me to continue studying beyond my MA (while I was in the MA TESOL program at SUNY Stony Brook). Even since I moved to LA, we have continued to share a good relationship which I have always cherished. I am very grateful to Daniel Finer for giving me a wonderful chance to be a T.A for his undergraduate syntax class. Through TAing this course, I learned how rewarding and fruitful teaching could be. I truly enjoyed every moment of teaching vi

the course, and this experience has given me a strong motivation to pursue a career as a teacher. Outside the linguistics department, the late Prof. of Applied Mathematics, Woojung Kim at SUNY Stony Brook has a special place in my heart. He was the director of the department where my husband studied. Prof. Kim was a rare mathematician. I have never met any Korean mathematician with such a perfect command of English. Our mutual interest in languages brought us together and the common interest between us developed our relationship at another level. He has always told me that I could do much better if I believe so and I could be stronger to survive in the U.S and be independent of my husband. The serenity prayer at the beginning of the acknowledgements was a poem that Prof. Kim introduced me to when I was in despair. He passed away in 2002. However, our much-appreciated discussions and conversations live on in my heart. Thanks to my professors at Sangmyung University: Profs. Yoongug Yang, Kyesook Kim, Wonkyung Lee, and Nakil Sung. Their teaching and guidance provided me with a good foundation and preparation for my studies in the U.S. I also thank Prof. Seokhoon Yoo at Korea University and Prof. Jongho Jun at Seoul National University for their encouragement and good wishes. I would like to thank the undergraduate students who helped me with the data collection: Jomeline Balatayo and Anna Bokarius for the child L1 data, and Jeehye Hwang and Jean Lee for the adult L2 data, the results of which are reported in Chapter 4. vii

I would like to thank my friends at USC, who have made my life here enjoyable and memorable. I will start with the friends in my year: Jelena Krivokapic, Ana Sanchez-Munoz, Fetiye Karabay, Rebeka Campos and Tommie Leung. Going beyond my year, I would like to thank Agnieszka Lazorczyk, Isabelle Roy, Nihan Ketrez, Monica Cabrera, Roberto Mayoral-Hernandez, Janet Anderson, Jerry Liu, Bella Feng, Michal Martinez, Simona Montanari, Emi Mukai, Michael Shepherd and Stephen Tobin. The Korean students who have studied here before and after me deserve mention: Soyoung Park, Hyuna Byun, Eurom Ok, Dongsik Lim, Mina Lee, and Miae Lee. I am deeply grateful to them for sharing a good friendship with me and for being a source of laughter. Among my friends at USC, Agnieszka has had a special place in my life. Ever since we worked together as TAs for Ling 110, we have been good friends. The friendship that she showed me during my pregnancy still fills my heart with happiness and will remain as one of the most unforgettable memories from my time at USC. Lastly, I would like to thank Emily Hinch for proofreading my dissertation and for the good friendship that she has shared with me. I also wish to thank my friends in the department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at USC: Jeehyun Park, Yongjoon Cho, Kwanpyo Hong and Seonkyung Jeon. Among them, I owe special thanks to Seonkyung unni for being a good sister to me, an exemplary Christian figure, an always-available and reliable advisor, and a prayer mate. Without Seonkyung unni (and hyengboo), my life at USC would have been quite different. Thank you for your strong belief in me and for the much-needed encouragements. viii

I also wish to thank the members of Loving Jesus & Mission Church. Special thanks go to Reverend Soon-Young Kang and samonim. I am deeply grateful to them for their constant prayers and heart-warming care. The Reverend Kang and samomim have spiritually supported me in every possible way, and the Reverend Kang has never failed to pray for me, for every conference presentation, and talk that I have given. My warmest thanks go to my families. I would like to thank my in-laws, Yong-Taik Kim and Ho-Soon Lee, for their constant support and love. They have been my source of motivation. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices they have made for me, without which I would not be where I am now. I thank my parents, Young-Bin Oh and Jung-Ja Lim, for standing behind me in all the decisions I have made and for showing their deep trust in me. I would also like to express my thanks to Auntie Hosook and Uncle Gunyoung. Finally, I wish to thank Hongjoong and Seonkyu for their roles in my life. They have made the hard work seem worthwhile and the effort seem less. I thank Hongjoong for his immense love, strong belief in me and for never failing to remind me about them. He has been an excellent husband and a wonderful soul-mate. The arrival of our little son, Seonkyu, has taught us the meaning of life, love and a family. I deeply thank Seonkyu for growing up well and healthy even in the absence of his mommy and thank Hongjoong for playing a fantastic role as emppa (a new coinage of emma (mommy) and appa (daddy)). Without them, this accomplishment would not have nearly as much meaning as it does. ix

I dedicate this dissertation to two men in my life, being the wind beneath my wings: my husband, Hongjoong Kim and my son, Seonkyu Kim.

Table of Contents
Dedication Acknowledgments List of Tables List of Figures Abstract Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 The goal of this dissertation 1.2 Proposal 1.2.1 The structural transfer hypothesis 1.2.2 Acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings 1.3 Overview of this thesis Chapter 2: Theoretical Background: Syntactic and Semantic Properties of English and Korean Double Object Constructions 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Syntactic and semantic properties of English Double Object (DO) and Prepositional Dative (PP) constructions 2.2.1 Structural properties of the English DO constructions 2.2.2 Structural properties of the English PP constructions 2.2.3 Semantic properties of the English DO constructions 2.2.3.1 A semantic constraint 2.2.3.2 A morphological constraint 2.2.4 Semantic properties of the English PP constructions 2.2.4.1 Semantic properties of the goal PP constructions 2.2.4.2 Semantic properties of the benefactive PP constructions 2.2.5 The applicative projection in the DO construction 2.2.6 The recent developments in the applicative projection in English DO constructions 2.2.6.1 Marantzs applicative structure (1993) 2.2.6.2 Pylkknnens applicative structure (2002) 2.3 Syntactic and semantic properties of Korean DO constructions 2.3.1 Verbal morphology in Korean DO constructions 2.3.2 Structural properties of Korean DO constructions 2.3.2.1 Asymmetric c-command in Korean DOs ii iii xvi xix xxii 1 1 4 4 7 8 11 11 12 13 15 20 21 27 29 29 34 34 36 36 39 44 44 47 47 xi

2.3.2.2 The mono-clausal property of Korean benefactive DOs 2.3.3 A structural distinction between goal DOs and benefactives in Korean 2.3.3.1 A structural divergence of goal DOs from benefactive DOs 2.3.3.2 The high applicative status of Korean benefactive DOs 2.3.4 Semantic properties of Korean DO constructions 2.3.4.1 Semantic properties of benefactive DOs in Korean 2.3.4.2 Semantic properties of goal DOs in Korean 2.4 Conclusion Chapter 3: The English Double Object Construction in L1 and L2 Acquisition 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Previous studies of the English DO constructions in child L1 acquisition 3.2.1 Gropen et al. (1989) 3.2.2 Comments on Gropen et al. (1989) 3.2.3 Mazurkewich & White (1984) 3.2.4 Comments on Mazurkewich & White (1984) 3.3 Previous study of the English DO construction in child L2 acquisition 3.3.1 Whong-Barr & Schwartz (2002) 3.3.2 Comments on Whong-Barr & Schwartz (2002) 3.4 Previous studies of the English DO construction in adult L2 acquisition 3.4.1 White (1987, 1991) 3.4.2 Comments on White (1987, 1991) 3.4.3 Sawyer (1996) 3.4.4 Comments on Sawyer (1996) 3.5 Conclusion Chapter 4: Experiment 1: The Structural Transfer Hypothesis 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Methods 4.2.1 Participants 4.2.1.1 L2 acquisition 4.2.1.2 L1 acquisition 4.2.2 Cloze test 4.2.3 Written grammaticality judgment task 4.2.3.1 Overall format 4.2.3.2 Categories of test items 4.2.3.3 The exceptional goal verbs 4.2.3.4 Procedure with children 4.2.3.5 Procedure with adults

52 56 57 63 65 66 70 78 80 80 81 81 84 86 90 93 93 97 99 100 101 102 105 107 109 109 111 112 112 113 114 115 115 118 120 123 129 xii

Vocabulary translation task Overall procedure Specific hypothesis and predictions Transfer Developmental effects Results Group analysis PP forms Licit goal DOs vs. Licit ben DOs Latinate goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs Discussion of group analysis Individual analysis Individual analysis by verb Licit goal verbs vs. Licit ben verbs Latinate goal verbs vs. Latinate ben verbs Exceptional goal verbs vs. Illicit ben verbs Discussion of individual analysis by verb Individual analysis by subject Licit goal DOs vs. Licit ben DOs Latiante goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs Discussion of individual analysis by subject Discussion of experiment 1 Results of the correction task Discussion of the preference of PP forms over DO forms An alternative approach A frequency-based explanation A morphological transfer-based explanation The morphological transfer hypothesis Against morphological transfer: Oh & Zubizarreta (in pressa, in pressb) 4.5.3.1 Verbal morphology in the DO constructions of Korean, Japanese, and Mandarin 4.5.3.2 Morphological transfer hypothesis and predictions 4.5.3.3 Results 4.5.4 Discussion 4.6 Conclusion Chapter 5: The Acquisition of Form-to-Meaning Mapping 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Proposal and theoretical background of experiment 2 5.2.1 Proposal: the acquisition of argument structure alternation is viewed as the acquisition of a paradigm

4.2.4 4.2.5 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.1.1 4.4.1.2 4.4.1.3 4.4.1.4 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.4.4.1 4.4.4.2 4.4.4.3 4.4.5 4.4.6 4.4.6.1 4.4.6.2 4.4.6.3 4.4.7 4.4.8 4.4.9 4.4.10 4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.2.1 4.5.3

130 130 131 131 135 138 138 139 141 143 145 147 150 151 152 155 159 162 162 163 165 167 169 169 170 172 176 176 177 178 179 179 183 185 187 188 190 190 193 193 xiii

5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.3 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.3.1 5.4.3.2 5.4.3.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.5 5.5.1 5.5.1.1 5.5.1.2 5.5.1.3 5.5.2 5.5.2.1 5.5.2.2 5.5.3 5.5.3.1 5.5.3.2 5.5.4 5.5.5 5.6

The DO-PP paradigm: semantic distinction between DO and PP forms Acquisition of the DO-PP paradigm, and the role of indirect negative evidence A possible sequence of acquisition of the constraints pertinent to the DO-PP paradigm Hypotheses Methods Participants Cloze test Written grammaticality judgment task Overall format Categories of test items Procedure Vocabulary translation task Overall procedure Predictions Results Testing the possessor constraint: the Poss distinction Group analysis Individual analysis by verb Individual analysis by subject Testing the animacy constraint: the Animate goal distinction Group analysis Individual analysis Testing the physical transfer constraint: the Physical transfer distinction Group analysis Individual analysis Sequence of acquisition: evidence from group results Further evidence from individual subject analysis Conclusion

196 198 200 205 206 206 207 208 208 210 220 222 223 223 227 227 227 232 235 238 238 241 244 244 247 250 256 258 261 261 261 263 264 266 268 271 271 273 xiv

Chapter 6: Conclusion: Models of L1-Transfer 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Summary of findings 6.3 Models of L1-transfer 6.3.1 The UG-based transformational learning model 6.3.2 The UG-based competing grammar model 6.3.3 The application of the competing grammar model to L2 acquisition 6.3.4 Application of the grammar competition hypothesis to acquisition of English DOs by Korean speakers 6.3.4.1 Acquisition of English ben DOs by Korean speakers 6.3.4.2 Acquisition of English goal DOs by Korean speakers

6.3.4.3 Evidence from corpus data 6.4 Conclusion Bibliography Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D

274 277 279 290 290 292 295 300

xv

List of Tables
Table 1: Dignostics for distinguishing high vs. low applicatives Table 2: Classification of DOs in English and Korean Table 3: Summary of the findings of Mazurkewich & White (1984) Table 4: Summary of the findings of Whong-Barr & Schwartz (2002) Table 5: Accuarcy of subject responses in White (1987) Table 6: Production of DO forms by type of recipient and verb origin Table 7: Production of DO forms by verb class and verb origin Table 8: Characteristics of L1-Korean participants (experiment 1) Table 9: Classification of L1-Korean learners of English Table 10: The six categories tested Table 11: The semantic constraint and the morphological constraint across categories Table 12: Predictions of the structural transfer hypothesis Table 13: Paired sample t-tests: goal PPs vs. ben PPs Table 14: Paired sample t-tests: licit goal DOs vs. licit ben DOs Table 15: Paired sample t-tests: Latinate goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs Table 16: Paired sample t-tests: exceptional goal DOs vs. illicit ben DOs Table 17: Individual analysis by verb: licit goal vs. licit ben verbs Table 18: Individual analysis by verb: Latinate goal vs. Latinate ben verbs Table 19: Individual analysis by verb: exceptional goal vs. illicit ben verbs 40 61 88 97 101 105 105 112 115 119 120 135 141 143 145 147 155 158 161

xvi

Table 20: Licensor types in goal and ben DOs in Korean, Japanese, and Mandarin Table 21: Predictions of the morphological transfer hypothesis Table 22: Characteristics of L1-Korean participants (experiment 2) Table 23: Classification of L1-Korean learners of English Table 24: Contexts testing the possessor constraint Table 25: Contexts testing the animacy constraint Table 26: Contexts testing the physical transfer contraint Table 27: Summary of all categories of test items Table 28: Paired sample t-tests: goal DOs (+Poss) vs. goal DOs (-Poss) Table 29: Paired sample t-tests: ben DOs (+Poss) vs. ben DOs (-Poss) Table 30: Paired sampe t-tests: DOs (+ Poss) vs. DOs (-Poss) Table 31: Percentages of subjects making the relevant distinction with the Poss contexts Table 32: Contexts testing the animacy contraint (repeated) Table 33: Paired sample t-tests: animate goal DOs vs. inanimate goal DOs Table 34: Paired sample t-tests: inanimate goal DOs vs. inanimate goal PPs Table 35: Contexts testing the physical transfer contraint (repeated) Table 36: Paired sample t-tests: +Physical transfer vs. Physical transfer PPs Table 37: Paired sample t-tests:-Physical transfer DOs vs. PPs Table 38: Summary of subjects performance on the four tested categories Table 39: Subjects performance with respect to hypothesis in (19a) Table 40: Subjects performance with respect to hypothesis in (19b)

183 185 207 208 211 215 217 220 228 230 231 237 238 240 241 244 245 247 251 253 254 xvii

Table 41: Individual subject analysis of hypothesis in (19b) Table 42: Input frequency of the 6 licit goal and 6 licit ben verbs used in experiment 1 Table 43: Comparison between mean ratings of exceptional goal DOs experiment 1 and experiment 2 Table 44: Paired sample t-tests: exceptional goal DOs vs. illicit ben DOs

258 275 304 306

xviii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Goal PP vs. Ben PP Figure 2: Licit goal DOs vs. Licit ben DOs Figure 3: Latinate goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs Figure 4: Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs Figure 5: Percentages of acceptance of licit goal verbs Figure 6: Percentages of acceptance of licit ben verbs Figure 7: Percentages of acceptance of Latinate goal verbs Figure 8: Percentages of acceptance of Latinate ben verbs Figure 9: Percentages of acceptance of exceptional goal verbs Figure 10: Percentages of acceptance of illicit ben verbs Figure 11: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of licit goal DOs by subjects Figure 12: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of licit ben DOs by subjects Figure 13: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of Latinate goal DOs by subjects Figure 14: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of Latinate ben DOs by subjects Figure 15: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of exceptional goal DOs by subjects Figure 16: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of illicit ben DOs by subjects Figure 17: Goal DOs vs. Goal PPs Figure 18: Ben DOs vs. Ben PPs Figure 19: Goal DOs (+Poss) vs. Goal DOs (-Poss) Figure 21: Individual analysis by goal verb ( Poss distinction) 140 141 144 146 152 153 157 157 160 160 163 164 166 166 168 168 173 174 228 233 xix

Figure 22: Individual analysis by ben verb ( Poss distinction) Figure 23: Individual analysis by subject ( Poss distinction: goal DOs) Figure 24: Individual analysis by subject ( Poss distinction: ben DOs) Figure 25: Animate goals vs. Inanimate goals Figure 26: Inanimate goal DO vs. Inanimate goal PP Figure 27: Individual analysis (Animate goals vs. Inanimate goals) Figure 28: Individual analysis (Inanimate goal DO vs. Inanimate goal PP) Figure 29: +Physical transfer PPs vs. Physical transfer PPs Figure 30: Physical transfer DOs vs. Physical transfer PPs Figure 31: Individual analysis (Physical transfer PPs vs. +Physical transfer PPs) Figure 32: Individual analysis (Physical transfer DOs vs. PPs) Figure 33: Percentages of acceptance of licit goal verbs (repeated) Figure 34: Percentages of acceptance of licit ben verbs (repeated) Figure 35: Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs Figure 36: Individual analysis of goal verb Figure 37: Individual analysis of illicit ben verb

234 237 238 239 241 242 243 245 246 249 250 276 276 305 306 307

xx

Abbreviations

Nom nominative case Acc Gen Dat Top L Neg Past Pres Decl Ben accusative case genitive case dative case topic marker linker negation past tense present tense declarative marker benefactive

Appl applicative UQ universal quantiifer

Comp complementizer

xxi

Abstract
This thesis examines first language (L1) transfer and acquisition of form-tomeaning mappings in the adult second language (L2) acquisition of English Double Object (DO) constructions. The issues are examined using grammaticality judgment data from adult L1-Korean L2-English learners. First, a structural transfer hypothesis is formulated, according to which L1 structural properties undergo transfer, and structural (in)comparability between the L1 and L2 is crucial in determining the relative success of L2-acquisition. Second, this thesis investigates how L2-learners acquire form-to-meaning mappings, in particular when the target mappings cannot be acquired via L1-transfer and are not easily deducible from L2 positive input. Study of such poverty of the stimulus cases allows us to directly examine whether, and how, learners recover from negative L1transfer effects, and can potentially provide evidence for L2-learners access to Universal Grammar (UG). This thesis examines the structural properties of Korean and English DO constructions and proposes that goal DOs in these two languages are structurally comparable whereas benefactive DOs are structurally different. This syntactic distinction has a semantic correlate: while goal DOs in both languages and benefactive DOs in English encode a (prospective) possession relation, Korean benefactive DOs encode a wider benefactive meaning.

xxii

These structural similarities and differences between English and Korean DOs are well-suited for testing the structural transfer hypothesis, which predicts that L1-Korean L2-English learners should accept English goal DOs but reject English benefactive DOs. Empirical data from the first experiment support those predictions. Next, this thesis considers whether L2-learners are capable of recovering from negative transfer effects on English benefactive DOs. Results of the second experiment show that L2-learners are able to acquire the target form-to-meaning mapping for English benefactive DOs through emerging sensitivity to semantic constraints. It is concluded that (1) L1-transfer is operative in L2-acquisition at the level of syntax and (2) L2-learners have access to UG-based syntactic and semantic distinctions, which allow them to overcome the poverty of the stimulus problem. These findings furthermore provide support for a novel account of the syntactic and semantic properties of Korean DO constructions.

xxiii

Chapter 1 Introduction

Goals of this dissertation This dissertation explores two issues in adult second language (L2)

acquisition: L1 transfer and the acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings. L2 acquisition is fundamentally different from first language (L1) acquisition in one very noticeable way. L2 learners bring complete knowledge of their L1 grammar to the L2 acquisition task. Consequently, L1 transfer is relevant for L2 acquisition in general (cf. Dechert & Raupach 1989, Gass & Selinker 1983, Odlin 1989, Andersen 1983, Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996, among many others). Indeed, the findings of previous L2 research have clearly shown that the effects of L1 transfer are evident. However, not many studies have been explicit about what it means for the L1 to be transferred ; furthermore, most of these studies have confined their discussion mainly to the role of the L1 in characterizing the initial state of L2 acquisition (cf. Vainikka & Young-Scholten 1996, Eubank 1996, Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono 1996, Hawkins 2001). Therefore, we still have an incomplete understanding of the phenomenon of L1 transfer, and many questions concerning the phenomenon remain unanswered and unresolved. Recently, a new line of research on L2 acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface has investigated the acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings. In other 1

words, the focus has been on how L2-learners acquire not only the forms (e.g., word order, morphology, etc.) but the meaning associated with them (cf. Dekydtspotter, Sprouse & Anderson 1997, Dekydtspotter, Sprouse & Thyre 1999, 2002, Dekydtspotter 2001, Montrul & Slabakova 2002, Slabakova & Montrul 2002, Slabakova 2003, Ionin, Zubizarreta & Maldonado, in press, among others). There is little doubt that L2 studies on the syntax-semantics interface will deepen and sharpen our understanding of the L2 acquisition process in general. Such studies allow us to directly gauge what kind of linguistic knowledge is involved in L2 acquisition. Of particular interest are cases where L2-acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings cannot be attributed to L1 transfer and is not easily deducible from L2 positive input. Studies of such cases are valuable in that they reveal how L2 learners recover from negative transfer effects in order to acquire the target mapping and may provide evidence for L2 learners access to Universal Grammar (UG). While previous studies of form-meaning mappings have often focused on such areas as functional categories and determiners, this issue can also be investigated in the domain of argument structure, such as the English dative alternation. This is one of the goals of this dissertation. The main goal of this dissertation is to examine the issues of L1 transfer and the form-to-meaning mapping in adult L2 acquisition, with the aim of providing a more articulated characterization of L1 transfer. These issues are investigated in the domain of the English dative alternation, which consists of the Double Object (DO)

and Prepositional dative (PP) constructions, with the main focus on the acquisition of the DO construction. The specific goals are two-fold. The first goal is to examine what grammatical properties of the L1 transfer. It is proposed that structural properties of the L1 undergo transfer, and that the structural comparability vs. incomparability between the L1 and the L2 is a key factor in determining the relative success of L2 acquisition of the relevant construction. It will be shown that the data from the acquisition of the English DO construction by adult Korean speakers provide strong support for this proposal. This is the focus of experiment 1, reported in Chapter 4. The second goal is to examine two separate but related issues at the syntaxsemantics interface: (1) whether, and how, L2 learners are able to acquire the subtle semantic properties of the L2 (form-to-meaning mappings) in particular, the distinct semantic properties associated with the DO and PP forms, which are not evident in the input; and (2) whether L2 learners are ever able to overcome negative transfer effects (i.e., restructure the form-to-meaning mapping) and if yes, when and how they can do that. In investigating the second issue, I also examine the role that learners knowledge of the relevant semantic distinctions between the DO and PP forms plays in recovery from negative transfer effects. This is the focus of experiment 2, reported in Chapter 5. This dissertation proposes that when the DO and PP forms of the dative alternation can be considered as a part of the same paradigm, the acquisition of the dative argument structure alternation is guided by the Avoid Synonymy Principle 3

(Carstairs-McCarthy 1998). This allows indirect negative evidence (i.e., nonoccurrence of a form in the input; cf. Chomsky 1981) to be used by the learners to acquire the subtle semantic differences between the two forms in the alternation. Crucially, this dissertation proposes that awareness of the subtle but distinct semantics associated with the two forms helps L2 learners to overcome negative transfer effects. Data from the acquisition of English dative alternation by adult Korean speakers provide support for this proposal. The empirical data for this thesis come from two studies with adult L1Korean learners of English. These studies involve grammaticality judgment tasks.

2 2.1

Proposal The structural transfer hypothesis In this dissertation, I argue for structural transfer in L2 acquisition in general

and the acquisition of the English DO construction in particular. Two kinds of DO structures are under investigation: goal DO and ben(efactive) DO. The two types of DOs are exemplified in (1) and (2).

1.

a. b.

John gave a book to Mary. John gave Mary a book. Mary baked a cake for John. Mary baked John a cake.

(goal PP) (goal DO) (ben PP) (ben DO)

2.

a. b.

The main claim of the structural transfer hypothesis, which is formulated based on structural (in)comparability between the L1 and L2 is presented in (3).

3.

The structural transfer hypothesis The structural properties of L1 constructions transfer and influence the acquisition of the corresponding constructions in the L2.

(i)

Where there is a structural comparability between the corresponding L1 and L2 structures, the acquisition of the L2 structure will be facilitated.

(ii)

Where there is a structural incomparability between the corresponding L1 and L2 structures, the acquisition of the L2 structure will be delayed.

Similarities and differences in the structural properties of English and Korean DO constructions, which will be discussed in Chapter 2, provide a good testing ground for the structural transfer hypothesis in (3). It will be shown that while goal DOs in English and Korean are structurally comparable (both are low applicatives), Korean ben DO is not structurally comparable to English ben DO (the former is a high applicative whereas the latter is a low applicative). Applying the structural transfer hypothesis to the acquisition of the English DO construction by adult Korean speakers, more specific predictions are put forth, which are presented in (4). The details of the predictions will be spelled out in

section 3 of Chapter 4. The objective of Chapter 4 is to examine the structural transfer hypothesis via experiment 1.

4. (i)

Predictions for the acquisition of English DOs by Korean speakers The structural comparability between goal DOs in English and Korean will lead Korean-speaking learners of English to accept goal DOs.

(ii)

The structural incomparability between ben DOs in English and Korean will lead Korean-speaking learners of English to reject ben DOs.

(iii)

Bringing (i) and (ii) together: the acquisition of the English ben DO construction by Korean speakers will lag behind the acquisition of the English goal DO construction.

The role of structural transfer has been previously proposed in L2 literature (cf. Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996) but it has not been invoked in the domain of the DO construction. Therefore, experiment 1 is the first to study structural transfer in this domain; this experiment is grounded in a careful examination of the structural properties of the DO construction in both the L1 and the L2. As will be shown in Chapter 4, the findings of our experiment 1 clearly support the structural transfer hypothesis. More precisely, as predicted, the structural similarities and differences between Korean and English DOs figure prominently in the process of acquiring English DOs, leading the learners to a general acceptance of goal DOs and to a general rejection of ben DOs. This asymmetric treatment of goal 6

and ben DOs clearly holds for both licit and illicit DO constructions, at both the group and individual levels. An alternative account based on (universal) developmental effects is considered and argued against. Data from English-speaking children are crucial in ruling out this alternative account of the L2 data.

2.2

Acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings Given the negative transfer effects of Korean ben DOs on the acquisition of

English ben DOs, the question arises of whether Korean learners of English can ever overcome these negative transfer effects. This question leads to a more interesting question concerning L1 transfer: when and how learners are able to overcome negative transfer effects i.e., what functions as a triggering factor. In order to answer these questions, this dissertation takes up the issue of how the dative alternation is learned in other words, how the subtle semantic distinctions associated with the two forms of the alternation (the DO and PP forms) (i.e., form-to-meaning mapping) are acquired, identifying possible steps of the acquisition process. The acquisition of the English dative alternation can be understood through an examination of a learners sensitivity to the relevant constraints. Furthermore, the acquisition of constraints associated with the DO and PP forms can give us information about possible steps that learners take in acquiring the dative alternation. Carefully considering the saliency and robustness of each constraint figuring in the dative alternation, this thesis proposes a possible sequence of acquisition of the constraints. Most importantly, this dissertation proposes that the 7

possessor constraint on goal DOs is acquired before the corresponding constraint on ben DOs, and provides theoretical motivation for this sequence. The study of how the semantic differences between the DO and PP forms are acquired is a means of answering the question of how and when L2 learners are able to recover from the negative transfer effects. We need to know what knowledge can act as a triggering factor in bootstrapping the learners out of the negative transfer effects. In outlining a sequence of acquisition of the semantic constraints, we can see which constraints are known to learners who have already recovered from the negative transfer effects vs. learners who still show negative transfer effects. The objective of Chapter 5 is to examine learners sensitivity to the subtle semantic distinctions associated with the DO and PP forms, and to test the proposed sequence of acquisition of the semantic constraints, via experiment 2. The ultimate goal of experiment 2 is to get a better understanding of how L2 learners acquire form-tomeaning mappings in the L2, when the target mappings cannot be transferred from the L1 and cannot be directly deduced from L2 positive input alone. This also gives a deeper understanding of whether L2 learners can have access to UG and whether they are capable of overcoming a problem of poverty of the stimulus.

Overview of this thesis This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 lays out the theoretical

background of this thesis, examining the grammatical properties of English and Korean DOs. In the first portion of this chapter, syntactic and semantic properties of 8

English DOs and English PPs are discussed. In the second half of the chapter, syntactic and semantic properties of Korean DOs are presented. Chapter 2 ends with a discussion of the structural and semantic similarities and differences between the DO constructions in the two languages. Chapter 3 gives a brief review of previous studies concerning the acquisition of the English DO construction in child L1, child L2, and adult L2 acquisition. The main findings and issues of the studies are presented, and comments on the studies follow. In the comments sections, potential shortcomings in the design of the studies are examined. In designing the two experiments reported in this thesis, possible improvements on these drawbacks were taken into consideration. Chapter 4 examines the structural transfer hypothesis, which is built upon the theoretical considerations in Chapter 2. This chapter reports on a grammaticality judgment task testing the acquisition of the English DO and PP constructions by adult Korean speakers. The results show that the acquisition patterns of goal and ben DOs are very different: Korean-speaking learners of English accepted goal DOs more strongly and frequently than ben DOs. This asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs is attributed to a direct result of transfer of the structural properties in the L1. This result provides support for the structural transfer hypothesis. At the end of the chapter, I consider some alternative explanations of the results and show why these alternatives are insufficient to account for the findings of the study. Chapter 5 reports on a second grammaticality judgment task (checking learners comprehension), which examines learners sensitivity to the constraints 9

pertinent to the English DO and PP constructions. The relationship between learners knowledge of the relevant semantic distinctions and learners recovery from negative transfer effects is examined. This chapter shows that most advanced learners indeed overcome negative transfer effects; it is suggested that learners knowledge of the relevant semantic distinctions between the DO and PP forms plays a critical role in this recovery from negative transfer. In the concluding chapter, Chapter 6, a brief summary of the findings and conclusions of this thesis are presented. Then the issue of how to best model the mental process of transfer is considered. It is suggested that a model based on competing grammars (Roeper 2000, Yang 2002) is better equipped to model the gradual process of L2-acquisition than a parameter-triggering model that postulates an intermediate grammar for the L2 interlanguage (cf. Chomsky 1965, Wexler & Culicover 1980, Berwick 1985, Hyams 1986, Dresher & Kaye 1990, Gibson & Wexler 1994).

10

Chapter 2 Theoretical background: Syntactic and semantic properties of English and Korean Double Object constructions

Introduction In this chapter, I examine the syntactic and semantic properties of English

and Korean Double Object (DO) constructions. By establishing the syntactic and semantic properties associated with English and Korean DO constructions, I show both structural and semantic similarities and differences between the DO constructions in the two languages. A close examination of the differences and similarities in English and Korean DO constructions will set the stage for examining the acquisition of English DO constructions by Korean-speaking adult learners of English, which will be presented in Chapter 4. With respect to the structural properties of DO constructions, I argue that goal DOs in English and Korean are structurally comparable: goal arguments in both languages are within the scope of V. They are structurally comparable to the extent that the goal arguments are arguments of the (main) lexical verb. On the other hand, ben(efactive) DO constructions in English and Korean are structurally distinct: the benefactive DP in English is within the scope of V while the benefactive DP in Korean is outside the scope of V.

11

With respect to the semantic properties of DO constructions, I argue that goal DOs in English and Korean are comparable semantically: the Applicative head is projected in both languages (obligatorily for English and optionally for Korean). This suggests that (prospective) transfer of possession is implied in goal DOs in both languages. On the other hand, ben DOs in English and Korean are distinct semantically: ben DOs in Korean encode a wider benefactive construal, regardless of prospective possession; as a result, Korean allows more verbs to enter ben DOs than English does.

Syntactic and semantic properties of English DO and PP constructions Some dative verbs in English alternate between the DO and the Prepositional

dative (henceforth PP) constructions, as exemplified in (1) through (4). Following convention, a DO whose PP counterpart is headed by to is termed a goal DO and a DO whose PP counterpart is headed by for is termed a ben(efactive) DO. The two types of DOs are the main concern of this section.

The goal construction 1. a. b. 2. a. b. John gave a book to Mary. John gave Mary a book. John explained the answer to Mary. *John explained Mary the answer. (Goal PP) (Licit goal DO) (Goal PP) (Illicit goal DO)

12

The benefactive construction 3. a. b. 4. a. b. Mary baked a cake for John. Mary baked John a cake. John finished the painting for Mary. *John finished Mary the painting. (Ben PP) (Licit ben DO) (Ben PP) (Illicit ben DO)

2.1

Structural properties of English DO constructions Previous research on the structural properties of the English DO construction

has shown that there is an asymmetric c-command relationship between the goal and the theme arguments (see Barss & Lasnik 1986; Larson 1988, 1990; Aoun & Li 1989; Pesetsky 1995; Zubizarreta 1992, among others). More specifically, in the DO construction, the first DP (goal/benefactive) asymmetrically c-commands the second DP (theme). This asymmetric c-command relation is seen in the domain of anaphor binding, quantifier-pronoun binding, weak crossover, superiority, the eachthe other construction (with a reciprocal reading) and negative polarity items. Examples which illustrate the asymmetric c-command relationship are provided below (examples in (5) through (10) are taken from Larson (1988), who attributes the examples to Barss & Lasnik (1986)).

5.

a. b.

I showed Mary herself. *I showed herself Mary.

(anaphor binding)

13

6.

a. b.

I gave every workeri hisi paycheck. *I gave itsi owner every paychecki. Which mani did you send hisi paycheck? *Whosei pay did you send hisi mother? Who did you give which paycheck? *Which paycheck did you give who? I showed each man the others socks. *I showed the others friend each man. I showed no one anything. *I showed anyone nothing.

(quantifier binding)

7.

a. b.

(weak crossover)

8.

a. b.

(superiority)

9.

a. b.

(each the other)

10.

a. b.

(negative polarity items)

The same asymmetries between the two objects are also attested with ben DOs.1

11.

a. b.

I got every workeri hisi paycheck. *I got itsi owner every paychecki. (?)Which mani did you build hisi house? *Whosei house did you build hisi mother? (?) Who did you buy which gift? *Which gift did you buy who? I bought each man the others shoes. *I bought the others friend each shoes.

(quantifier binding)

12.

a. b.

(weak crossover)

13.

a. b.

(superiority)

14.

a. b.

(each the other)

These are the examples that I have constructed, and checked with three native English speakers.

14

15.

a. b.

(?)I bought no one anything. *I bought anyone nothing.

(negative polarity items)

These contrasts suggest that in both DO constructions, the first object asymmetrically c-commands the second. In this dissertation, the DO construction is defined syntactically in terms of an asymmetric c-command relation between the two objects. An asymmetric c-command relation between the goal and theme arguments will be used as one of the diagnostics establishing whether a given form is a DO construction.

2.2

Structural properties of English PP constructions Next, I briefly examine the structural properties of English PP constructions.

Goal PPs and ben PPs are structurally distinct. The structural difference between the two is related to the different grammatical status of the to-PP and the for-PP. It has been argued in the literature that the to-PP is a complement while the for-PP is an adjunct (cf. Jackendoff 1990, Goldberg 2002, Beck & Johnson 2004, Zubizarreta class notes 2004). Evidence for this comes from the optionality vs. obligatoriness of the PP, and traditional tests such as the do so anaphora and V-projection preposing. The examples below are taken from Zubizarreta class notes 2004. First of all, the to-PP and the for-PP are distinct with respect to optionality vs. obligatoriness: the to-PP is an obligatory element, whereas the for-PP is an optional

15

element.2 This contrast provides evidence for the adjunct status of the for-PP. The relevant data are in (16) and (17).

16.

a. b.

John gave a book to Mary *John gave a book John bought a book for Mary John bought a book.

(Goal PP)

17.

a. b.

(Ben PP)

The do so anaphora test also proves useful in detecting the complement vs. adjunct status of a phrase. Do so anaphora takes a VP as its antecedent: thus, any element merged within VP should be replaced by do so. If an element is merged outside VP, the element is not replaced by do so. The do so anaphora test provides evidence for the different grammatical status of the to-PP vs. the for-PP, as shown below. The for-PP, unlike the to-PP, can be left behind by do so anaphora, suggesting that it is not part of the VP.

18.

a. b.

John bought a book for Mary and Peter did so for Sue. (??)John sent a book to Mary and Peter did so to Sue.

Even for sentences where the to-PP seems to be optional, the to-PP is implied by the meaning of the verb. In the example below, the listener of the story is implied. (i) John told a story. Goal PPs are contrasted with ben PPs in this regard. In ben PPs, beneficiary is not implied. (ii) Mary baked a cake.

16

VP preposing lends further support to the distinct grammatical status of the to-PP and the for-PP. When the VP undergoes preposing, all VP-internal elements should also undergo preposing. An element can stay behind only when it is not part of VP. The lack of VP preposing with the for-PP suggests that the for-PP is merged outside the VP. Crucially, the to-PP cannot stay behind after VP preposing. This is shown in (19). Italics indicate what is preposed.

19.

a. He said he would buy a book for Mary and buy a book he did for Mary. b. (??)He said he would send a book to Mary and send a book he did to Mary.

The tests applied thus far suggest that the to-PP and for-PP are grammatically distinct. The to-PP, which is merged within VP, is a complement, whereas the forPP, which is merged outside VP, is an adjunct. The distinct grammatical status of the to-PP and for-PP further suggests that the goal and ben PP constructions are structurally different. While the goal PP construction is a double complement structure (given that the theme argument is a complement of the lexical verb), the ben PP construction is not (it is a complement + adjunct construction). Given the discussion so far, the following tree structures are provided for the goal and ben PP constructions (all non-pertinent details are omitted).

17

20.

Goal PP construction vP

Subj v

v VP

DPtheme

PP

to DP 21. Ben PP construction vP

vP

PP

Subj

for DP

VP

DPtheme 18

The series of tests discussed above suggests that the for-PP is merged outside of the VP. Note that in the structure in (21), the verb and the theme argument form a constituent VP, excluding the for-PP. Following Beck and Johnson (2004), I assume that the for-PP is adjoined to vP. The motivation for this adjunction site for the forPP is as follows. Following von Stechow (1995, 1996), Beck and Johnson (2004) argue that the adverb again can be used to test the internal structure of VPs. Again in English (also in German (wieder)) is ambiguous between a repetitive reading and a restitutive reading, as shown below:

22.

Sally opened the door again. a. b. Sally opened the door, and that had happened before. (repetitive) Sally opened the door, and the door had been opened before. (restitutive)

The repetitive reading presupposes that Sally has opened the door before. On the other hand, the restitutive reading presupposes that the door had been opened before (but not necessarily by Sally). Crucially, in order to get a repetitive reading, again should be merged outside VP (thus, it should be adjoined to a projection of the head v). On the other hand, in order to get a restitutive reading, again should be merged inside VP. The adjunct status of the for-PP is confirmed by the fact that the sentence in (23), where again is outside the constituent containing the for-PP, allows only a 19

repetitive reading. This means that the for-PP must be merged above the VP (at the vP).

23.

Mary sewed a flag for John again a.

(Beck and Johnson 2004: 119)

Mary sewed a flag for John, and that had happened before. ( repetitive)

b.

Mary sewed a flag for John, and a flag had been sewn for John before. (X restitutive)

In sharp contrast, the to-PP allows both repetitive and restitutive readings, suggesting that unlike the for-PP, it is merged within VP, as shown below.

24.

Mary gave the book to John again a. Mary gave the book to John, and that had happened before. ( repetitive) b. Mary gave the book to John, and the book had been given to John before. ( restitutive)

2.3

Semantic properties of the English DO constructions In this section, two constraints pertaining to the DO constructions are

discussed: the possessor constraint and the morphological constraint. The animacy

20

constraint, which is a side effect of the possessor constraint on the DO construction, is also considered.

2.3.1

A semantic constraint on the DO construction: the (prospective) Possessor

constraint Previous research on the semantic properties of the English DO construction has convincingly shown that the DO construction encodes the notion of (prospective) possessor or more general have relation. To be more specific, in the DO structure, the referent of the first object should be construed as a (prospective) possessor of the referent of the second object (whether literally or metaphorically) (cf. Green 1974; Oehrle 1976; Bresnan 1982; Jackendoff 1990; Harley 1995, 2002; Mazurkewich & White 1984; Pesetsky 1995; Pinker 1989, inter alia). This semantic constraint on the DO is called a possessor constraint. Both goal and ben DOs respect the possessor constraint, illustrated below for goal DOs. 25. a. b. 26. a. b. 27. a. b. John sent the book to New York. *John sent New York the book. John sent the book to Mary. John sent Mary the book. John sent the package to the border. *John sent the border the package. (Jackendoff 1990)

21

28.

a. b.

John sent the package to the boarder. John sent the boarder the package. (Bresnan 1982, Miyawaga & Tsujioka 2004)

The possessor constraint accounts for the contrasts between (25) and (26) and between (27) and (28).3 With respect to the first contrast, the DO construction is acceptable only in (26b) because Mary but not New York can function as a potential possessor.4 The PP structure, as illustrated in (25a) and (26a), is acceptable with either Mary or New York because both Mary and New York can denote a physical location to which the book moves (see section 2.4 for a detailed discussion of the meaning denoted by the PP construction). The contrast between (27) and (28) also receives an account from the possessor constraint, which holds for the DO structure but not for the PP structure.5

Some researchers have argued that DOs and PPs have distinct implicatures (cf. Oehrle 1976, Kayne 1975, Larson 1988): (i) but not (ii) implies that the students have learned French. (i) John taught the students French. (ii) John taught French to the students. M.L. Zubizarreta (p.c) points out that this kind of meaning difference is not grounded in the grammarit is specific to a few forms (or usages). Jackendoff (1990) shares the same insight. He has argued that the distinction between (i) and (ii), if any, is extremely tenuous and whatever slight difference there is between the two probably resides in the fact that the goal argument in the DO form is more affected (by learning) than its counterpart in the PP form. 4 The DO construction with an inanimate goal becomes acceptable if the goal can be taken to denote an animate entity, as in (i) and (ii) below: (i) France gave some African countries humanitarian aid. (Miyagawa and Tsujioka 2004) (ii) The revolution gave Rumania a new government. (den Dikken 1995, who attributes the example to Tremblay 1991). Likewise, sentence (25b) becomes acceptable if New York denotes a group of people, such as The New York office. 5 The contrasts in (25) through (28) seem to suggest that goal phrases are more restricted in the DO structure than in the PP structure (cf. Jackendoff 1990 for a claim along this line). Given this observation, researchers such as Pesetsky (1995) posit a superset-subset relation between goal arguments in the PP structure and those in the DO. Pesetsky (1995) suggests that this difference is

22

Ben DOs respect the possessor constraint as well. Due to the semantic requirement of the prospective have relation on the DO, only the class of verbs that can imply the bringing about of a prospective have relation enters the ben DO construction. Verbs of acquiring such as get, buy and find and creation-denoting predicates such as bake are a typical class of verbs that allows/uses the ben DO construction. The contrasts below are accounted for by the possessor constraint. 29. a. John fixed Mary a sandwich.6 (As a result, Mary is intended to possess the sandwich.) b. 30. a. John fixed a sandwich for Mary. *John fixed Mary a car. (# As a result, Mary is intended to possess the car.) b. 31. a. John fixed a car for Mary. John poured Mary a cup of coffee.7 (As a result, Mary is intended to possess the cup of coffee.) b. John poured a cup of coffee for Mary.

attributed to the semantics of the preposition to in the PP structure. I disagree with Pesetsky in that there are cases where DOs are grammatical and their PP counterparts are ungrammatical. 6 The verb fix in (29) and (30) has a different meaning, albeit the same phonetic realization. While fix in (29) means make and thus, it is a verb of creation, fix in (30) means repair. 7 The examples (31) and (32) are taken from Jackendoff (1990:196), who attributes them to Jane Grimshaw. Jackendoff accounts for the contrast based on whether the action of the referent of the subject creates a new entity or not. His argument is that in order to establish the (prospective) possessive relation between the two objects, the action of the referent of the subject should create a new entity which can enter into the possessive relation with the entity denoted by the first object. While pouring some coffee creates a cup of coffee, pouring cement does not create a new entity. The contrast illustrated (31) and (32) is accounted for by this difference in meaning.

23

32.

a.

*John poured Mary some cement. (# As a result, Mary is intended to possess some cement.)

b.

John poured some cement for Mary.

The possessor constraint requires that the DO construction necessarily imply a (prospective) transfer of possession. Johns fixing a sandwich plausibly results in a change of possession but Johns fixing a (preexisting) car does not result in Mary coming into possession of the car. Likewise, Johns pouring a cup of coffee plausibly results in a change of possession but Johns pouring cement does not plausibly result in Mary coming into possession of some cement. The text in parentheses indicates (in)compatibility with the possessor constraint. On the other hand, the ben PP construction is associated with a wider benefactive construal, regardless of prospective possession and thus, its distribution is much freer than its DO counterpart. The ungrammaticality of (30a) illustrates that the English DO construction is not constrained by (un)availability of ownership. If the English DO construction were constrained by ownership, (30a) would be grammatical, contrary to fact, given that the ownership between Mary and a car is already established. This claim is made even clearer by the example in (33).

33.

*John kept Mary a key (her key).

24

The contrast illustrated below also receives an account from the (prospective) possessor constraint on the DO form. The possessor constraint on the DO requires that in the DO, there should be a clear intention of the referent of the subject that the referent of the first object is at least a prospective recipient of the referent of the second object.

34.

a. b.

#Mary baked John a cake but she gave it to her mother. Mary baked a cake for John but she gave it to her mother. Enrico sang Helen a song, but she wasnt listening. (Jackendoff 1990: 195)

35.

a.

b.

Beulah peeled Mae a grape but then accidentally dropped it in the toilet.

The oddity of (34a) comes from the fact that the cake ends up in somebody elses hands, not in Johns, the intended recipient of the cake. As a result, the possessive relation between the referents of the two objects fails to be established. Note that (34b) is acceptable because unlike ben DO constructions, ben PP constructions are not constrained by the possessor constraint: to the extent that John can benefit from Mary baking the cake, the sentence is acceptable. With examples in (35), it is even clearer that all that matters is the subjects intention that the entity denoted by the first object is the intended recipient of the entity denoted by the second object, regardless of actual reception. 25

In all the legitimate DO sentences presented thus far (all of which satisfy the possessor constraint), the entities denoted by the first object are animate. In other words, for all the licit DO sentences presented so far, when possession is present, animacy is also present. Given this observation, a constraint termed Animacy can be postulated. Furthermore, the following (hasty) claim can be made: the Animacy constraint is a necessary condition for the possessor constraint (because only animate beings can be potential possessors). This claim is wrong. Counterexamples to the claim are presented in (36).

36.

a.

John gave the house a fresh coat of paint.8 (As a result, the house now has a fresh coat of paint.)

b.

John made/got/found/bought/(?) ordered the lamp a new shade. (As a result, the lamp now has a new shade.)

c.

John gave/built the house a new roof. (As a result, the house now has a new roof.)

d.

John built /(?)made /(?)ordered the car a new engine. (As a result, the car now has a new engine.)

Goldberg (1995: 146) also presents counterexamples to the Animacy constraint and argues that the reason why inanimate goal arguments in the sentences

I thank Bill Rutherford (p.c.) for bringing these examples to my attention and for pointing out the problem of positing an Animacy constraint for the DO forms.

26

below are acceptable is that the inanimate goals receive an affected meaning and, thus, they are understood to be a recipient, indeed being an animate being in a sense.

37.

a. b. c.

The paint job gave the car a higher sale price. The Tabasco sauce gave the baked beans some flavor. The music lent the party a festive air. (Goldberg, 1995)

The examples above show that the Animacy constraint on the DO does not exist. The possessor constraint is indeed the sole semantic constraint working on the DO construction. Animacy is a natural consequence of the possessor constraint to the extent that the Animacy constraint is respected for the DO sentences where the referent of the first object is animate. The Animacy constraint is just an illusion created by the fact that in most of the DO sentences, the referent of the first object is animate and that legitimate DO sentences with inanimate goal arguments, such as the ones in (36) and (37), are relatively rare.

2.3.2

A morphological constraint on the DO construction: the Latinate constraint As is well-known, there are lexical restrictions on English DO constructions.

One such restriction appears to be of a morphological nature: native-stem (Germanic) class verbs but not Latinate class verbs can occur in DOs (cf. Green 1974, Oehrle 1976, Mazurkewich & White 1984, Pinker 1989). This morphological constraint on the DO form is called the Latinate constraint. The verbs belonging to 27

the Latinate class are excluded from the DO form by the Latinate constraint but not by the semantic possessor constraint. Examples are given in (38) through (40). The examples are taken from Pinker (1990:45).

38.

a. b.

John gave/donated a painting to the museum. John gave/*donated the museum a painting. Bill told/reported the story to them. Bill told/*reported them the story. Sue built/constructed the house for us. Sue built/*constructed us the house.

39.

a. b.

40.

a. b.

The near-synonymous meaning notwithstanding, build can appear in the DO form while construct cannot. The Latinate constraint accounts for this contrast: build, with a native stem, can appear in a DO whereas construct, with a Latinate stem, cannot appear in a DO construction. Some researchers have reduced the Latinate constraint to phonology: verbs characterized by initial stress can appear in the DO (cf. Grimshaw 1985, Grimshaw & Prince 1986). This approach is motivated by the fact that most native-stem class verbs have initial stress, and there is a tendency for Latinate verbs assimilated to the native stress pattern to generally be able to appear in the DO, as illustrated in (41). The examples in (41) are taken from Pinker (1990).

28

41.

a. Promise/Offer/Recommend/Describe anything to her, but give her nothing. b. Promise/Offer/*Recommend/*Describe her anything, but give her nothing.

Randall (1980) has suggested that both morphological and phonological factors may be psychologically active (see Pinker (1990) for a similar claim). The relevant distinction of native-stem class verbs vs. Latinate-stem class verbs is thus probably morpho-phonological in nature.

2.4 2.4.1

Semantic properties of the English PP constructions Semantic properties of the goal PP construction: The physical transfer

constraint It is a property of the goal PP construction that it denotes a directed movement (along a physical path). More precisely, it denotes an event in which the referent of the theme undergoes movement from one physical location to another, brought about by the referent of the subject. This relation, encoded by the goal PP construction, is called the physical transfer relation (cf. Green 1974, Oehrle 1976, Pesetsky 1995, Richards 2001, Gropen et al. 1989, Harley 2002, among others). The physical transfer relation is attributed to the construction in which the preposition to is embedded, but not necessarily to the preposition to itself. In other words, the construction introduced by the preposition to encodes the physical transfer relation and in this construction, the preposition to encodes a physical path. Examples cited

29

by a variety of authors are given below (Tremblay 1991, Pesetsky 1995, den Dikken 1995, Harley 2002, among others).

42.

a. b.

The revolution gave the country a new government. *The revolution gave a new government to the country. The war years gave the journalist a new perspective. *The war years gave a new perspective to the journalist. We gave the house a new roof. *We gave a new roof to the house.

43.

a. b.

44.

a. b.

The bad PP examples above do not encode directed movement along a physical path. In order to be transferred to the physical location introduced by the preposition to, the referent of the theme should be a thing that is physically transferable. The PP constructions in (42b) and (43b) are unacceptable because government and perspective are not things that can be physically transferred. The contrasts in (44) is accounted for as follows: physical transfer would require the roof to move from us to the house, which is not what happens.9 Researchers advancing a lexical decomposition analysis of the DO construction, which treats the DO as a type of causative, account for the contrasts in
The meaning contrast in the examples below also receives an account from the physical transfer relation encoded by the goal PP construction. (i) John gave Mary a child. (ii) John gave a child to Mary (Harley 2002) While the DO means that Mary was impregnated by John and an existing child is not necessarily implied, there should be an existing child in the PP counterpart, a child who undergoes a direct movement along a physical path.
9

30

(42) through (44) by arguing for the existence of a predicate CAUSE in the DO construction (cf. Harley 2002, Richards 2001). In the lexical decomposition analysis, the double object verbs decompose into two heads: predicate CAUSE and predicate HAVE. The lexical decomposition analysis of the DO construction is also called a small clause analysis of the DO in that the predicate CAUSE takes the predicate [the goal has theme] as its complement, as shown below.

45.

a. b.

I gave Mary a book. I CAUSE [Mary HAVE a book]

Due to the predicate CAUSE, which is present in the DO but absent in the PP, only the DO construction is associated with a causative meaning. To take a concrete example, in the lexical decomposition analysis, (43a) is acceptable because the journalists experiencing the war years is responsible for causing him/her to write a book. On the other hand, the PP counterpart, which is incompatible with the causative meaning, is ill-formed. Pylkknnen (2002: 20) argues against the lexical decomposition analysis of the DO construction (see Pesetsky 1995 for a similar claim along these lines). Crucially, causatives and DOs are distinct with respect to entailment: the resultant state is always entailed with causatives but not necessarily entailed with DOs (cf. Pesetsky 1995), as shown below:

31

46.

Causatives a. b. c. # I flew the kite over the field but it didnt fly. # I broke the vase but it didnt break. # I cooked the meat but it didnt cook.

47.

DO construction10 a. b. c. I threw John the ball but he didnt catch it. I sent Bill the letter but he never got it. I wrote Sue a letter but she never got it.

Moreover, the DO construction and the small clause construction are also distinct. Depictive secondary predicates cannot be predicated of the indirect object in the DO, whereas they can be predicated of subjects in small clauses. This contrast is illustrated in (48).

48.

a. b.

*I told John the news drunk. (DO construction)11 I saw John drive his car drunk. (Small clause) (Pylkknnen (2002:20)

Following Pylkknnen, I will assume that the DO construction is neither a causative construction nor a small clause.

10

The examples in (47) again illustrate the point that all that matters in the DO is the subjects intention: the referent of the first object is the intended recipient of the referent of the second object. 11 Sentence in (48a) is perfectly fine on the reading that I was drunk, when I told John the news.

32

Both DO and PP constructions convey some form of a transfer reading. Nevertheless, the types of transfer encoded by the DO are much freer. The transfer reading conveyed by the goal PP construction is restricted to the physical transfer relation. On the other hand, as illustrated by the contrasts in (42) through (44), the types of transfer encoded by the DO are not necessarily physical in nature: both abstract and physical transfer can be conveyed by the DO construction, as long as the (prospective) have relation is obtained between the referent of the first object and that of the second object. In order to account for the observation that the PP is restricted to physical transfer, whereas the DO encodes both abstract and physical transfer, researchers such as den Dikken (1995) have claimed that in English, the preposition that encodes directed motion can be phonologically realized as to or can be phonologically null (i.e., null P), and that both encode a path meaning. Crucially, there is an important difference between the two: while to encodes a physical path, the null P is compatible both with a physical and an abstract path. It is further assumed that the null P is present in the DO. In this theory, the abstract path encoded by the null P enables the DO to be compatible with abstract transfer. As argued in the next subsection, ben PP constructions are semantically distinct from goal PP constructions. The ben PP constructions are not subject to the physical transfer constraint, since they are about benefaction, not movement.

33

2.4.2

Semantic properties of the ben PP construction In this section, I will briefly discuss the semantics of the ben PP construction.

The ben DO and ben PP constructions are not semantically equivalent. As mentioned in the preceding section, the ben PP construction covers a wider benefactive construal, regardless of prospective possession: the action as a whole is intended for the benefit of the referent of the DP introduced by the preposition for. Relevant contrasts between the ben DO and PP constructions are illustrated below (Jackendoff 1990: 195). Given that the ben PP construction is not restricted by the (prospective) possessor constraint, its distribution is much freer than that of its DO counterpart.

49.

a. b. c.

*Bill removed Harold the garbage. *Nancy fought the king the dragon. *Beth jumped Harriet the puddle. Bill removed the garbage for Harold. Nancy fought the dragon for the King. Beth jumped the puddle for Harriet.

50.

a. b. c.

2.5

The Applicative projection in the DO construction The semantic distinctions between the DO and PP constructions, illustrated in

preceding section, have been attributed to a projection which is present in the DO but absent in the PP. The name of the projection has varied from one researcher to another (e.g., the -Projection of Koizumi 1993, the Appl(icative) Projection of 34

Marantz 1993 and Pylkknnen 2002). Following Marantz and Pylkknnen, I will refer to the projection as the Appl Projection. In section 3.3, I will compare the structural properties of the English DO with those of the Korean DO. In so doing, I will take as a reference structure the English DO structure proposed by Pylkknnen, who argues for an Appl projection in the English DO. The tree structure below shows the position of the Appl projection in the structure (all non-pertinent details are omitted).12 More articulated versions of the Appl projection are presented in sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2.

51.

vP

VP

ApplP

The projection of the applicative head has two effects. The presence of ApplP in the DO requires a prospective have relation. This accounts for the ungrammaticality of the sentence John sent New York a package (see section 2.3.1). Further, in the absence of ApplP, no prospective have relation can be expressed in the goal PP construction, and the construction expresses only a physical transfer relation or a
12

More specifically, the tree structure presented in (51) is a low applicative (see section 2.6.2 for a discussion on two types of applicative heads).

35

directed motion event along a physical path. This accounts for the ungrammaticality of John gave a headache to Mary (see section 2.4.1).

2.6

Recent developments in the Applicative projection in English DOs Now, I review the applicative structures proposed by Marantz (1993) and

Pylkknnen (2002).

2.6.1

Marantzs applicative structure (1993) Marantz (1993) argues that the DO structure in English is akin to the

applicative constructions found in Bantu languages, in which an applied argument is present. An indirect object is called an applied argument and the resulting constructions with applied indirect objects are called applicative constructions.13 He further argues that in both English and Bantu languages, the DO structure has an applicative head, which takes the applied indirect object as its specifier, and that the difference between the two is that in Bantu languages, but not in English, the applicative head is phonologically overt (an applicative affix).14 This is shown below (from Marantz 1993: 115, who attributes this example to Alsina and Mchombo 1990):

13

In Bantu languages, applicative constructions are not restricted to goal and benefactive applicatives. They also include locative and instrumental applicatives. See Pylkknnen 2002 for further details on the applied argument and the applicative constructions in Bantu languages. 14 Marantz (1993) argues that DO constructions always involve an applicative affix, whether phonologically realized or not. Abbreviations used in (52) are as follows: SP = subject prefix = subject agreement, APPL= applicative affix = affixal verb, fv = final vowel

36

52.

Chitsiru fool

chi-na-gul-ir-a SP-Past-buy-APPL-fv

atsikana girls

mphatso gift

The fool bought a gift for the girls.

The DO structure proposed by Marantz is provided below. The DO structure is a complex verbal structure consisting of a main (lower) VP and an applicative head. The applicative head is located between the higher vP and the lower VP. The applicative head is assumed to contribute the special semantics associated with the DO structure. The asymmetric c-command relationship, noted by Barss and Lasnik (1986), is also captured by (53). On the other hand, for the goal PP structure, Marantz proposes a simple verbal structure where both arguments (goal and theme) are merged in the same VP (thus, the applicative head is absent in the PP structure and the absence of the (prospective) possession construal follows). The goal PP structure is given in (54).15

15

There is a quantifier scope difference between the DO and PP constructions, illustrated below. Both surface and inverse scope are available in the PP construction while only surface scope is available in the DO construction (i.e., a scope freezing effect) (cf. Aoun & Li 1989, Marantz 1993, Bruening 2001, inter alia) (i) a. b. John sent some students every article. John sent some article to every student. (some > every, *every > some) (some > every, every> some)

Marantz illustrates how this scope difference between the two constructions can be captured under his analysis. This difference is attributed to the structural difference between the DO and PP constructions. The DO is a complex structure, with the goal QP outside of the VP that contains the theme QP. In this complex verbal structure, the theme QP cannot raise by QR over the goal QP. On the other hand, the PP is a simpler structure in which both the goal and theme QP are inside the same verbal projection. In this structure, either the theme QP or the goal QP can raise first by QR,and this leads to scope ambiguity.

37

53.

vP

Subj

ApplP

DPGoal

Appl

Appl

VP

V 54. vP

DPTheme

Subj v

v VP DPTheme V

PP

DPGoal 38

2.6.2

Pylkknnens applicative structure (2002) Pylkknnen (2002) has further developed the applicative structures, arguing

for two types of applicative heads within the structure, namely, high and low applicatives. The meanings of the two constructions are distinct. High applicatives, located above VP, denote a relation between an individual and an event. On the other hand, low applicatives, located below VP, denote a relation between two individuals who enter into a possessive relation with each other. The goal argument in the high applicative has a semantic relation with the verb (to be more specific, the event described by the verb) but it has no relation to the direct object. On the other hand, the goal argument in the low applicative bears no semantic relation to the verb at all; it only bears a transfer of possession relation to the theme argument (i.e., the direct object). The high applicatives are like the vP in that both the high applicatives and the vP add another argument to the event described by the verb: the vP introduces the external argument while the high applicative introduces the applied indirect object. According to Pylkknnen, both goal and ben DOs in English are instantiations of the low applicative structure in that both DO constructions encode a (prospective) transfer of possession (as shown in section2.3.1). Two predictions follow from the distinct semantics associated with high and low applicatives (Pylkknnen 2002:23).

39

55.

A.

Transitivity restriction

Since the low applicative head denotes a relation between the indirect object and the direct object, it cannot appear in a structure lacking a direct object. On the other hand, the high applicative head denotes a relation between the indirect object and the event described by the verb and thus, does not require a direct object; therefore, it can combine with unergatives. B. Verb semantics

Low applicatives, which encode a transfer of possession, are not compatible with stative verbs such as hold (e.g., *John held Mary a bag), since an event of Johns holding the bag does not plausibly result in Mary coming into possession of the bag. On the other hand, high applicatives are compatible with stative verbs.

Table 1: Diagnostics for distinguishing high vs. low applicatives Types of applicative Compatibility with Compatibility with stative unergatives verbs High applicatives Low applicatives X X English DOs are classified as low applicatives: they are predicted to be compatible neither with unergatives nor with stative verbs. These predictions are borne out, as shown below.

40

56.

a.

*John worked the lady.

(unergative verb)

(intended meaning: John worked for the lady) b. *John held Mary the bag. (stative verb)

On the other hand, the DO in Venda, which is classified as a high applicative, is predicted to be well-formed in both unergatives and stative verbs. The relevant data appear in (57) (Pylkknnen 2002: 25).

57.

a.

Ndi-do-shum-el-a Ndi-FUT-work-APPL-FV I will work for the lady.

musadzi lady

(unergative verb)

b.

Nd-o-far-el-a 1sg-PAST-hold-APPL-FV I held the pot for Mukasa.

Mukasa Mukasa

khali pot

(stative verb)

Pylkknnen (2002: 23) suggests the transitivity restriction (i.e., (in)compatibility with unergatives) and verb semantics (i.e., (in)compatibility with stative verbs) as diagnostics for distinguishing low and high applicatives. In order to classify Korean DO constructions as having high vs. low status (see section 3.4.1), I will use these two diagnostics because they are theory-neutral.16

16

Along with these two diagnostics, Pylkknnen (2002) suggests a third diagnostic, depictive secondary predication, which is available only for high applicatives. I will not use this third diagnostic in detecting high or low status of Korean DOs because this diagnostic is theory-dependent.

41

The structures for high and low applicatives are given in (58) and (59), respectively. As illustrated, both applicative constructions show the characteristic asymmetric ccommand between the two objects.

58.

High applicative (Pylkknnen 2002: 19) (ApplP > VP) (e.g., Venda DO) VoiceP ApplP

DPGoal

Appl

Appl

VP

DPTheme

42

59.

Low applicative (Pylkknnen 2002: 19) (VP > ApplP) (e.g., English DO) VoiceP VP

ApplP

DPGoal

Appl

Appl

DPTheme

Comparison between the structures in (53) and (59) suggests that while both Marantz and Pylkknnen posit an applicative head for the English DO, the exact position of the applicative projection is different. For Marantz, the applicative head, which is merged outside VP, relates the goal to the VP that contains the verb and the theme (and thus, is a high applicative in Pylkknnens theory). On the other hand, for Pylkknnen, the applicative head, which is merged within VP, relates the goal to the theme directly. In comparing English and Korean DOs, I will adopt Pylkknnens analysis of English DOs. Two types of applicative heads are semantically motivated and the two diagnostics, which are theory-neutral allow us to detect high or low status of Korean DO constructions in a principled way.

43

Syntactic and semantic properties of Korean DO constructions This section is mainly concerned with the structural and semantic properties

of DO constructions in Korean. The following claims on the structural and semantic properties of Korean DOs will be put forth. With respect to the structural properties of Korean DOs, I will show that the DAT(IVE)-ACC(USATIVE) construction in Korean is structurally comparable to the English DO in that the dative-marked argument in the DAT-ACC construction asymmetrically c-commands the accusative-marked theme argument. This asymmetry is attested both with goal and ben DAT-ACC constructions. This suggests that the DAT-ACC construction in Korean corresponds to the English DO. Given this, I will call the DAT-ACC construction in Korean a DO construction. As in the preceding sections on English DOs, two types of Korean DOs are under investigation: goal and ben DOs. With respect to the semantic properties of Korean DOs, I will show that goal DOs in Korean are (optionally) constrained by the (prospective) possessor constraint, whereas ben DOs in Korean encode a wider benefactive construal, regardless of (prospective) possession.

3.1

Verbal morphology in Korean DAT-ACC constructions There are similarities and differences with respect to verbal morphology

associated with the Korean DAT-ACC construction compared with that in English DOs. For the purposes of this section, I will treat the DAT-ACC construction as the 44

Korean counterpart of the English DO. More detailed discussion of, and supporting evidence for, the DO status of the DAT-ACC construction in Korean will be presented in the next section. In English, both goal and ben DO constructions are licensed in the absence of overt morphology. That is, both DO constructions are licensed lexically:

60.

a. b.

John gave Mary a book. Mary baked John a cake.

(Goal DO) (Ben DO)

Goal DAT-ACC constructions in Korean, like their English DO counterparts, do not require any special morphology as a licensor. Interestingly, ben DOs in Korean, unlike their English counterparts, obligatorily require special verbal morphology, namely, cwu- (cf. Lee 1992, Choi 1991, Suh 2000, Whong-Barr and Schwartz 2002). A dative-marked argument can appear in the ben DO if and only if cwu- is present. This implies that cwu- introduces the dative-marked argument. When cwu- is used as a lexical verb, it corresponds to the English give. The relevant contrast between goal and ben DAT-ACC constructions appears in (61) and (62). In (63), cwu- is used as a lexical verb. A more detailed discussion of the meanings associated with the goal and ben DO constructions will be given later.

45

61.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

senmwul-ul present-Acc

kennay-ss-ta17 (Goal-DO) hand-Past-Decl

John handed Mary a present. 62. John-i Mary-eykey kulim-ul kuly-e *(cwu)-ess-ta.18, 19 (Ben-DO)

John-Nom Mary-Dat

picture-Acc draw-L Ben-Past-Decl

John drew Mary a picture. 63. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat chayk-ul book-Acc cwu-ess-ta give-Past-Decl

John gave Mary a book

Yale Romanization is used to transliterate the Korean examples (cf. Martin 1992). The abbreviations used in the glosses are as follows: Nom: Nominative case Acc: Accusative case Gen: Genitive case Dat: Dative case Top: Topic marker L: Linker Neg: Negation Past: Past tense Decl: Declarative marker Ben: Benefactive Appl: Applicative UQ: Universal quantifier Pres: Present tense Comp:Complementizer 18 Shibatani (1994, 1996) has reported that benefactive constructions across languages often make use of verbs of giving. The following sentences exemplify this point. (i) Taroo-ga Hanako-ni hon-o katte yatta Taroo-Nom Hanako-Dat book-Acc buy GAVE Taroo bought Hanako a book. (Japanese) (ii) Ranjit Chitra-ta tikat eka aran de-nawa. Ranjit Chitra-Dat ticket one buy.PP GIVE-Ind Ranjit buys Chitra a ticket. (Sinhala) Shibatani argues that in these languages, the beneficiary DP requires no structural Case from the lexical verb. Accordingly, the beneficiary DP has nothing to do with the main verb (e.g., buy, read). He further claims that the DP (the so-called beneficiary) is a contribution from the verbs of giving. 19 Korean is a serial verb language. More than one verb can be serialized. Where verbs are serialized, the so-called linker appears. The exact phonetic realization of the linker is constrained by the phonology. In accordance with vowel harmony, the choice between e and a is conditioned by the preceding vowel. Given the observation that the suffix -e does not carry any semantic or structural content, Lee (1992) argues that the suffix -e in the Serial Verb Construction is just a dummy linker. In the present work, we endorse her claim about the status of e. In any case, it is highly unlikely that this suffix is a conjunction marker since Korean has an independent conjunction that can be inserted between two verbs, giving rise to a difference in meaning. In this respect, we can treat V1-e as equivalent to a bare verb in English.

17

46

3.2

Structural properties of Korean DO constructions Like the English DO construction, the DAT-ACC construction in Korean

shows the same c-command asymmetry: the first object in a DAT-ACC structure asymmetrically c-commands the second, one of the defining properties of the DO construction, as discussed in section 2.1. This suggests that the DAT-ACC construction corresponds to the English DO construction (cf. Lee 1991, 1993; Cho 1994; Ko 2005) and that the DO construction does exist in Korean. The asymmetric c-command relationship is attested both with goal DAT-ACC and ben DAT-ACC constructions.

3.2.1

Asymmetric c-command in Korean DOs The ditransitive construction in Korean is different from its English

counterpart. While English ditransitives allow two distinct structures, namely, the DO and PP constructions, their Korean counterparts are associated with only one structure, in which the goal argument is dative marked (-eykey) and the theme argument is accusative marked (-ul). The only variation in Korean ditransitives seems to be word-order permutations between the dative-marked goal and the accusative-marked theme, as illustrated in (64). In other words, there is no DO-PP alternation in Korean.

47

64.

a.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

senmwul-ul present-Acc

kennay-ss-ta hand-Past-Decl

John handed Mary a present. b. John-i John-Nom senmwul-ul present-Acc Mary-eykey Mary-Dat kennay-ss-ta hand-Past-Decl

The difference between English and Korean ditransitives (i.e., DOs) notwithstanding, like its English counterpart, the Korean DAT-ACC construction also shows asymmetric c-command between the two objects. Let us examine the asymmetric c-command relationship within the goal DAT-ACC construction. The order goal-theme, as its English DO counterpart, shows the asymmetric c-command of the theme by the goal (cf. Lee 1991, 1993; Cho 1994; Ko 2005). This asymmetric c-command relation is seen in the domain of anaphor binding.

65.

a. John-i

Mary-eykey

kunyecasin-ul herself-Acc

poye-ess-ta show-Past-Decl

John-Nom Mary-Dat

John showed Mary herself. b. *John-i kunyecacin-eykey Mary-lul Mary-Acc selo-uy poye-ess-ta show-Past-Decl chinkwu-lul

John-Nom herself-Dat 66. a. John-i John-Nom Bill-kwa Mary-eykey Bill-and Mary-Dat

each other-Gen friend-Acc 48

sokayhay-ss-ta introduce-Past-Decl John introduced Bill and Mary each others friends. b. *John-i selo-uy chinkwu-eykey Bill-kwa Mary-lul Bill-and Mary-Acc

John-Nom each other-Gen friend-Dat sokayhay-ss-ta introduce-Past-Decl

Reflexives and reciprocals (anaphors) must be c-commanded by their antecedents. The contrasts shown in (65) and (66) indicate that in the goal-theme order, the goal argument asymmetrically c-commands the theme argument. Weak crossover lends further support to the claim that the first object in the goal-theme order asymmetrically c-commands the second object. When a wh-phrase c-commanded by a DP containing a pronoun moves over that DP, where the whphrase and the pronoun are co-referential, it gives rise to a weak crossover effect. If the goal argument did not c-command the theme argument in (67), the sentence would be ungrammatical, contrary to fact. This again leads us to the conclusion that in the goal-theme order, the goal argument asymmetrically c-commands the theme argument.20

20

Most of the goal dative verbs in Korean have only one realization, in which the goal argument is dative-marked and the theme argument is accusative-marked (i.e., the DAT-ACC construction). However, there are two exceptions to this generalization: cwu- give and kaluchi- teach. These verbs can appear in the double Accusative structure as well as the DAT-ACC structure. With these verbs, the goal argument can be marked either with the dative or accusative case marking. (i) John-i Mary-eykey/lul chayk-ul cwu-ess-ta

49

67.

John-un John-Top

[etten salami-eykey] which man-Dat

[kui-uy wolkup]-ul

ponay-ss-ni?

he-Gen paycheck-Acc send-Past-Q

Which mani did John send hisi paycheck?

The benefactive DAT-ACC construction also shows the characteristic ccommand asymmetry of the DO construction: the dative-marked benefactive argument asymmetrically c-commands the theme argument. Therefore, it can be defined as a DO construction. Supporting evidence comes from anaphor binding and quantifier-pronoun binding.

68.

a.

John-un John-Top selo-uy

Bill-kwa Mary-eykey Bill and Mary-Dat chinkwu-lul chac-a cwu-ess-ta find-L Ben-Past-Decl

each other-Gen friend-Acc

John found Bill and Mary each others friends. b. *John-un John-Top selo-uy each other-Gen chinkwu-eykey friend-Dat

John-Nom Mary-Dat/Acc book-Acc give-Past-Decl As such, the double Accusative structure is severely restricted by the choice of the lexical verb. Some researchers have argued that along with these two verbs, two more verbs can be added to the list, namely, meki-feed and cipwulha- pay (cf. Whong-Barr and Schwartz 2002, Jung and Miyagawa 2004). However, these two verbs are morphologically different from cwu- and kaluchi- : meki- is morphologically complex (a causative morpheme i is added to the verbal root) and cipwulha- is also morphologically complex (it is made up of a verbal noun (cipwul) and ha- do).

50

Bill-kwa Mary-lul Bill and Mary-Acc

chac-a cwu-ess-ta find-L Ben-Past-Decl

John found each others friends Bill and Mary. 69. a. Tongmwul pohoso-nun Animal shelter-Top kui-ey he-Gen kay-lul dog-Acc enu cwuin-eykey-nai every owner-Dat-UQ chac-a find-L cwu-ess-ta Ben-Past-Decl

The animal shelter found every owneri hisi dog. b. *Tongmwul pohoso-nun Animal shelter-Top chac-a find-L kui-uy cwuin-eykey

he-Gen owner-Dat cwu-ess-ta Ben-Past-Decl

enu kay-nai every dog-UG

The animal shelter found itsi owner every dogi.

The pronoun must be c-commanded by a quantified expression in order to be interpreted as being bound by it. In (69a), the pronoun ku- is c-commanded by the quantified expression, enu cwuin eykeyna while in (69b), the pronoun ku- fails to be licensed by the quantified expression, enu kay na. As evidenced by anaphor binding in (68) and quantifierpronoun binding in (69), the dative-marked benefactive argument asymmetrically c-commands the theme argument. In sum, both goal DAT-ACC and ben DAT-ACC constructions show the asymmetric c-command relationship and therefore, are structurally analogous to the 51

DO construction in English. Given this structural property identified with the DATACC construction, I will refer to it as the Korean DO construction.

3.2.2

The mono-clausal property of Korean ben DOs In this section, I will further examine the structural properties of ben DOs in

Korean. In particular, I will show the mono-clausal property of the Korean ben DOs. Given the appearance of two verbal morphemes in Korean ben DOs, these DOs might be analyzed as biclausal and therefore not analogous to the English DO construction. The biclausal analysis of Korean ben DOs can be easily ruled out, however, due to evidence from tense, negation and negative polarity item licensing. Results of these tests strongly support the mono-clausal analysis of Korean ben DOs (cf. Lee 1991). In Korean ben DOs, two verbal morphemes appear, as exemplified in (70). The linear order of the two verbal morphemes is fixed. Cwu- is affixed to the right of the (main) lexical verb.

70.

a.

John-i

Mary-eykey

kheyikh-ul cake-Acc

kwu-e bake-L

cwu-ess-ta Ben-Past-Decl

John-Nom Mary-Dat John baked Mary a cake. b. *John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

kheyikh-ul cake-Acc

cwu-e Ben-L

kwu-ess-ta bake-Past-Decl

52

The first argument for the mono-clausal analysis comes from tense specification. Korean ben DOs require a single tense specification, which scopes over the entire sequence of verbs.

71.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

kheyikh-ul cake-Acc

kwu-(*ess)-e bake-Past-L

cwu-ess-ta Ben-Past-Decl

John baked Mary a cake.

Another argument for the mono-clausal analysis for Korean ben DOs comes from negation. Korean has two types of negation, namely, short form and long form negation. Short form negation is realized as an- and it immediately precedes the verb (see (72a)). Long form negation is constituted of three morphemes: ci (nominalizer) + an (negation) + ha (the light verb do). For the sake of simplicity, I will use the contracted form of the long form negation. cianh. Long form negation immediately follows the verb (see (72b)).

72.

a.

John-i John-Nom

kheyikh-ul cake-Acc

an Neg

kwu-ess-ta bake-Past-Decl (short form negation)

John didnt bake a cake. b. John-i John-Nom kheyikh-ul cake-Acc

kwup-cianh-ass-ta bake-Neg-Past-Decl (long form negation) 53

John didnt bake a cake.

In Korean ben DOs, short form negation, an, immediately precedes the first V and long form negation, cianh, follows cwu-. Both negative morphemes can scope over the entire sequence of Vs. Thus, short form negation in (73a), as well as long form negation in (73b), can be interpreted as negating the benefactive event of baking a cake. In other words, the cake was not baked, and thus, there was no benefaction.

73.

a. John-i John-Nom

Mary-eykey kheyikh-ul Mary-Dat cake-Acc

an kwu-e

cwu-ess-ta

Neg bake-L Ben-Past-Decl

John didnt bake Mary a cake. b. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey kheyikh-ul Mary-Dat cake-Acc kwu-e cwu-cianh-ss-ta

bake-L Ben-Neg-Past-Decl

John didnt bake Mary a cake.

Further evidence for the mono-clausal property of Korean ben DOs is provided by Negative Polarity Item (NPI) licensing. NPIs in Korean require a clausemate negation as illustrated by the examples below (cf. Choe 1988). This requirement is met in (74a-b), but not in (74c-d). In the latter cases, the NPI and the negative morpheme belong to different clauses. This distribution violates the clauseboundedness condition on NPI licensing.

54

74.

a. John-un [amwuto kukos-ey John-Top anyone

an ka-ss-ta-ko] sayngkakha-n-ta

there-at Neg go-Past-Decl-Comp think-Pres-Decl

John thinks that no one went there. b. Amwuto [John-i kukos-ey ka-ss-ta-ko] sayngkakha-cianh-nun-ta go-Past-Decl-Comp think-Neg-Pres-Decl

Anyone John-Nom there-at

No one thinks that John went there. c. ?(?)John-un [amwuto John-Top anyone kukos-ey ka-ss-ta-ko] sayngkakha-cianh-nun-ta there-at go-Past-Decl-Comp think-Neg-Pres-Decl

John doesnt think that anyone went there. d. *Amwuto [John-i kukos-ey an ka-ss-ta-ko] sayngkakha-n-ta

Anyone John-Nom there-at

Neg go-Past-Decl-Comp think-Pres-Decl

Anyone thinks that John didnt go there.

As seen earlier, in the case of Korean ben DOs, short form negation can precede the first verb. With short form negation, an NPI in subject or object position can be equally licensed. This suggests that the subject and object are in the same clause as the negative morpheme. The same result holds for long form negation.

75.

a. John-i

Mary-eykey

amwukesto an anything

kwu-e

cwu-ess-ta

John-Nom Mary-Dat

Neg bake-L Ben-Past-Decl

John didnt bake Mary anything.

55

b. John-i

amwueykeyto kheyikh-ul cake-Acc

an Neg

kwu-e bake-L

cwu-ess-ta Ben-Past-Decl

John-Nom anyone

John didnt bake anyone a cake. 76. Amwuto Anyone Mary-eykey Mary-Dat kheyikh-ul cake-Acc an Neg kwu-e bake-L cwu-ess-ta Ben-Past-Decl

No one baked Mary a cake.

In sum, ben DOs in Korean are mono-clausal and therefore, can be compared to English DOs. As shown in the preceding section, like English ben DOs, Korean ben DOs show the characteristic c-command asymmetry. Therefore, a comparison between English and Korean ben DO constructions is possible.

3.3

A structural distinction between goal and ben DOs in Korean In this section, I propose that despite the same c-command asymmetry

attested by the goal and ben DOs in Korean, the dative-marked arguments in goal and ben DOs in Korean occupy structurally distinct positions. Specifically, I argue that (i) the dative-marked argument in goal DOs is within the scope of V (to be more specific, v) and (ii) the dative-marked argument in ben DOs is outside the scope of V (to be more specific, v).

56

3.3.1

A structural divergence of goal DOs from ben DOs Both goal DO and ben DO constructions in Korean show the characteristic

asymmetries of the DO construction: the dative-marked argument asymmetrically ccommands the accusative-marked argument. This structural similarity notwithstanding, the dative-marked argument licensed by goal verbs and the dative-marked benefactive argument licensed by cwuoccupy different structural positions. In order to show the distinct structural positions of these dative-marked arguments, I use two diagnostics: low adverb placement and scrambling tests. Manner adverbs, instrumental adverbs, and resultative adverbs are typical low adverbs in Korean, which are merged within vP (cf. Ko 2005). As such, the position of these low adverbials demarcates the vP boundary. The low adverb placement test proves useful in detecting the position of the dative marked argument in goal and ben DOs in Korean. The relative positioning of these low adverbs in the constructions under discussion reveals the relative structural positions of the dative marked arguments and, indirectly, of the verb that licenses them.

77.

Low adverbs in Korean (Ko 2005: 57) a. b. c. Manner adverb (e.g., ppalli quickly, yelsimhi diligently)

Instrumental adverb (e.g., phoku-lo fork-with) Resultative adverb (e.g., sansancokak-ulointo three pieces)

57

Results of the low adverb placement tests provide evidence that the dativemarked argument in goal DOs and the dative-marked benefactive argument in ben DOs are structurally distinct. In ben DOs, neither manner nor instrumental adverbs can precede the dative-marked benefactive argument (see (78a) and (79a)). On the other hand, they can precede the dative-marked argument in goal DOs (see (80a) and (81a)). This contrast suggests that the dative-marked argument in ben DOs is located above vP, while the dative-marked argument in goal DOs is located below vP.

78.

The distribution of manner adverbs in ben DOs a.*/??John-i ppalli Mary-eykey kapang-ul bag-Acc tul-e cwu-ess-ta hold-L Ben-past-Decl

John-Nom quickly Mary-Dat John quickly held Mary a bag.21 b. John-i c. John-i Mary-eykey Mary-eykey ppalli

kapang-ul ppalli

tul-e cwu-ess-ta tul-e cwu-ess-ta.

kapang-ul

79.

The distribution of instrumental adverbs in ben DOs a.*/??John-i tulaipe-lo Mary-eykey khemphywuthe-lul kochi-e cwu-ess-ta John-Nom screwdriver-with Mary-Dat computer-Acc fix-L Ben-Past-Decl John fixed Mary a computer with a screwdriver.

21

The Korean ben DO and its English counterpart do not have exactly the same meaning, hence the ungrammaticality of the English translation. This semantic difference between the two will be discussed in detail in section 3.4.1.

58

b. John-i Mary-eykey tulaipe-lo khemphywuthe-lul kochi-e cwu-ess-ta c. John-i Mary-eykey khemphywuthe-lul tulaipe-lo kochi-e cwu-ess-ta

80.

The distribution of manner adverbs in goal DOs a. John-un John-Top ppalli quickly Bill-eykey Bill-Dat kong-ul ball-Acc tenci-ess-ta throw-Past-Decl

John quickly threw Bill a ball. b. John-un c. John-un Bill-eykey Bill-eykey ppalli kong-ul kong-ul tenci-ess-ta

ppalli tenci-ess-ta

81.

The distribution of instrumental adverbs in goal DOs a. John-un John-Top mayn son-ulo Bill-eykey bare hand-with Bill-Dat kong-ul ball-Acc tenci-ess-ta throw-Past-Decl

John threw Bill a ball with a bare hand. b. John-un c. John-un Bill-eykey Bill-eykey mayn son-ulo kong-ul tenci-ess-ta tenci-ess-ta

kong-ul mayn son-ulo

Scrambling facts lend further support for the distinct structural positions of the dative-marked arguments in the two constructions under discussion. In ben DOs, the theme argument cannot scramble across the dative-marked benefactive argument (see (82b) and (82d)). On the other hand, in goal DOs, the theme argument can scramble across the dative-marked argument (see (83b) and (83d)). This contrast 59

suggests that the dative-marked argument in ben DOs is structurally higher than the dative-marked argument in goal DOs.

82.

Scrambling in ben DOs a. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat kapang-ul bag-Acc tul-e cwu-ess-ta

hold-L Ben-Past-Decl

John held Mary the bag. b ?? John-i kapang-ul Mary-eykey Mary-Dat tul-e hold-L cwu-ess-ta Ben-Past-Decl

John-Nom bag-Acc

c. Unhayngcikwen-un Mary-eykey panci-lul pokwanhay cwu-ess-ta clerk-Top Mary-Dat ring-Acc keep Ben-Past-Decl

The clerk kept Mary a ring. d. ??Unhayngcikwen-un panci-lul Mary-eykey pokwanhay cwu-ess-ta clerk-Top 83. Scrambling in goal DOs a. John-un John-Top Bill-eykey Bill-Dat kong-ul ball-Acc tenci-ess-ta throw-Past-Decl ring-Acc Mary-Dat keep Ben-Past-Decl

John threw Bill a ball. b. John-un kong-ul Bill-eykey Bill-Dat tenci-ess-ta throw-Past-Decl

John-Top ball-Acc

60

c. John-un John-Top

Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

panci-lul ring-Acc

kennay-ss-ta hand-Past-Decl

John handed Mary a ring. d. John-un John-Top panci-lul ring-Acc Mary-eykey Mary-Dat kennay-ss-ta hand-Past-Decl

In sum, results from the scrambling and low adverb placement tests have shown that the dative-marked argument in the goal DO construction is merged within the verbal projection, whereas the dative-marked benefactive argument in the ben DO construction is merged outside the verbal projection. Given the fact that the indirect object in both goal and ben DOs in English is merged within the verbal projection, and that they are classified as low applicatives (see section 2.6.2), the results from the scrambling and low adverb placement tests above strongly suggest that goal DOs in Korean are also low applicatives (in the sense of Pylkknnen 2002) while ben DOs in Korean are high applicatives. This further suggests that goal DOs in English and Korean are structurally comparable while ben DOs in English and Korean are structurally distinct. The classification of goal and ben DOs in English and Korean is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Classification of DOs in English and Korean English Korean Goal DO Ben DO Low applicative Low applicative Low applicative High applicative

Structural Comparability X 61

The two diagnostics above have allowed us to detect the structural positions of the dative arguments in goal and ben DOs. These tests indirectly reveal the structural positions of verbs that license these dative-marked arguments. The scrambling and adverb placement tests have shown that the dative-marked argument in ben DOs is merged outside the verbal projection. The co-dependency between the dative-marked argument and cwu- implies that cwu- introduces (or licenses) the dative-marked argument in Korean ben DOs. Putting these together, we can reasonably assume that the light verb cwu-, which licenses the dative-marked argument, is projected above the vP. Thus, ben DOs in Korean are associated with the structure in (84).

84.

ApplP

DPBenefactive

Appl

vP

cwu-

Subj

VP

DPTheme

V 62

Based on evidence from the scrambling and low adverb placements, the distinct structural positions of the dative-marked argument in goal and ben DOs in Korean have been detected. Nevertheless, the following question still remains: what accounts for the observed asymmetry between goal and benefactive constructions in Korean? More precisely, why is the structural status of the benefactive argument different from that of the goal argument? I claim that benefactives are always external to the event that affects the theme. This claim implies that benefactives are severed from (or not lexically selected by) the lexical verbs and as such, the benefactive is not merged within the VP (to be more specific, vP). Cwu- in Korean ben DOs functions as a verb that takes an event argument semantically, a vP complement syntactically. The proposed claim is, in essence, in line with Marantz (1993).

3.3.2

The high applicative status of Korean ben DOs Having discussed the structural differences between goal DOs and ben DOs

in Korean and having argued for the high applicative status of Korean ben DOs, we are now ready to examine similarities between benefactive applicative constructions in Bantu languages and Korean ben DOs. The striking resemblances between the two constructions lend further support to the claim that Korean ben DOs are high applicatives. As in Korean ben DOs, the benefactor (i.e., the applied argument) in Bantu languages requires an applicative affix, -ir-, whose function is similar to that of cwu63

in Korean. Both cwu- and ir- introduce an indirect object.22 The relevant example is repeated in (85).

85.

Chitsiru fool

chi-na-gul-ir-a SP-Past-buy-APPL-fv

atsikana girls (Chichea)

mphatso gift

The fool bought a gift for the girls.

The benefactive applicative constructions in Bantu languages and Korean ben DOs pattern together with respect to scrambling. As in Korean ben DOs, in Bantu, the theme argument cannot precede (thus, cannot scramble over) the benefactive argument in the absence of object agreement (see (86b) and (87b)). Examples below illustrate this point.

86.

a.

Chitsiru fool

chi-na-gul-ir-a

atsikana girls

mphatso gift

SP-Past-buy-APPL-fv

The fool bought a gift for the girls. (Chichea) b. *Chitsiru fool chi-na-gul-ir-a SP-Past-buy-APPL-fv mphatso gift atsikana girls

22

Unlike the applied affix in Bantu languages, which is a preposition, cwu- in Korean is a verbal morpheme. Its preposition status notwithstanding, Marantz analyzes the applied affix in Bantu languages as a verb.

64

87.

a.

N-a-i-lyi-i-a Foc-SP-Prs-eat-APPL-fv

m-ka wife

k-elya food

He is eating food for his wife.(Chaga: Bresnan and Moshi 1993) b. *N-a-i-lyi-i-a Foc-SP-Prs-eat-APPL-fv k-elya food m-ka wife

The striking parallels between the benefactive applicatives in Bantu languages and Korean ben DOs suggest that the two constructions are structurally similar. Benefactive applicatives in Bantu languages have been analyzed as high applicatives (cf. Pylkknnen 2002). The resemblance between the two constructions, in conjunction with the high applicative status of the benefactive applicatives in Bantu languages, suggests high applicative status for Korean ben DOs as well. I will support this hypothesis further with the semantic properties of Korean ben DOs in the next section.

3.4

Semantic properties of Korean DO constructions In this section, I examine the semantic properties of Korean DOs, in

comparison with those of English DOs. I show that ben DOs in Korean and those in English are distinct semantically: unlike their English counterparts, ben DOs in Korean are not constrained by the possessor constraint. Ben DOs in Korean encode a general benefactive construal. On the other hand, goal DOs in these two languages

65

are semantically comparable: both encode a (prospective) possession relation (obligatorily for English and optionally for Korean).

3.4.1

Semantic properties of ben DOs in Korean In the preceding section, I have shown that Korean ben DOs and English ben

DOs are structurally distinct. In this section, I show that they are semantically distinct as well. Ben DOs in Korean cover a broader range of meaning than their English counterparts. More precisely, ben DOs in Korean encode a wider benefactive construal, regardless of prospective possession. The dative-marked argument is interpreted as a benefactor, not necessarily an intended possessor of the theme argument. As such, (88) is compatible with a meaning in which John baked the cake on behalf of Mary (i.e., Mary benefits from the Johns baking the cake but is not the intended recipient of the cake). In English ben DOs, the referent of the benefactive DP should at least be an intended recipient (or possessor) of the referent of the theme argument. Otherwise, ben DOs in English become bad (see section 2.3.1).

66

88.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

kheyikh-ul cake-Acc

kwu-e bake-L

cwu-ess-ta23 Ben-Past-Decl

John baked Mary a cake.

Further confirmation of the benefactive construal of the dative-marked argument in ben DOs in Korean is provided by the fact that such an argument can be freely interchanged with an adjunct headed by the benefactive postposition ulwihay, the Korean counterpart of English for. When the adjunct ulwihay appears in the sentence, cwu- can be dropped because ulwihay encodes a benefactive meaning.

89.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-ulwihay Mary-for

kheyikh-ul cake-Acc

kwu-e (cwu)-ess-ta bake-L Ben-Past-Decl

John baked a cake for Mary.

Sentence (88) is ambiguous. On the one hand, it can have a Serial verb construction (SVC) reading, John baked a cake and gave it to Mary, in which case cwu- keeps its literal meaning (namely, give). On the other hand, cwu- can have a benefactive reading, John baked the cake for Mary. The following sentence also illustrates an ambiguity between the benefactive reading and the SVC reading (see Zubizarreta and Oh in press for a detailed description of SVC construction in Korean). (i) John-i Mary-eykey ssuleyki-lul cwu-e cwu-ess-ta John-Nom Mary-Dat trash-Acc pick up-L give-Past-Decl John picked up and gave the trash to Mary. John picked up the trash on behalf of Mary (for Mary). There are cases where no ambiguity arises. When the first V does not give rise to a transferable object, cwu- can only be associated with the benefactive construal, as illustrated by the example below. (ii) John-i Mary-eykey nolay-lul pwul-e *(cwu)-ess-ta John-Nom Mary-Dat song-Acc sing-L Ben-Past-Decl John sang Mary a song When (i) has a SVC reading, it patterns with goal DOs on the scrambling and low adverb placement tests. This suggests that both verbs in the SVC are merged within the verbal projection.

23

67

The semantic properties of ben DOs in Korean clearly suggest that they are high applicatives. In order to further support this claim, two diagnostics are used: (in)compatibility with stative verbs and (in)compatibility with intransitives. Pylkknnen (2002) suggests (in)compatibility with stative verbs as one of the diagnostics for distinguishing the two kinds of applicatives: only high applicatives, free from the possessor constraint, are compatible with stative verbs (see section 2.6.2). On the other hand, low applicatives, which imply a transfer of possession, are incompatible with stative verbs in that the lexical meaning of stative verbs cannot encode a (prospective) transfer of possession. Given the claim for the high applicative status of Korean ben DOs, a clear prediction follows: ben DOs in Korean should be compatible with stative verbs.24 The prediction was borne out. The relevant example is repeated in (90).

90.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

kapang-ul bag-Acc

tul-e

cwu-ess-ta

hold-L Ben-Past-Decl

John held Mary the bag.

24

Verbs of consumption in Korean can also appear in the ben DO construction. Mary-eykey kunye-uy (maseps-nun) ssayntuwichi-lul John-Nom Mary-Dat she-Gen (tasteless-Rel) sandwich-Acc John ate Mary her sandwich (that is tasteless). mek-e cwu-ess-ta eat-L Ben-Past-Decl

(i) (?)John-i

As indicated in English gloss, its English counterpart is ungrammatical. The grammaticality of the Korean example and the ungrammaticality of its English counterpart are accounted for by the fact that English ben DOs, but not Korean ben DOs, encode a (prospective) transfer of possession. Mary stands in a benefactive relation to the event of Johns eating her sandwich but bears no relation to the direct object of eating, the sandwich. More precisely, Mary cannot plausibly come into a possessive relation with the sandwich as a result of Johns eating it.

68

(In)compatibility with intransitives (more specifically, unergatives) is another diagnostic for distinguishing high applicatives from low applicatives (cf. Pylkknnen (2002: 23)). Since low applicatives denote a relation between two individuals, they cannot appear in the structure lacking a direct object. On the other hand, high applicatives, which denote a relation between the indirect object and the event, and thus do not require a direct object, can combine with intransitives. Compatibility with intransitives (although restricted) lends further supports to the high applicative status of Korean benefactive constructions.25 The relevant data appear in (91) through (93). The referent of the Dative Case marked DP in the examples below benefits from the event described by the verb. See the contrasts between the Korean examples and English examples below.

91.

a.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

wus-e smile-L

cwu-ess-ta Ben-Past-Decl

John smiled for Mary. b. 92. a. *John smiled Mary. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat mwuposwu-lo ilhay cwu-ess-ta no wage-with work Ben-Past-Decl

John worked for Mary for free. b.

25

*John worked Mary for free.

Intransitives can combine with cwu-. For reasons unclear to me, co-appearance of the dative marked argument and an intransitive verb + cwu- sometimes gives rise to awkwardness. Nevertheless, with appropriate contexts, grammaticality of the sentences involving the dative marked argument and an intransitive + cwu- improves.

69

93.

a.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

malhay speak

cwu-ess-ta Ben-Past-Decl

John spoke for Mary. b. *John spoke Mary.

The semantic properties of Korean ben DOs discussed thus far have clearly shown that ben DOs in Korean are high applicatives, which denote a wider benefactive meaning. In Korean ben DOs, the Dative Case marked argument is the benefactor of the event denoted by the verbal projection (specifically, vP). This benefactive construal encoded by Korean ben DOs, in conjunction with the (prospective) possession construal encoded by English ben DOs, suggests that Korean ben DOs and English ben DOs are semantically distinct.

3.4.2

Semantic properties of goal DOs in Korean In order to better understand the semantic properties of goal DOs in Korean, I

will also examine the semantic properties of a related construction, which I will refer to as theey construction, given in (94). The locative -ey can mark the goal of the motion in the context of verbs of directed motion (e.g., ka- go and o- come) or goal verbs (e.g., tenci- throw).26

-ey has a locative function with the copular verb iss- be. (i) John-i cip-ey iss-ta John-Nom house-Loc be-Decl John is at home.

26

70

94.

John-i John-Nom

New York-ey New York-Loc

pyenci-lul letter-Acc

ponay-ss-ta send-Past-Decl

John sent a letter to New York.

The markers -ey and eykey seem to play a similar function, denoting the goal of the motion in the directed motion event. The alternation between the two appears to be governed by the animacy of the complement: when the complement has a [+animate] feature, -eykey is used and when the complement has a [-animate] feature, -ey is used. The relevant contrast appears in (95).

95.

a.

John-i John-Nom

New York-ey/*eykey New York-Loc

pyenci-lul ponay-ss-ta letter-Acc send-Past-Decl

John sent a letter to New York. b. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey/*ey Mary-Dat pyenci-lul letter-Acc ponay-ss-ta send-Past-Decl

John sent Mary a letter.

Despite apparent similarities shared by the two, -ey and eykey are different, as shown below. First, they are different in terms of categorical status: -ey is a postposition whereas eykey is a case marker. Second, they are semantically distinct as well. Unlike eykey, -ey cannot encode a (prospective) transfer of possession.

71

As is well-established, the Case drop phenomenon is sensitive to the case/ postposition distinction (cf. Saito 1983): Cases, but not postpositions, can be dropped. The contrast in (96) suggests that ey is a postposition while eykey is a case marker.

96.

a. John-i John-Nom

Mary-(eykey) chayk-(ul) Mary-Dat book-Acc

cwu-ess-ta give-Past-Decl

John gave Mary a book. b. John-i John-Nom New York-*(ey) New York-Loc pyenci-(lul) letter-Acc ponay-ss-ta send-Past-Decl

John sent a letter to New York.

Turning to the semantic distinction, -ey cannot appear in contexts which involve prospective possession without physical transfer (97) and conversely, it can appear in contexts in which prospective possession is not obtained (98-99). Thus, where the ey construction is ungrammatical, its English DO counterpart is grammatical, and vice versa, as shown below.

97.

a.

*John-i John-Nom

cip-ey house-Loc

say new

cipwung-ul roof-Acc

cwu-ess-ta give-Past-Decl

*John gave a new roof to the house. b. John gave the house a new roof.

72

98.

a.

Mary-nun Mary-Top

kunye-uy she-Gen

chinkwutul-ul kongwen-ey ponay-ss-ta friends-Acc park-Loc send-Past-Decl

Mary sent her friends to the park. b. 99. a. *Mary sent the park her friends. John-i John-Nom New York-ey New York-Loc pyenci-lul letter-Acc ponay-ss-ta send-Past-Decl

John sent a letter to New York. b. *John sent New York a letter.

On the other hand, -eykey can appear in contexts in which prospective possession is implicated; crucially, it can appear in contexts which involve prospective possession without physical transfer. This suggests that goal DOs in which eykey appears indeed can encode a (prospective) transfer of possession. This, in turn, suggests that like goal DOs in English, goal DOs in Korean are also subject to the possessor constraint. The relevant data are given below. The data come from a corpus found at http://gensum.kaist.ac.kr/~morph/. As shown below, most of the frequent goal verbs can encode prospective possession without physical transfer. The literal English translations are provided.

100.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

aitieidea-lul cwu-ess-ta idea-Acc give-Past-Decl

John gave Mary an idea. 73

101.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

ku-uy he-Gen

maum-ul heart-Acc

cwu-ess-ta give-Past-Decl

John gave Mary his heart. 102. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat sisen-ul cwu-ess-ta.

eye sight-Acc give-Past-Decl

John gave Mary a glance. 103. I chayk-un Mary-eykey yengkam-ul inspiration-Acc cwu-ess-ta give-Past-Decl

This book-Top Mary-Dat This book gave Mary inspiration. 104. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat insa-ul

ponay-ss-ta.

greeting-Acc send-Past-Decl

John sent Mary greetings. 105. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat winkhu-lul wink-Acc ponay-ss-ta. send-Past-Decl

John sent Mary a wink. 106. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat khissu-lul kiss-Acc ponay-ss-ta. send-Past-Decl

John sent Mary a kiss. 107. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat (cwungko-uy) mal-ul (advice-Gen) word-Acc kennay-ss-ta. hand-Past-Decl

John handed Mary a word of advice.

74

108.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-eykey Mary-Dat

insa-lul

kennay-ss-ta.

greeting-Acc hand-Past-Decl

John handed Mary a greeting. 109. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat nwunkil-ul tenci-ess-ta

eye road (gaze)-Acc throw-Past-Decl

John threw Mary a gaze. 110. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat cilmwun-ul question-Acc tenci-ess-ta. throw-Past-Decl

John threw Mary a question. 111. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat (mal epsi) khissu-lul tenci-ess-ta throw-Past-Decl

(word without)kiss-Acc

John threw Mary a kiss without words.

However, goal DOs in Korean are more complex than English goal DOs in that Korean goal DOs are apparently only optionally constrained by the possessor constraint: they can also appear in contexts which do not involve prospective possession. This is confirmed by empirical data, as described below. I provided the Korean translations of the contexts in (112) through (114) below to 13 Korean native speakers and requested them to rate the sentences using a scale ranging from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 4 (completely acceptable) (the English versions of these contexts were used to test L1-Korean speakers sensitivity to the possessor constraint in English, as described in Chapter 5). Note that in the contexts provided 75

below, the (prospective) possession construal is not available. The (A) variants below were translated into Korean using the DAT-ACC order, and the (B) variants were translated using the ACC-DAT order. For all three contexts given in Korean, the Korean speakers rated both the sentences in (A) (the DAT-ACC structure) and the sentences in (B) (the ACC-DAT structure) using 3 or 4 (acceptable). In contrast, native English speakers rated the sentences in (A) using 1 or 2 and the sentences in (B) using 3 or 4.

112.

One of the students in Lindas class had a toothache. Linda told the student, go see the dentist immediately. The student went to the dentists office just around the corner. A. Linda sent the dentist a student. 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Not sure Not sure

B. Linda sent a student to the dentist. 1 113.

Olive went to the doctors office yesterday. She wasnt sick herself: she came because one of the children that she was baby-sitting got sick. He had a really bad tummy-ache! A. Olive brought the doctor a child. 1 B. Olive brought a child to the doctor.1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Not sure Not sure

76

114.

Mary has three cats. Yesterday, one of the cats didnt seem to be OK. He couldnt walk straight. Mary thought that her cat would need medical attention. She put the cat in her car and drove to the veterinarians office. A. Mary took the veterinarian a cat. 1 B. Mary took a cat to the veterinarian. 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Not sure Not sure

Given the above discussion, I conclude that goal DOs in Korean are optionally constrained by the possessor constraint. In other words, the applicative head is optionally projected. There is another plausible account for apparently contradictory data reported above. This is the possibility that goal DOs in Korean are always subject to the possessor constraint and that the cases in (112) through (114) are not in fact goal DOs. Either way, we have a puzzle. For the first option, the one that I adopt in this thesis, we have to account for where the optionality of applicative head projection comes from. For the alternative account, we have to explain why the Korean variants of in (112) through (114) are not DOs, despite having the same phonetic realization and the same word order (DAT-ACC) as goal DOs. We can start our investigation by checking the status of eykey in the two contexts ((100-111) vs. (112-114)). It might be the case that in contexts with the possession construal, -eykey is a case marker, whereas in contexts without the possession construal, -eykey is a postposition.

77

In any case, an important fact is that whether it is optional or obligatory (as in goal DOs in English), (prospective) transfer of possession is encoded by goal DOs in Korean.

Conclusion In this chapter, the syntactic and semantic properties of English and Korean

DO constructions have been examined. After carefully examining the structural properties of the DO constructions in Korean and English, I have proposed that (1) goal DOs in these two languages are structurally comparable (i.e., both are low applicatives in the sense of Pylkknnen (2002)) whereas ben DOs in these two languages are structurally different (the Korean ben DO is a high applicative while the English ben DO is a low applicative); and that (2) goal DOs in these two languages are semantically comparable: both encode a (prospective) possession relation, whereas ben DOs in these two languages are semantically distinct: while ben DOs in English encode a possession relation, ben DOs in Korean encode a wider benefactive meaning instead. These proposals have clear implications for the acquisition of English DO construction by L1-Korean speakers. If L1 transfer is operative in L2 acquisition at the level of syntax, it is predicted that the acquisition of the English ben DO construction should be relatively more difficult than the acquisition of English the goal DO construction. It is reasonable to assume that the structural comparability between the L1 and the L2 facilitates the L2 acquisition of the relevant construction. 78

It is also predicted that the semantic properties of English ben DOs should be harder to acquire than those of English goal DOs in that they will not be available via positive L1 transfer and that furthermore, they are not easily deducible from the L2 positive input (note that given the fact that benefaction is always present, the acquisition of English ben DOs by L1-Korean speakers poses a superset-subset problem). Experiments 1 and 2, reported in Chapters 4 and 5, were designed to test the above implications of the theoretical proposals for acquisition. If these predictions are borne out, they will provide support to the proposals put forth in this chapter.

79

Chapter 3 The English Double Object Construction in L1 and L2 acquisition

Introduction

This chapter reviews previous studies of the English dative alternation in child L1, child L2, and adult L2 acquisition. In so doing, it focuses on presenting the issues that have been touched upon in previous studies, summarized in the following sections. The main issues in the investigation of the acquisition of the English dative alternation are: (1) the acquisition of the possessor constraint, a hallmark of the English DO construction; (2) overgeneration/overacceptance of illicit DO forms in the context of child L1 acquisition; and (3) in the context of L2 acquisition, L1 transfer and the acquisition of the possessor constraint. In addition, the issues of how the constraints are acquired and what the sequence of acquisition of the constraints is have received due attention in child L1 acquisition, but unfortunately not in the context of child and adult L2 acquisition. For each study to be reviewed, the procedure, results, and conclusions of the study are presented first. Then, comments on the study follow. In the comments sections, I discuss the value of the studies and point out possible shortcomings in the design of the studies. Having critiqued the shortcomings, possible alternatives obviating them are suggested, which are also implemented in designing the studies of this thesis. 80

This chapter is organized as follows. In section 2, I review two studies of the English DO construction in L1 acquisition: Gropen, Pinker, Hollander, Goldberg and Wilson 1989 and Mazurkewich and White 1984. In Section 3, one interesting case study in child L2 acquisition of English DO construction will be presented: Whong and Schwartz 2002. This study is particularly of interest because, like the two empirical studies of this dissertation (reported in Chapters 4 and 5), this child L2 study has investigated the acquisition of the English DO construction by Korean speakers. Section 4 gives a review for the adult L2 acquisition studies on the English DO construction: White 1987, 1991 and Sawyer 1996. The first study concerns L1 transfer and the second study deals with acquisition of the possessor constraint on the DO. Section 5 concludes the chapter.

Previous studies of the English DO construction in child L1 acquisition This section provides a review of two studies of the English DO construction

in L1 acquisition: Gropen et al. 189 and Mazurkewich and White 1984.

2.1

Gropen et al. (1989) The objective of Gropen et al.s (1989) study is two-fold. First, they test

Bakers (1979) proposal about strict conservatism with respect to the acquisition of argument structure alternations in general and the dative alternation in particular. Baker (1979) argues that since not all dative verbs alternate, learners acquire the dative alternation on a verb-by-verb basis and therefore, they do not generalize DO 81

forms to illicit DO forms i.e., they are strictly conservative. Gropen et al. put this idea about conservative learning to the test. Secondly, they test L1 learners sensitivity to the possessor constraint on DO forms. In order to do that, two experiments were administered. The first experiment was designed to test strict conservatism. Gropen et al. reasoned that if children were strictly conservative, as was argued by Baker, they should not produce DOs that they have never heard or encountered in the input i.e., nonce verbs. Sixteen English-speaking children participated in the first experiment (age range: 5;0-8;6, mean age: 7;4 years) and were tested individually. Four nonce verbs were created, which had the meaning of transfer of possession. The experimenter introduced nonce verbs by performing a corresponding action, using props and toys. Each childs session started with an attempt to elicit a DO form of the verb pass. This was done as a means of making accessible to the child subject a natural use of the DO form in connection with acts of physical transfer. Then, the experimenter primed the children, modeling the nonce verb in the DO form, while performing the corresponding action. In the elicited production task that followed, the child subjects were asked to describe the action using the nonce verb. Then another priming block for PP forms followed. The experimenter primed the children, modeling the nonce verb in the PP form this time, again performing the corresponding action. Then, a second elicited production task followed, requesting the child subjects to describe the action using the nonce verb.

82

The result of particular relevance to the test is the occurrence rate of DO forms after nonce verbs modeled in the PP form. The strict conservatism hypothesis predicts that children will not produce the DO form in this context. Results suggested that more DO forms were elicited when DO forms were modeled than when PP forms were modeled, indicating the effect of construction priming. A structural priming effect notwithstanding, crucially, children did produce DO forms 30% of the time when the nonce verbs were modeled in the PP form. This result indicates that children are not strictly conservative. The authors interpreted this result as evidence against Bakers strict conservatism hypothesis and in favor of a weaker version of conservatism. The second experiment was designed to test childrens sensitivity to the semantic constraint on the DO form, which Gropen et al. argued is a part of UG. In order to test this knowledge, the animacy of the recipients/goals was manipulated. Three different types of recipients/goals were used: the child, an animate toy, or an inanimate toy. The logic behind this experiment is that if children are sensitive to the semantic constraint, they will produce more DO forms when the recipient is the animate toy or the child himself or herself than when the recipient is an inanimate toy. As in the first experiment, nonce verbs were used in the second experiment and the experimenter introduced the nonce verbs by acting out the corresponding action. But in the second experiment, the nonce verb was presented in the neutral gerund form. In other words, this time, the nonce verb was not modeled in either DO or PP

83

form. Thirty-two children (age range: 5;8-8;11) participated in this second experiment. An elicited production task was used again. The results showed that children produced DO forms the most (mean acceptance 52%) when the recipients were themselves, compared to 38% with animate toy recipients and 32% with inanimate toy recipients. Gropen et al. concluded that this result is a clear manifestation of childrens sensitivity to the possessor constraint. This result is consistent with the result of the first experiment that the children are not strictly conservative.

2.2

Comments on Gropen et al. (1989) The result of the second experiment is of more relevance to this dissertation.

The question raised by Gropen et al. equally holds for L2 acquisition as well: whether learners in general, including L2 learners, are sensitive to the possessor constraint. If L2 learners show sensitivity to the possessor constraint, this strengthens Gropen et als claim that the possessor constraint is universal. This is an empirical question to be tested. An elicited production task was used by Gropen et al. in order to examine learners knowledge of the possessor constraint. The problem with an elicited production task in general is that when an unmarked choice is available, it is not easy to elicit a marked form (the DO form is a case in point, since it is marked with respect to the PP form; cf. Mazurkewich 1982, 1984, White 1987). Indeed, the priming blocks were used in order to encourage children to produce DO forms (see 84

also Wilson et al. for the difficulty of eliciting the DO forms from children). Even with the priming and modeling, the production rates of the DO form in the two experiments are low. Considering this drawback of an elicited production task, a comprehension task, which forces learners to make a judgment, should be adopted. In designing a first experiment of this dissertation reported in Chapter 4, this point was taken into consideration. The conclusion drawn from the results of Gropen et al.s first experiment is also pertinent to the current dissertation. The issue is whether a weaker version of conservatism i.e., the claim that learners are conservative but not strictly conservative, overgeneralizing illicit DOs to some extent extends to the L2 acquisition. The idea is that regardless of how pervasive a construction is in the input, the default condition is not to allow new entries into ones developing grammar at the initial stage; the question is whether this holds for both L1 and L2 acquisition. If it does, we have to ask whether the conservatism attested in L1 and L2 acquisition is of the same nature, and whether L1 and L2 learners take the same or similar route in overcoming the conservatism. Unlike L1 acquisition, L2 acquisition is influenced by another factor, L1 transfer. Robust L1 transfer effects in L2 acquisition are likely to interact with this (initial) conservatism, manipulating the role of conservatism more salient or less salient. I will investigate the role of conservatism in Chapter 4. As will be seen in Chapter 4, L2 learners grammars are also conservative. However, this is not conservatism across the board but rather, a selective conservatism - i.e., all learners 85

accepted the PP forms although they rejected the DO forms to some extent and even for acceptance of DO forms, a selective conservatism was attested. Therefore, conservatism as a default (across the board) is not entirely true in that conservatism seems to be relaxed for certain properties early on. This might be due to L1 transfer or to universal developmental patterns. In any case, the idea of conservatism as a default should be supplemented by other factors in L2 acquisition.

2.3

Mazurkewich & White (1984) The aim of Mazurkewich and Whites (1984) study (henceforth, M&W) is to

investigate (1) whether children overgeneralize the English DO structure (i.e., overaccept ungrammatical DOs); and (2) how children acquire the semantic prospective possessor constraint and the morphological Latinate constraint on DOs, and in what order. The test verbs were first classified into alternating verbs in (1) and nonalternating verbs in (2) and (3). The non-alternating verbs were further sub-classified into two groups, depending on the constraint that a given verb violates; (i) verbs violating the semantic constraint, as in (2); and (ii) verbs violating the morphological constraint, as in (3).

1. Alternating verbs a. Peter threw a football to Philip/ Peter threw Philip a football. (goal DO) b. Diane baked a cake for Nicole/ Diane baked Nicole a cake. (ben DO)

86

2.

Non-alternating verbs violating the semantic constraint27 a. Larry washed the dishes for Robin/*Larry washed Robin the dishes. (ben DO) b. Larry drove the car for Robin /*Larry drove Robin the car. (ben DO)

3.

Non-alternating verbs violating the morphological constraint a. David suggested the trip to Ruth/*David suggested Ruth the trip. (goal DO) b. Anne created a costume for Sarah/*Anne created Sarah a costume. (ben DO)

Twenty-two English-speaking children participated in the study. These children were divided into three groups: 9-year-olds (mean age: 9;0, 10 subjects), 12year-olds (mean age:12;3, 6 subjects), and 15-year-olds (mean age: 15;6, 6 subjects). The authors attributed the very few reports from previous studies of overgeneralization of the English DO construction to the fact that Latinate verbs are learned relatively late: the scarcity of overgeneralization is simply due to the absence of such verbs in the vocabularies of young children. The authors claimed that by the time Latinate verbs are introduced in the speech of children, which they assumed would be around age 10, overgeneralization of DOs would be readily attested. Testing two older groups (12-year-olds and 15-year-olds) was in particular motivated in this regard. A grammaticality judgment task was used.

27

They did not test goal DOs violating the semantic constraint.

87

The results of the study are summarized in Table 3, which is from M & Ws appendix 2 (1984:281).

Table 3: Distribution in percentages of responses according to sentence type 9-year-olds 12-year-olds 15-year-olds
gram A. Peter threw a football to Philip Peter threw Philip a football B. Diane baked a cake for Nicole Diane baked Nicole a cake C. David suggested the trip to Ruth David suggested Ruth the trip D. Anne created a costume for Sarah Anne created Sarah a costume E. Nancy drove the car for Ted Nancy drove Ted the car ungram gram ungram gram ungram

96.7 100 100 96.7 73.3 46.7 82.0 18.0

3.3 3.3 26.7 53.3 18.0 82.0

100 90.0 96.7 93.3 100 33.3 100 61.1

10.0 3.3 6.7 66.7 38.9

100 100 100 86.7 100 11.1 100 27.8

13.3 88.9 72.2

: categories are not tested; gram: grammatical; ungram; ungrammatical

The findings of the study showed that children did indeed overaccept ungrammatical DOs. As was predicted, children overaccepted DOs with Latinate verbs. This held for all three groups. Interestingly, the 12-year-olds and 15-year-olds overaccepted Latinate ben DOs more strongly than Latinate goal DOs (61.1% vs. 33.3% for the 12-year-olds and 27.8% vs. 11.1% for the 15-year-olds). The results further showed that the children accurately accepted alternating goal and ben DOs. Data relevant to the sequence of acquisition of the two constraints come from the youngest group, 9-year-olds. This group was the only group which was tested both on DOs violating the morphological constraint and ones violating the semantic constraint-viz. the comparison between illicit Latinate goal DOs in (C) and illicit

88

Germanic ben DOs in (E) in Table 3.28 The youngest group treated these two constructions differently: they overaccepted illicit Latinate goal DOs more strongly than illicit Germanic ben DOs (46.7% vs. 18%). This result indicates that the children in the youngest group more accurately judged the ungrammaticality of DOs violating the semantic constraint than of those violating the morphological constraint. Given this result, M &W argued for the relatively early acquisition of the semantic constraint compared to the morphological constraint. In an attempt to account for how children acquire the semantic and morphological constraints, M&W first assumed that the DO and PP forms are related via a lexical redundancy rule, which is illustrated in (4)

4.

Lexical redundancy rule in adult grammar + Vi (+ native) + ____ NP1 [{to/for} NP2] + Vi (+ native) + _____NP2 NP1 NP2 possessor of NP1 and goal or beneficiary

Unlike adult native speakers who conform to the lexical rule in (4), child native speakers use the rule creatively. Child native speakers start out with the hypothesis that DO and PP are related via this lexical rule but they are unaware of both constraints. On the basis of positive evidence in the input, they first become aware of the semantic constraint and then of the morphological constraint. For the acquisition of the semantic constraint, M&W argued that DOs involving abstract
28

Note that two categories differ on variable of DO type: goal vs. ben DOs. This can be a confounding factor.

89

transfer would act as the triggering factor. The relevant data is given in (5). They argued that since the DO in (5) does not involve physical transfer (unlike most DOs), the possession construal would stand out as being relevant for the DO construction. This would lead to the acquisition of the possessor constraint.

5.

The noise gave Mary a headache.

For the acquisition of the morphological constraint, M&W claimed that the acquisition of phonological and morphological distinctions associated with Germanic and Latinate verbs is relevant. When children become aware that these distinctions are relevant to the DO construction, they will classify dative verbs into two classes: Native (Germanic) and Latinate. M&W further argued that this classification of dative verbs might take place fairly late (due to the late entries of Latinate verbs into childrens vocabularies), consistent with their findings. Crucially, they assumed that by the time children are sensitive to the morphological constraint, the semantic constraint is already well-established.

2.4

Comments on Mazurkewich & White (1984) In the context of the present dissertation, the finding of particular interest is

the developmental pattern of the acquisition of the English DO construction attested by children. The children accepted both licit goal and licit ben DOs and overaccepted illicit DOs. They overaccepted illicit ben DOs more than illicit goal DOs. 90

This developmental pattern will become relevant for the discussion in Chapter 4, where I present an experiment which tests adult Korean-speaking learners of English and adult and child English native speakers. In this experiment, data from child English native speakers are important in teasing apart universal developmental effects from L1-transfer. M&Ws study gives us an idea of what the developmental effects are like in L1-acquisition. If the same developmental effects are behind the acquisition of the English DO construction by adult Korean speakers, we expect similar results from adult Korean learners of English as from child English speakers. On the other hand, if L1 transfer effects are at work in L2-acquisition, we expect different acquisition patterns for child native English speakers on the one hand and for Korean speakers on the other hand. As discussed in section 3.1 of Chapter 4, L1 transfer predicts a preference of goal DOs over ben DOs across the board, regardless of licitness and morphology. On the other hand, M&Ws findings of developmental effects suggest a role for licitness and for morphology (Germanic vs. Latinate). Another relevant point from M& Ws study is their argument for how the semantic constraint on the DO structure is acquired. M&W invoked positive evidence as a source of acquisition, in particular, DO sentences denoting abstract transfer, exemplified in (5). They discarded the role of indirect negative evidence (cf. Chomsky 1981) in the process of acquiring the English DO construction. Indirect negative evidence refers to nonoccurrence of a structure or form in the input. The reason why M&W ruled out the possibility that the acquisition of the English DO construction can be guided by indirect negative evidence is as follows. They argued 91

that indirect negative evidence, which was proposed in the context of a parameterized view of UG, works because of the assumption that UG allows a limited range of alternatives; as such, the absence of some parameter is noticeable. In other words, controlled or constrained environments or contexts are crucial for indirect negative evidence to work. M&W argued that indirect negative evidence cannot work well for the English dative alternation because the absence of one form in the input is a problem having to do with certain verbs but not a problem of subcategorization frames (DO form or PP form), which they believe are set by UG. They failed to see how the English dative alternation (the DO and PP forms) can be defined as a constrained context. In Chapter 5, we will show that in fact, the English dative alternation is defined as a constrained context and where indirect negative evidence can be invoked. Briefly commenting on M&Ws test materials, the first problem to be noted is that the test sentences provided for the two older groups on the one hand and for the youngest group on the other were different. For the older groups, DO sentences in (A)-(D) in Table 3 were presented but DO sentences in (E) violating the semantic constraint were not presented. For the youngest group, DO sentences in (A)-(C) and (E) were presented but ben DO sentences in (D) violating the morphological constraint was not presented. Therefore, a direct comparison among all three groups is impossible. In order to get more controlled and complete data, the same test items should have been presented to all groups.

92

Secondly, DO sentences were presented without contexts in M & Ws study. However, this is an indirect way of examining learners knowledge. To get a better grasp of learners knowledge of the semantic constraint, we need to directly examine the learners knowledge by using a more controlled experiment with contexts. By providing contexts, we can be confident that a given sentence will be evaluated in that particular context, leaving little room for other interpretations. Experiment 2 of this dissertation, presented in Chapter 5, was designed with this issue in mind. Despite these points, M& Ws study should be appreciated as a first attempt to seriously take up the issue of how learners acquire the English dative alternation. This was the first investigation into the sequence of acquisition of the morphological and semantic constraints.

Previous study of the English DO construction in child L2 acquisition This section reviews one child L2 study of the English DO construction:

Whong-Barr and Schwartz (2002). L1 transfer effects attested in this child L2 study are the main concern of the section.

3.1

Whong-Barr & Schwartz (2002) The aims of Whong-Barr and Schwartzs (2002) study (henceforth, W-B &S)

is two-fold. First, W-B & S investigate the developmental pattern of the acquisition of the English DO construction by child L2 learners. In particular, they address the issue of whether the overgeneralization of the DO construction, which is widely 93

reported in child L1 acquisition, is also witnessed in child L2.29 Secondly, W-B&S investigate the issue of whether L1 transfer, which is widely attested in adult L2, is also witnessed in child L2. In particular, they address the morphological transfer hypothesis of Montrul 1997. Our review is mainly concerned with the findings related to the second issue. W-B&Ss data came from five L1-Korean children (mean age: 8.28) and five L1-Japanese children (mean age: 7.97) acquiring the English goal and ben DO constructions, which are exemplified in (6) through (9). Six L1-English children (mean age: 8.6) also participated in the study as controls. Four categories of DO sentences were tested in the oral grammaticality judgment task: licit & illicit goal DOs in (6) and (7), respectively, and licit and illicit ben DOs in (8) and (9), respectively. Each category was tested with five different verbs. For each test verb, the DO and PP forms were presented as a pair and the context associated with these sentences was acted out.

The Goal construction 6. a. The sheep threw the spoon to the giraffe. b. The sheep threw the giraffe the spoon. 7. a. The tiger explained the answer to the pig. b. *The tiger explained the pig the answer.
29

(Goal PP) (Licit goal DO) (Goal PP) (Illicit goal DO)

This question is directly tied to the question of to what extent child first language acquisition and child second language acquisition converge (or diverge) in the domain of acquisition of lexically restricted argument structures.

94

The ben(efactive) construction 8. a. The giraffe made a cup of tea for the pig. b. The giraffe made the pig a cup of tea. 9. a. The tiger finished the book for the sheep. b. *The tiger finished the sheep the book. (Ben PP) (Licit ben DO) (Ben PP) (Illicit ben DO)

Before reviewing the findings of the study, let us examine W-B&Ss hypotheses. There are several independent parts to W-B&Ss hypotheses. First, they argue that the double Acc structure (i.e., a sequence of two DPs marked Accusative) in Korean corresponds to the English DO construction. Since Japanese lacks the double Acc structure due to a well-known double o constraint, it is therefore assumed to lack the DO construction30. Furthermore, W-B&S note that while the goal constructions in both English and Korean do not require special morphology as a licensor, the benefactive constructions in these two languages are different in this regard. Namely, the Korean benefactive double Acc structure, unlike English ben DO, must be licensed by the presence of the bound morpheme cwu-. The goal and benefactive constructions in Korean are repeated below. Note that the goal and benefactive DPs are marked Accusative.

30

I disagree with W-B & S on this claim (see section 5.3 in Chapter 4). I argue that based on the asymmetric c-command between the two objects in the DAT-ACC structure in Korean, the DATACC construction in Korean corresponds to English DO construction. Similarly, in the Japanese DAT-ACC structure, the first DP asymmetrically c-commands the theme DP, as evidenced by pronominal variable binding (see Hoji 1985 and Takano 1993). Following these linguists, I assume that Japanese also has DO construction.

95

10.

John-i John-Nom

Mary-lul Mary-Acc

senmwul-ul present-Acc

cwu-ess-ta. give-Past-Decl

(Goal-DO)

John gave Mary a present. 11. John-i Mary-lul kulim-ul picture-Acc kuly-e draw-L cwu-ess-ta. (Ben DO) Ben-Past-Decl

John-Nom Mary-Acc

John drew Mary a picture.

W-B&S then hypothesize that this difference should lead L1-Korean children to disallow ben DOs in English due to the effect of morphological transfer. The idea of morphological transfer, based on Montrul (1997), is that when the L1 uses a special morpheme to mark a syntactic construction, L2-learners expect to see special morphology in the equivalent L2-construction as well. If the L2 lacks any special morphology (as English does in the ben DO construction), learners will be inclined to (at least initially) reject this construction in the L2. Thus, it is predicted that L1Korean children learning English, unlike their L1-Japanese counterparts, will exhibit asymmetric treatment of goal DOs and ben DOs: they should accept goal DOs but not ben DOs in English, since their acceptance of ben DOs should be blocked by Korean overt morphology. Finally, W-B&S note that all children have a developmental tendency to overaccept illicit DOs (cf. Bowerman, 1988; MacWhinney & Snow, 1985; Gropen et al. 1989). In the case of L1-Korean children, this tendency is overridden by the L1transfer effect of the benefactive verbal morpheme cwu-; the lack of a benefactive 96

morpheme in English causes L1-Korean children learning English to (correctly) disallow illicit ben DOs. L1-Japanese children, on the other hand, are expected to overaccept both illicit goal DOs and ben DOs in English like L1-English children. The results supported the morphological transfer hypothesis, in particular, in the domain of illicit DOs. All three groups of children correctly accepted both types of licit DOs to some extent. The results regarding illicit DOs are summarized in Table 4. L1-Korean children, unlike L1-Japanese children, treated illicit goal DOs and illicit ben DOs as different. As predicted, they rejected the illicit ben DOs but not the illicit goal DOs. The difference between Korean and Japanese children in the domain of ben DOs lends support to a W-B&Ss morphological transfer explanation.

Table 4. Summary of the findings of W-B& Ss study Tested category L1-Korean L1-Japanese children (n = 5) children (n = 5) Illicit goal DO OverOver(e.g., *The tiger explained acceptance acceptance
the pig the answer)

L1-English children (n = 6) Overacceptance Correct rejection

Illicit ben DO
(e.g., *The tiger finished the sheep the book)

Correct rejection

Overacceptance

3.2

Comments on Whong-Barr & Schwartz (2002) The findings of W-B & Ss study are directly relevant to the studies reported

in the present dissertation: both W-B&Ss and my studies tested Korean-speaking learners of English, children in W-B&S, adults in my study. Given the expectation that L1 transfer effects will be more robust in adult L2 than in child L2, L1 transfer effects attested with Korean-speaking children in W-B&S s study are predicted to 97

be witnessed with adult L2 learners. Therefore, the morphological transfer witnessed with L1 Korean children is an issue that the present dissertation must consider and account for. In fact, we explore the morphological transfer as a possible account for the results of experiment 1 and show why it is insufficient to account for the results (see section 5.2 of Chapter 4). Furthermore, the comparison of developmental patterns attested by child L2 learners and child L1 learners in W-B&Ss study provides an insight into the (universal) developmental effects in the acquisition of the English DO construction. This comparison can be used as a reference point when we consider the role of developmental effects in the adult L2 acquisition of English DO constructions (see Chapter 4). Turning to the findings of W-B&S s study, we raise the following issues. First, on the methodological side, there were very few subjects and token items elicited, especially in the case of the L1-Japanese children.31 This may render the results inconclusive. Second, on the theoretical side, given the fact that cwu- in Korean is required for all ben DOs, the prediction should be that L1-Korean children should reject all ben DOs in English, licit as well as illicit. Nevertheless, W-B&S found appropriate acceptance of licit ben DOs by L1-Korean children learning English. This pattern deserves further investigation, since it might lead us to a better understanding as to the source of differences between child L2 and adult L2. If adult L2 learners have a

31

Not a single subject among the 5 L1-Japanese children finished the test about licit ben DOs. Two children finished three test sentences out of five and the other three children finished four test sentences out of five.

98

problem in acquiring licit ben DOs as well as illicit ben DOs, this might suggest that compared to adult L2 learners, child L2 learners recover from negative transfer effects faster where positive evidence in the input is available (i.e., with licit ben DOs). Lastly, on the theoretical side, Whong-Barr & Schwartz failed to note the existence of an overt morphological licensor in ben DOs in Japanese, namely ageru (cf. Kuno 1973, McGloin 1989, Shibatani 1990, Tsujimura 1996), and did not consider the Dative-Accusative structure to be a DO construction, contra theoretical literature (Hoji 1985 and Takano 1993; see section 5.3 of Chapter 4 for relevant discussion). The existence of ageru and the status of DAT-ACC as DOs mean that morphological transfer should hold for L1-Japanese children the same as for L1Korean children. I will return to this issue in Chapter 4, where we summarize the results of studies that were specifically designed to test the morphological transfer approach with L1-Korean, L1-Japanese and L1-Mandarin speakers. I show that the morphological transfer hypothesis makes the wrong predictions for the L1-Mandarin group.

Previous studies of the English DO construction in adult L2 acquisition This section gives a review of two adult L2 studies of the English DO

construction: White (1987, 1991) and Sawyer (1996). In the first study, L1 transfer effects in the domain of English DO are discussed and in the second study, adult L2 learners acquisition of the semantic constraint is mainly considered. 99

4.1

White (1987, 1991) Whites (1987) study concerns L1 transfer and tests English-speaking

children (n = 120) and adults (n = 27) acquiring French. French is contrasted with English in that unlike English, it doesnt have the DO form and only has the PP form. A grammaticality judgment task was used. Given the assumption that the DO form is marked while the PP form is unmarked, White advanced two distinct hypotheses: a developmental hypothesis and a transfer hypothesis. The developmental hypothesis states that all learners acquire unmarked forms before marked forms as a necessary developmental stage. On the other hand, the transfer hypothesis states that the L1 plays an important role and therefore, marked forms which are present only in the L1 emerge early before unmarked forms in the L2. The acquisition of French by native English speakers provides a good testing ground for disentangling these hypotheses. The developmental hypothesis predicts that native English speakers will not produce the DO form due to its markedness. In contrast, the transfer hypothesis predicts that native English speakers will produce DO forms due to L1 transfer. The findings of the study clearly supported the transfer hypothesis, arguing against the developmental hypothesis. Both English-speaking children and adults readily accepted ungrammatical DO forms in French. The results are summarized in Table 5. Both child and adult subjects accepted illicit DO forms in French more frequently than the control subjects. This resulted in the relatively low accuracy percentage for the DO form in the experimental groups.

100

Table 5. Accuracy of subject response (%)

Tested categories PP form DO form Control (L1-French children) 97 65 Least advanced L1-English children 76 28 Intermediates L1-English children 71 21 Most advanced L1-English children 77 34 L1-English adults 89.3 50.73

The findings of Whites (1987) study were replicated in Whites (1991) study, which tested English-speaking children (n = 55) acquiring French, using a preference task. The results of both studies showed that native English speakers did indeed transfer the L1 property, the DO structure, into the L2, which lacks a corresponding structure.

4.2

Comments on White (1987, 1991) Both studies of White clearly show that L1 transfer is at work in L2

acquisition. Particularly, the findings of these studies provide evidence for transfer of structural properties of the L1, that is, the DO structure. In this respect, Whites two studies are pertinent to this dissertation. There is no doubt about the existence of structural transfer in the L2 acquisition. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that there have not been many serious attempts to investigate the nature of structural transfer in a systematic way, providing a more precise and articulated characterization of L1 transfer. The present dissertation aims at examining this issue. In order to achieve this goal, we suggest two structural environments where we can see relatively clearly how structural transfer works: environments where the L1 and L2 are structurally

101

dissimilar and environments where the L1 and L2 are structurally similar. The relevant details are presented in Chapter 4. In study after study investigating the L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation, it has been witnessed that subjects perform better with PP forms than with DO forms. This also holds for Whites studies. This recurrence strongly implies that there is some driving force behind. it. In Chapter 4, we consider this issue, giving some possible accounts for the asymmetry.

4.3

Sawyer (1996) Sawyers (1996) study is an L2 replication of Gropen et al. (1989), with some

modifications. Sawyer investigates adult L2 learners sensitivity to the possessor constraint on the DO in general (a broad-range rule) and the restriction on actual dativization to subclasses of verbs (with similar meaning) (narrow-range rules) within the framework of Pinker (1989). This study is grounded in the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (henceforth, FDH) of Bley-Vroman1989, which posits that only the principles and parameters already instantiated in the L1 can be available in adult L2 learning. Pinker posits that two rules are operative on the English dative alternation, a broad-range rule and a narrow-range rule. These two rules are directly operative on a verbs semantic structure. The broad-range rule takes the semantic structure of the PP form (X CAUSE Y to GO TO Z) and converts it to the semantic structure of the DO form (X CAUSE Z to HAVE Y). This rule is a necessary condition, but crucially 102

not a sufficient condition. The broad-range rule is another rendition of the possessor constraint. This rule is assumed to be language-universal. The narrow-range rules further specify which of the verbs already satisfying the broad-range rule can enter the dative alternation; it divides verbs into alternating and non-alternating classes on the basis of minimally different semantic structures. The narrow-range rules are assumed to be language-specific. Given the assumption of the FDH that the sole source of UG-derived knowledge is the L1 grammar and where the L1 and L2 narrow-range rules are different, the acquisition of the narrow-range rules is particularly relevant in L2 acquisition. In Sawyers study, in order to test L2 learners sensitivity to the possessor constraint (i.e., the broad-range rule), the nature of the recipient was manipulated: it was either animate (the subject or Joe) or inanimate (a trophy). Given the assumption that the possessor constraint is universal, it was predicted that both native and non-native speakers should be sensitive to the possessor constraint, thus producing more DOs with animate goals than with inanimate goals (hypothesis 1). In order to test L2 learners sensitivity to the narrow-range rules, two subclasses of verbs were used: throw-type verbs (of instantaneous causation of ballistic motion) and push-type verbs (of continuous causation of accompanied motion). Here, L1 facts regarding the narrow-range rules become relevant. Following Yoshinaga (1991), Sawyer assumes that the narrow-range rules are irrelevant to Japanese, whose speakers participated in his study as L2 subjects: Japanese semantically doesnt distinguish whether a motion is ballistic or continuous-i.e., there is no difference in 103

the DOs of such verbs. The FDH predicts that native English speakers, but not L1Japanese L2-English learners, should differentiate these two types of verbs (hypothesis 2). In other words, Japanese speakers are predicted to be insensitive to the narrow-range rules of English. For two experiments testing hypotheses 1 and 2, the nature of the verb was manipulated: derived (from existing English nouns), novel, and real verbs.32 25 native English speakers (mean age: 19) and 33 Japanese-speaking learners of English (mean age: 29) participated in the study. An elicited production task was used. The experimenter performed an action to provide a context. Following the act out, subjects were asked to describe the action, by using either a DO or a PP form. The results of the two experiments are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. Hypothesis 1 was supported; both native and non-native speakers produced DO forms more frequently with animate goals than with inanimate goals. Hypothesis 2 was disconfirmed; both native and non-native speakers showed sensitivity to the narrow-range rule, producing DO forms more frequently with verbs of ballistic motion than with verbs of continuous motion. Sawyer attributes this result to the learners emerging sensitivity to the notion of object affectedness. He hypothesizes that recipients of ballistically propelled things are more likely to be affected than recipients of continuously moved things; in the case of verbs of ballistic motion, the path of the motion is determined at the point of the initiation of the motion and

32

The motivation for manipulating the nature of the verb is to factor out the role played by learners previous experience. Sawyer reasoned that learners behavior with real verbs might be simple reflection of learners patterns of experience with particular verbs.

104

therefore, it is relatively clear whether the referent of the theme will reach the referent of the goal. In contrast, in the case of verbs of continuous motion, the motion can stop at any point along the path.

Table 6. Production of DO forms (%), by type of recipient and verb origin Verb origin Derived Novel Real Recipient type NS NNS NS NNS NS NNS Self (me) 48 24 29 19 36 27 Animate (Joe) 38 02 18 16 32 16 Inanimate (trophy) 18 11 08 12 11 05 Table 7. Production of DO forms (%), by verb class and verb origin Verb origin Derived Novel Real Verb class NS NNS NS NNS NS NNS Ballistic motion 57 25 19 19 35 21 Continuous motion 13 11 17 13 18 12 4.4 Comments on Sawyer (1996) Both experiments of Sawyers study are of interest in the context of this dissertation. Experiment 2 of the present dissertation (see Chapter 5) investigates L2 learners sensitivity to the possessor constraint, while the distinction between verbs of ballistic motion and verbs of continuous motion is one of the issues that experiment 1 of the present dissertation examines (see Chapter 4). As discussed in section 2.2 of this chapter, there is a problem with using an elicited production task. Given the fact that it is not easy to elicit DO forms in general, it is rather surprising that this study was able to elicit enough DOs to be conclusive. As for testing the possessor constraint, testing learners sensitivity to animacy might not be enough: after all, the results might simply reflect the learners 105

sensitivity to animacy, without revealing any deep underlying principles (see the discussion in Chapter 2). Therefore, in order to truly test learners knowledge of the possessor constraint, a task which can tease apart animacy and possession is needed. Furthermore, ben DOs should be tested as well as goal DOs, since the possessor constraint holds equally for both types of DOs. If a learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint with only one type of DO, but not with the other type of DO, this will be a good indication that there is some confounding factor at work (e.g., L1 transfer). Therefore, testing both types of DOs can be informative. Next, the production of DO forms with verbs of continuous motion deserves further investigation. If verbs of continuous motion are illicit, as was assumed by Pinker (1989), then for at least real verbs tested by Sawyer, the production of DOs should be non-existent or very low. Contrary to this prediction, the native speakers produced DOs with these verbs 18% of the time. The results with novel verbs are more revealing: verbs of ballistic motion and verbs of continuous motion occurred in the DO form at similar rates. The special status of verbs of continuous motion will be considered in Chapter 4. Lastly, on the methodological side, the L2 subjects in this study were not broken down into proficiency levels despite a big variation in English proficiency level (TOEFL score range: 380-550). In order to gauge developmental patterns or L1 transfer effects, subjects should be subdivided according to their proficiency levels. The factors discussed above were considered in designing the experiments reported in this dissertation. 106

Conclusion In this chapter, child L1-, child L2-, and adult L2-studies on the English DO

construction have been reviewed, and methodological and theoretical shortcomings of these studies have been critiqued. Possible solutions and improvements have been proposed. These possible solutions and improvements were taken into consideration in designing the two experiments reported in this dissertation. The findings of the studies outlined in this chapter are summarized as follows. The child L1 studies have shown that child learners are not strictly conservative; they indeed produce DO forms that they have never encountered and furthermore, they overgeneralize illicit DO forms, revealing their productivity to some extent. Child learners are aware of the possessor constraint on the DO early on, showing sensitivity to the animacy of the recipient. The adult L2 studies (in particular, Whites study) have suggested that there is the role of L1 transfer. This in turn suggests that the path of the acquisition of the English DO construction can be different depending on the L1. Sawyers study has suggested that adult L2 learners, like child L1 learners, are sensitive to the possessor constraint on the DO. However, given the robust effects of L1 transfer in L2 acquisition, and given the fact that the universal nature of the possessor constraint is still an assumption that should be empirically tested and proved, it is still a valid question whether the possessor constraint is indeed a universal constraint that should hold for all acquisition situations, including L2. It might be the case that it interacts with L1 transfer effects.

107

Lastly, the findings of the child L2 study, albeit not conclusive, have suggested that it has flavors of both child L1 and adult L2. In particular, Whong-Barr and Schwartzs study reported both overacceptance and L1 transfer effects (in particular, morphological transfer).

108

Chapter 4 Experiment 1: The structural transfer hypothesis

Introduction Similarities and differences in the structural properties of English and Korean

DO constructions provide a means of testing the structural transfer hypothesis, stated in (1). While goal DOs in English and Korean are structurally comparable (both are low applicatives), the Korean ben DO is not structurally comparable to the English ben DO (the former is a high applicative whereas the latter is a low applicative), as discussed in Chapter 2.

1.

The structural transfer hypothesis The structural properties of L1 constructions transfer and influence the acquisition of the corresponding constructions in the L2. (i) Where there is a structural comparability between the corresponding L1 and L2 structures, the acquisition of the L2 structure will be facilitated. (ii) Where there is a structural incomparability between the corresponding L1 and L2 structures, the acquisition of the L2 structure will be delayed.

Bringing the similarities and differences in the structural properties of English and Korean DOs and the structural transfer hypothesis in (1) together, I 109

make the predictions stated in (2) regarding the acquisition of English DOs by Korean-speaking learners of English. A detailed discussion of the predictions will be given in section 3, where more refined predictions and the motivation for them are presented.

2. (i)

Predictions for the acquisition of English DOs by Korean speakers The structural comparability between goal DOs in English and Korean will lead Korean-speaking learners of English to accept goal DOs (ii) The structural incomparability between ben DOs in English and Korean will lead Korean-speaking learners of English to reject ben DOs. (iii) Bringing (i) and (ii) together: the acquisition of the English ben DO construction by Korean speakers will lag behind the acquisition of the English goal DO construction.

The objective of this chapter is to examine the structural transfer hypothesis in (1) and to test the predictions in (2). To this end, experiment 1 was administered. As discussed below, the results of experiment 1 show that Korean-speaking learners of English treat goal DO and ben DOs in English as fundamentally different, signaling that they are sensitive to the underlying syntactic differences between the two types of DO constructions, as predicted by the structural transfer hypothesis. This asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs was clearly attested at the group level as well as the individual level (by verb and by subject). I argue that the 110

asymmetric treatment attested in Korean-speaking learners of English is due to transfer of the structural properties of their L1 in the acquisition of English DO constructions. I consider and argue against an alternative account based on (universal) developmental effects. Data from English-speaking children are crucial in ruling out this alternative account of the L2 data. This chapter is organized as follows. In section 2, I describe the design of experiment 1. In section 3, I put forth a structural transfer hypothesis for the acquisition of English DO constructions by Korean speakers and lay out its predictions. In section 4, I present the results of the experiment, in the form of both group and individual analyses (by verb and by subject). Then, the results are evaluated in light of the structural transfer approach. In section 5, I consider some alternative explanations of the results and show why these alternatives are not sufficient to account for the findings of the experiment. Section 6 concludes the chapter with a discussion of the implications of the experiment.

Methods The objective of experiment 1 is to test the predictions stated in (2). In this

section, I describe the design of the experiment.

111

2.1 2.1.1

Participants L2 acquisition The experimental group consisted of thirty-one native speakers of Korean.

Their age at time of testing ranged from 18 to 32. They had been residents in the U.S for between 3 months and 8 years, and had all received English instruction prior to arriving in the U.S. All spoke English as an L2 and used it on a daily basis. The relevant details are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8: Characteristics of L1-Korean participants L1-Korean participants Number 31 (14 male, 17 female) Age range 18 to 32 (mean age: 23.03) Age at arrival in the U.S. 13;6 to 29;5 (mean 18;7) (start of intensive exposure to English) Time in the US 0;3 to 8;00 (mean 4;5) The subjects in the experimental group were recruited at the University of Southern California (USC). Some were students in an intensive English program, who came to USC for a short period of time exclusively to study English. The vast majority, however, were undergraduate and graduate students from various departments. Additionally, sixteen adult native speakers of English participated in the study as the control group (mean age: 22.75; range: 19 to 34), all of whom were undergraduate and graduate students at USC. For all of them, English was their home language as well as the language of their primary education. None of them were proficient in a language other than English. 112

2.1.2

L1 acquisition Twenty-five English-speaking children also participated in the experiment

(age range: 7;0 -9; 4, mean age: 8. 03).33All of them were native English speakers and had English as a home language (some were exposed to another language but were not proficient in that language). The children were recruited from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grades of an elementary school in Los Angeles. The reasons for selecting children from this age group (age range 7-9) are twofold. First, research on the use of grammaticality judgment tasks (the main task in experiment 1) with children has found that, to able to give reliable linguistic judgments regarding the form of sentences, children should be at least 6 years old, which is the lower age bound in experiment 1 (Tunmer et al. 1984, Hakes 1980, Scholl & Ryan 1980, van Kleeck 1982). Second, as will be discussed in detail in the next section, the motivation for having a child group is to tease apart transfer and (universal) developmental effects. Thus, we have to make sure that the children are young enough to be in the process of acquiring English DO constructions. The upper age bound of the child subjects in this study was chosen based on the findings of Mazurkewich and White (1984). They tested 22 L1-English speaking children whose ages ranged from 9 to 15. Their results showed that even the children in the oldest group overgeneralized illicit DOs, indicting that even 15 years-old English-speaking children are still in the process of mastering the English DO construction. Of course, the 9-year-olds overgeneralized
33

In addition to these subjects, three English-speaking children were tested but excluded from the analysis because they showed a yes bias (i.e., had less than 60% accuracy on the 32 filler sentences). See section 4.1 for the rationale of adopting 60% criterion.

113

much more, which allows us to be very certain that children at this age are still acquiring this structure.

2.2

Cloze test A cloze test was administered to the L2 participants only, in order to assess

their overall level of English proficiency (the test is from Oshita 1997; 2001). The test contained three paragraphs in which every fifth word was removed, resulting in 75 blanks. The participants were instructed to fill in each blank with what they thought was the most appropriate word for the context (see Appendix A for the cloze test). Given the importance of obtaining an accurate measurement of the subjects proficiency levels, a Discriminant analysis was employed, which provides the best discrimination among the groups.34 The L2 learners were broken down into beginners, low intermediates and high intermediates on the basis of the results of the Discriminant analysis. The L2 learners results, as well as those of controls, are included in Table 9.35

34

In order to offset the subjective nature of subjects proficiency levels, we need an objective instrument in assessing subjects proficiency levels. To this end, the Discriminant analysis was employed, which is used in order to build up a predictive model of group membership given the observed characteristics of cases involved. 35 The adult control group (i.e., native English speakers) did not complete the cloze test due to the following two reasons. First, the cloze test was not given to the native speakers in order to decrease the total time of the test. Secondly, the (possible) score range of the given cloze test of the native speakers of English is already available from my previous study, the results of which are reported in Table 9 (cf. Oh & Zubizarreta 2003, 2005, in pressa, in pressb).

114

Table 9. Classification of L1-Korean learners of English, based on the cloze test Group Mean score Standard Min-Max of cloze test Deviation Beginners (n = 11) 24.27 8.39 11-34 Low intermediates (n = 9) 43.78 3.42 39-48 High intermediates (n = 11) 57.64 6.76 49-68 Control (n = 11) 64.91 3.65 60-70 Notes: ANOVA: F (3, 38) = 96.047, p < .001

2.3 2.3.1

Written Grammaticality Judgment Task (GJT) Overall format The same written GJT was administered to both the L1 and L2 subjects, with

slight procedural modifications for the child subjects (see section 2.3.3.1 for discussion).36 This makes it possible to directly compare the L1 group with the L2 group. The GJT was designed to test the six categories of sentences, the details of which are presented in section 2.3.2. Each category was tested with six different verbs. There was a total of 72 target sentences (36 DO sentences with 36 PP counterparts). Furthermore, 32 filler sentences were used as distractors, which served two purposes: (i) they were needed to break up the pattern of sentences tested and (ii) they were used to determine whether the subjects were outliers (in order to be included in the data analysis, the participants needed to meet a 60% accuracy criterion on the 32 filler sentences). As the filler sentences were used in determining whether subjects in the child group as well as in the adult groups were outliers, it was

36

For the child subjects, the written test items were also read out loud by the experimenter.

115

necessary to ensure that the filler sentences included points of grammar that are typically acquired early, and thus, known to the child subjects. The filler sentences included items testing word order, subject-verb agreement, progressive and function words such as prepositions, all of which have been widely argued to be acquired early (cf. MacDaniel & Cairns 1990). In the judgment task, subjects were asked to evaluate the grammaticality of the sentences using the four-point face scale presented in (3) (rather than a numerical scale). The face scale was adopted in order to make the task more accessible and enjoyable for the child subjects.37

3. A four-point face scale 38, 39

(very sad)

(slightly sad) (slightly happy)

(very happy)

This face scale is meant to capture the following four-way distinction in grammaticality.

37

The four-point face scale, presented in (3), was used in a pilot study that I administered to three groups of children (age range 8 to 11) from different L1 backgrounds: L1-English (control), L1Korean, and L1-Japanese. With the training session illustrated in steps 1 and 2, the L2 child learners in this pilot study were very proficient at using the face scale. It is reasonable to think that the face scale which was successfully used with the L2 children is equally applicable to the L1 children. 38 For expository purposes, the descriptions of the four faces are provided. These descriptions were provided only to the child subjects in the actual task. 39 After the first round of testing child subjects was complete, it became clear that the second face on the scale (the slightly sad face) was somewhat problematic. A couple of the child subjects said that it was a neutral face (neither happy nor sad). In order to obviate this problem, the experimenter drew the line between the second and third face and said that the first two faces are considered sad faces and the remaining two faces are considered happy faces. With this modification, the problem was avoided. For the L2 learners and adult controls, this problem did not arise.

116

4.

a. b. c. d.

Very sad face - completely unacceptable Slightly sad face somewhat unacceptable Slightly happy face somewhat acceptable Very happy face completely acceptable

To the child subjects, a not sure option was presented orally but not in written form, so that the subjects would not take advantage of this option too often. To the L2 learners and adult controls, a not sure option was presented in the directions for the task but not included in the scale itself. Subjects were instructed to write down not sure next to the test sentence if they chose this option. The four-point face scale was converted into a numerical scale (1 through 4) for analysis. The subjects were also instructed to correct sentences to which they assigned either a very sad or a slightly sad face (i.e., a score of 1 or 2). We refer to this as the correction task.40 This was intended to monitor the reasons behind the subjects responses. Each of the 36 test verbs was presented two timesonce in a DO and once in a PP. In order to prevent these two occurrences from appearing too close together, two test sets (Test A and Test B) were prepared. In Test A, 18 of the 36 test verbs were presented in DOs and the other 18 were presented in PPs. In Test B, the 18 verbs presented in DOs in Test A were presented in PPs, and the 18 verbs presented in PPs in Test A were presented in DOs. The 36 test items in each test set were

40

When children made their corrections orally, the experimenter wrote down what the child said.

117

presented in random order along with 16 filler sentences (a different set of filler sentences was used in each of the two test sets). All subjects did both test sets (a within-subjects design). The order in which the two sets were done was balanced across subjects, such that roughly half of the subjects began with Test A and half began with Test B.

2.3.2

Categories of test items Six categories of sentences were tested in the grammaticality judgment task.

Each category was tested with six different verbs and in both DO and PP structures. There were a total of 72 target sentences (36 DO sentences with 36 PP counterparts). Table 10 shows the list of test verbs used in each category and one pair of test sentences (i.e., the DO and PP forms with the given test verb) in order to exemplify each category (see Appendix B for the full list of test sentences). Stars are used to indicate ungrammaticality of a sentence.

118

Table 10. The six categories tested Category Test verbs and sentences 1. Licit goal verbs kick, throw, tell, show, bring, hand Billy Bob kicked a ball to Mary Jane. Billy Bob kicked Mary Jane a ball. 2. Exceptional goal verbs push, pull, drag, whisper, shout, yell Mary Jane pushed a box of toys to Billy Bob. (*)Mary Jane pushed Billy Bob a box of toys. 3. Licit ben verbs build, draw, get, fix (a sandwich), find, buy Billy Bob built a house for Mary Jane. Billy Bob built Mary Jane a house. 4. Illicit ben verbs solve, keep, fix (a toy), open, finish, wash Mary Jane solved a puzzle for Billy Bob. *Mary Jane solved Billy Bob a puzzle. 5. Illicit Latinate goal verbs suggest, return, explain, repeat, describe, recite Mary Jane suggested a movie to Billy Bob. *Mary suggested Billy Bob a movie. 6. Illicit Latinate ben verbs construct, collect, obtain, create, select, design Billy Bob constructed a dollhouse for Mary Jane. *Billy Bob constructed Mary Jane a dollhouse. The distinction between licit and illicit verbs warrants explanations. This distinction is based on the (un)grammaticality of the DO form with this verb. A dative verb whose DO form is ungrammatical is called an illicit dative verb and a dative verb whose DO form is grammatical is called a licit dative verb. The verbs in categories (1) through (4) are of Germanic origin while the verbs in categories in (5) and (6) are of Latinate origin. DO constructions containing verbs of the latter two categories violate the morphological constraint (see section 2.3.2 of Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of the morphological constraint). DO forms with verbs from category (4), but crucially not with those from category (2), 119

violate the possessor constraint (evidence in favor of this claim will be given in the following subsection). The term, exceptional goal verbs, will be commented in the next section. The relevant discussion is summarized in Table 11.

Table 11. The semantic (possessor) constraint and the morphological constraint across categories Categories Semantic Morphological constraint constraint 1. Licit goal verbs 2. Exceptional goal verbs ?/ 3. Licit ben verbs 4. Illicit ben verbs X 5. Illicit Latinate goal verbs X 6. Illicit Latinate ben verbs X 2.3.3. Exceptional goal verbs This term exceptional goal verb is also worth commenting on. It must be noted that we call push-type (and whisper-type) verbs exceptional goal verbs, instead of illicit goal verbs (as is more common in the literature). We suspect that the distinction between throw-type verbs and push-type verbs might not be grammatical in nature but rather, based on frequency in the input. For this reason, the term exceptional goal verb was used (in contrast with licit goal verbs such as hand and send, which are licit under all circumstances). This, in turn, implies that as far as the possessor constraint (discussed in detail in Chapter 2) is concerned, throw-type and push-type verbs are not different: both respect the constraint. Three independent sources have advanced the claim that exceptional goal verbs respect the possessor constraint. Gropen et al. (1989) have argued that verbs in 120

this class are compatible with the notion of a change in possession, and further reported that these verbs appear in the DO form (albeit sporadically). Pinker (1989) classified exceptional goal verbs as cases of negative exceptions, given the fact that these cannot be ruled out by the possessor constraint (a broad-range lexical rule in his terminology). Given this observation, Pinker has argued that the broad-range rule is only a necessary condition for a verb to appear in a DO form but, crucially, not a sufficient one and further argued that there is a narrow-range lexical rule which is a sufficient condition for a verb to appear in a DO form. In other words, for a verb to appear in a DO form, it should meet both the broad-range and narrow-range rules; the reason that exceptional goal verbs cannot appear in DO forms is their violation of the narrow-range rule, not of the broad-range rule. Pinker (1989) has argued that the cases of negative exceptions exist because of the mismatch between (flexible) cognition and (rigid) syntax. The broad-range rule is a cognitively grounded rule while the narrow-range rule is a linguistically grounded one. The narrow-range rule is not stated broadly enough to apply to, for example, push-type and whisper-type verbs. Pinker contrasted push-type verbs with throwtype verbs. Verbs of instantaneous imparting of force in some manner, causing ballistic motion, (throw-type verbs) can appear in a DO form, while verbs of continuous imparting of force in some manner, causing accompanied motion, (pushtype verbs) cannot. Similarly, Pinker has contrasted tell-type verbs with whisper-type verbs. Illocutionary verbs of communication (tell-type) can appear in the DO form

121

whereas manner of speaking verbs (whisper-type) cannot. That is, he has argued that manners are relevant to the narrow-range rule. One question immediately arises. In order to avoid using push- and whispertype verbs in DOs, English-speaking children and L2-English learners must master this subtle but crucial difference in meaning. What ensures the mastery of this meaning difference by both children and L2-English learners? By assumption, adult native English speakers who have mastered the narrow-range rule should not permit these exceptional goal verbs in DOs. Nevertheless, it has been reported that adult native English speakers indeed produce DO forms with exceptional goal verbs.41 Bresnan et al. 2004 have advanced the claim, based on usage data from a World Wide Web search, that English dative verbs have more syntactic flexibility than previously thought. Verbs of continuous imparting of force (exceptional goal verbs in my terminology) are a case in point. Bresnan et al. have argued that, although verbs of this class have a strong lexical bias toward the PP form, these verbs nevertheless appear in DOs in spontaneous conversation. The following examples were given to illustrate this point.

5.

a.

Karen spoke with Gretchen about the procedure for registering a complaint, and hand-carried her a form, but Gretchen never completed it.

b.
41

As player A pushed him the chips, all hell broke loose at the table.

For example, Georgia Green (1974) found shout him the answer and carry him the box to be grammatical in her dialect.

122

c.

Nothing like heart burn food. I have the tums. Nick joked. He pulled himself a steaming piece of the pie. Thanks for being here.

d.

Well it started like this Shinbo explained while Sumomo dragged him a can of beer and opened it for him, We were having dinner together and (Bresnan et al. 2004)

Bresnan et al. have argued that the examples in (5) are not sporadic errors and that the principle governing information structure (e.g., given referents preceding non-given referents in linear order, pronouns preceding non-pronouns, definites preceding indefinites, etc.) can override the rules governing the English dative alternation. Exceptional goal verbs have the implication for acquisition in general; more usage with exceptional goal verbs than illicit benefactive verbs.

2.3.4. Procedure with children Prior to administration of the GJT, child subjects were trained to use the fourpoint face scale with extra-linguistic objects and then with sentences. Adult subjects were trained to use the scale only with sentences. The procedure used in these training sessions is described below. I will first describe the steps taken with children, and then the steps taken with adults.

123

Step 1: The experimenter presented the four faces to the subjects and requested that the subjects describe situations in which they would use each of the facial expressions. In anticipation of the use of the four faces as a grammaticality judgment scale, training was provided to help the subjects interpret the four faces as a scale. In order to guide the subjects to form the concept of a scale, the experimenter presented four food items, given in (6), and asked them to draw the appropriate face beside each (pictures of pizza and melted ice-cream (viz. (6a) and (6d)) were presented and (6b) and (6c) were presented orally). In this exercise, the experimenter ensured that the subjects used all four faces. If not, coaching and explanation were given by the experimenter in order to encourage the subjects to utilize all four faces. The expected (appropriate) face for each food item is as follows (a- a very happy face; b-a very sad face; c-a slightly happy face; d-a slightly sad face).42

6.

a. b. c. d.

Pepperoni pizza Mud-flavored ice-cream Cold pepperoni pizza Melted chocolate ice cream

Step 2: Having established the four faces as a scale, the experimenter then explained to the subjects what each face represented in terms of grammaticality, using the
42

When subjects said that they did not like pepperoni pizza, which was an item that was used to elicit a very happy face, the experimenter asked the subjects what kind of pizza they liked or simply asked them what their favorite food was. The experimenter replaced item (a) with the food item provided by the subject, and item (c) with a slightly degraded version of the same item, e.g., cheese pizza and cold cheese pizza.

124

written directions in (7). I will refer to the scale in (7) as the face scale. The written directions were also read out loud by the experimenter for the child subjects.

7.

Written directions explaining what each face represents in terms of grammaticality

a.

If you think that the sentence sounds very good, mark

b.

If you think that the sentence sounds a little good, mark

c.

If you think that the sentence sounds a little funny, mark

d.

If you think that the sentence sounds very funny, mark

In order to help the subjects to better understand the dichotomy between grammaticality and ungrammaticality ((a) and (b) being grammatical and (c) and (d) being ungrammatical), the experimenter drew a horizontal line between (b) and (c). To make sure that the subjects understood the face scale, they were given 12 practice sentences. All of practice sentences included structures which are typically acquired early (cf. McDaniel and Cairns 1996, Whong-Barr and Schwartz 2002): basic word order and subject-verb agreement. Moreover, one of the practice sentences was designed specifically to train subjects to distinguish form from content and, given the

125

distinction, to judge form rather than content. To this end, a grammatical sentence that conveys an undesirable meaning was included, as in (8).43

8.

Bert is hitting Ernie.

If a child subject rated (8) with either a slightly sad face or a very sad face, this strongly suggests that the child judged the sentence based on content rather than form. In such cases, the experimenter trained the child so that they would be able to distinguish form and content and to provide judgments based on the form of the sentence. With explanation and training, the confusion between form and content was eliminated. During this training session, the experimenter gave as much prompting and feedback as seemed appropriate. Furthermore, coaching and explanation were also given when necessary. The contrast between the slightly sad face and the very sad face was made with the following items. If subjects rated (9a) with a slightly sad face, the experimenter brought their attention to (9b) which sounds better than (9a), but still has an error. The same strategy was used for the contrast between (9c) and (9d). If subjects rated (9c) with an error in word order with a slightly sad face, (9c) was contrasted with (9d) with an error in subject verb agreement, and subjects were asked to evaluate the relative magnitude of the two errors. This strategy worked well and most subjects who had this problem fixed their ratings accordingly.
43

Ideally, this sentence should be balanced with an ungrammatical sentence that conveys desirable meaning, but this was not done in this study.

126

9.

a. b. c. d.

Ice cream me ate. Me ate ice cream. Cookie Monster Ernie kissed. Cookie Monster kiss Ernie.

The subjects were instructed to correct sentences that they judged as ungrammatical (a very sad face or a slightly sad face). This training session ended with a reminder that both the slightly sad face and the very sad face should be used only for sentences with a grammatical mistake. By the end of the practice session, the child subjects appeared comfortable using the face scale. Step 3: Following the practice session, the experimenter introduced the actual written grammaticality judgment task. This task started with a little story. The experimenter orally presented this story, which set the stage for the main test sentences, introducing the characters in the test sentences (Mary Jane, Billy Bob, Fido (Billy Bobs dog), and Tiger (who was not born in America and, thus, sometimes spoke funny English)), and the contexts in which the test sentences were situated. This little story ended with the paragraph in (10).

10.

Tiger has homework to do. He has to describe in English sentences what Billy Bob and Mary Jane do in the story or what they like to do in the story. Since Tigers English is not always very good, he sometimes makes mistakes.

127

You can help Tiger by telling Tiger whether his English sentences sound good or funny.

Once the story was presented, the experimenter introduced Tiger(a puppet), who would present the test sentences.44 The written directions, given in (7), were presented again. The main test then followed. The experimenter presented the test sentences orally, using the puppet. After each test sentence was presented, the child subjects were requested to describe the meaning of the test verb to the experimenter; the purpose of this was to ensure that subjects knew the meanings of the test verbs. If the subjects did not know the meaning of the test verb, the experimenter noted this and the corresponding test item was excluded from analysis. Nevertheless, subjects were still invited to rate the sentences. Subjects did not receive any indication as to whether their response was correct or not. No coaching or explanation was given during the test phase. When subjects seemed distracted, the session was temporally suspended, allowing subjects to take a break and do things which helped them to refocus their attention. The entire test (consisting of both Test A and Test B) was completed in two sessions. The first and second sessions were generally one week apart. The first session, administered following the steps presented above, lasted between 50 and 60 minutes. In order to refresh their memory about the face scale, the second session,
44

The reason for using a puppet in the experiment is as follows. Having a puppet present the test sentences makes children feel more comfortable giving their grammaticality judgments, as compared to having the experimenter present the test sentences directly. The presentation of the test sentences by a puppet addresses the concern that the children might not feel comfortable telling an adult experimenter that s/he (or a sentence that s/he presented) is wrong.

128

which skipped step 1 and started with step 2 (i.e., 12 practice items, which were the same ones as before), lasted about 40 minutes.

2.3.5. Procedure used with adults (Korean speakers and native English speakers) Step 1: The experimenter presented the four faces to the subjects and explained to them what each face represented in terms of grammaticality. Subjects were also asked to read the directions given in (7). To ensure that subjects understood the face scale, they were given the same twelve practice sentences as the child subjects. Moreover, as with child subjects, the experimenter highlighted the contrast illustrated in (9), training the subjects to use the two sad faces for the right contexts. Subjects were also instructed to correct the sentences that they judged as ungrammatical. During this session, coaching and explanation were given, when necessary. The adult subjects had no trouble using the face scale. Step 2: The main test started with the same little story that was presented to the child subjects. However, the adult subjects were requested to read the story (it was not presented orally by the experimenter). The main test then followed. Unlike in the experiment with child subjects, the GJT that the adults did was entirely written. Thus, there was no need to use the puppet in the adult part of the experiment. Furthermore, while the child subjects were told that their responses would help Tiger do his homework better, the adult subjects were simply asked to rate the sentences. Additionally, while the child subjects were presented (both orally and in writing)

129

with only one sentence at a time, the adult subjects were given pages with six sentences on each.

2.4

Vocabulary Translation Task The Vocabulary Translation Task (VTT) was only administered to the L2

learners. In the VTT, subjects were asked to translate the thirty six test verbs (listed in Table 10) into Korean. The purpose of this task was to ensure that subjects knew the meanings of the verbs used in the grammaticality judgment task. In computing results, I only counted responses to those verbs in the GJT that the learners correctly translated in the VTT (cf. Juffs 1996, Montrul, 2001).

2.5

Overall procedure In the case of the adult subjects (including the adult controls), testing took

place in a classroom environment with the subjects being tested singly or in small groups. In the case of the child subjects, each subject was tested individually in a quiet classroom (at the subjects school). Furthermore, child subjects took part in two sessions (at least three days apart). Given childrens relatively short attention spans, only one test (either Test A or Test B) was administered in each session (in the case of adult subjects, break was offered after first test (either Test A or Test B), but very few subjects took break). After the main task, the adult subjects were asked to fill out a short questionnaire requesting information such as age, gender, length of exposure to 130

English, and age of arrival in the U.S. In the case of child subjects, the same questionnaire was filled out by their parents. Along with the questionnaire, the L2 learners did two additional tasks: the cloze test and the vocabulary translation task, which are presented above. The whole experiment lasted between 55 and 80 minutes for the L2 learners. The total time of testing for the adult controls was about 50 minutes.

Specific hypotheses and predictions In this section, I provide specific hypotheses and their testable predictions. I

first spell out the structural transfer hypothesis and its related predictions, which I argue for. Then, an alternative hypothesis grounded in universal developmental effects is proposed along with its related predictions. The goal of experiment 1 is then to decide between two possible explanations. It will be examined in the domain of the acquisition of English DO constructions by L1-Korean learners of English.

3.1

Transfer The acquisition of English DO construction by L1-Korean learners of English

can be accounted for by the L1 transfer effects. To be more specific, the structural transfer of L1 properties. The structural transfer hypothesis is presented below.

131

11.

The structural transfer hypothesis L1 structural properties transfer in the L2-acquistion of related syntactic structures.

In spelling out the structural transfer hypothesis, the following set of hypotheses is put forth:

12.

a.

Where there is a structural comparability between corresponding L1 and L2 structures, the acquisition of the L2 structure will be facilitated.

b.

Where there is a structural incomparability between corresponding L1 and L2 structures, the acquisition of the L2 structure will be delayed.

In fact, the acquisition of English DO constructions by Korean speakers is particularly well-suited for testing the structural transfer hypothesis in that Korean and English goal DOs are structurally comparable, meeting the description in (12a), while Korean and English ben DOs are structurally incomparable, meeting the description in (12b). Applying the structural transfer hypothesis to the phenomenon under discussion, the following testable predictions are advanced.

132

13.

Acquisition of English goal DOs by L1-Korean speakers (i) The structural comparability between goal DOs in English and Korean will lead Korean-speaking learners of English to accept goal DOs. (ii) This tendency to accept goal DOs will hold for licit goal DOs, exceptional goal DOs, and Latinate goal DOs in English.

14.

Acquisition of English ben DOs by L1-Korean speakers (i) The structural incomparability between ben DOs in English and Korean will lead Korean-speaking learners of English to reject ben DOs. (ii) This tendency to reject ben DOs will hold for licit ben DOs, illicit ben DOs, and Latinate ben DOs in English.

Considering the two sets of hypotheses (13) and (14) together, prediction (15) follows.

15.

Korean-speaking learners of English are predicted to treat goal and ben DOs in English differently: they are expected to accept goal DOs and reject ben DOs.

133

A caveat is in order at this point. First, prediction (15) notwithstanding, what matters in the account of structural transfer approach is the relative acceptance/rejection rate (not the absolute acceptance/rejection rate). Although I predict acceptance of goal DOs and rejection of ben DOs, I do not, in fact, predict acceptance of all goal DOs (especially illicit ones) or rejection of all ben DOs (especially licit ones). Secondly, the predictions of the structural transfer hypothesis apply to both comparisons of licit goal and ben DO constructions and to comparisons of illicit goal and ben DO constructions. However, I do expect that within each type of DO construction (both goals and benefactives), licit DO constructions will be accepted more than illicit DO constructions as a function of input since positive input, does to some extent override L1 transfer. With all of these issues taken into consideration, the following, more refined predictions of the L1 structural transfer hypothesis are summarized in Table 12.45 Prediction with respect to the comparison between Latinate goal vs. Latinate ben DOs is made based on the assumption that the morphological constraint on the DO is not relevant (at least initially) to the acquisition of English DO constructions by L1Korean learners. In other words, the L2-learners are blind to the morphological constraint on the DO because the morphological constraint is language-specific. All that matters is the distinction between goal and benefactive. The prediction from this claim is that there will be no difference between the mean ratings of illicit Germanic ben DOs and those of illicit Latinate ben DOs: both DOs will be rejected equally.
45

As will be pointed out in section 0, the comparison between exceptional goal DOs and illicit ben DOs may not be valid in that the latter, but not the former, is ruled out by a grammatical consideration.

134

Table 12. Predictions of the structural transfer hypothesis Comparison Predicted acquisition pattern by Ll-Korean learners of English Licit goal vs.Licit ben DOs More acceptance of goal DOs than ben DOs: More target-like (thus, more accurate) performance with goal DOs Latinate goal vs. Latinate ben More acceptance of goal DOs than ben DOs: DOs (both are illicit DOs) More target-like performance with Latinate ben DOs Exceptional goal vs. Illicit ben More acceptance of goal DOs than ben DOs DOs The structural transfer hypothesis predicts that the acquisition of the English ben DO by Korean-speaking learners of English will be delayed. Nevertheless, it should be noted, crucially, that the structural transfer hypothesis does not predict that the acquisition of English ben DO by these Korean speakers will be impaired. Thus, as proficiency increases, it is predicted that L1-Korean learners of English will gradually recover from the negative transfer effect.

3.2

Developmental effects The acquisition of English DO construction by L1-Korean learners of English

can be accounted for by the developmental effects, which equally hold for both L1 and L2 acquisition. In teasing apart transfer and (universal) developmental effects, the data from English-speaking children are crucial (cf. Schwartz 1992, 2003, Unsworth 2004). L1 acquisition data provide information about the developmental paths with respect to the acquisition of a particular structure under discussion, and of DO 135

construction, the case at hand. A comparison between child L1 and adult L2 acquisition is informative with respect to the nature of adult L2 acquisition in the following way. If child L1 learners and adult L2 learners show the same patterns, that is, the same developmental sequences, these two groups of learners are likely to be going through the same underlying processes. In this case, the adult L2 data should be accounted for by invoking the same developmental effects, as in the L1 acquisition. L2 acquisition is different from L1 acquisition in one noticeable way. Namely, L2 learners bring complete knowledge of their L1 grammar to the L2 acquisition task. Therefore, if child L1 and adult L2 learners behave differently, L1 transfer (i.e., the structural transfer hypothesis) is probably involved. The logic behind the comparison between L1 and L2 acquisition is summarized in (16).

16.

a. b.

Child L1 = Adult L2: developmental effects Child L1 Adult L2: L1 transfer effects

Applying this logic to the study at hand, I put forth more refined predictions of the developmental effect-based explanation. To the extent that the L1 acquisition literature has evidenced overacceptance/overgeneration with DO structures (Gropen et al. 1989, Mazurkewich & White 1984, Bowerman 1988, MacWhinney & Snow 1985), if child L1 and adult L2 acquisition is constrained by the same factor, it is predicted that the overacceptance with DO should be attested in the L2 acquisition as 136

well. Crucially, given that overacceptance was equally attested with goal and ben DOs in the L1 acquisition and if the same developmental paths are at stake in both L1 and L2 acquisition, adult L2 learners should not differentiate between goal and ben DOs, equally overaccepting both types of DOs. In contrast, if adult L2 acquisition is constrained by L1 transfer, not by the developmental effects, adult L2 learners are predicted to treat goal and ben DOs differently, accepting goal DOs more strongly and frequently than ben DOs, as predicted by the structural transfer hypothesis. The different results from the two logical possibilities are presented in (17).

17.

The developmental effect- based hypothesis a. b. Child L1 = Adult L2: developmental effects Prediction: Both child L1 and adult L2 learners will not differentiate goal and ben DOs, equally overaccepting both types of DOs

In contrast, the structural transfer hypothesis predicts the following different acquisition patterns for L1 learners on the one hand and for L2 learners on the other.

18.

The structural transfer hypothesis a. b. Child L1 Adult L2: L1 transfer effects Prediction: adult L2 learners will differentiate goal and ben DOs, more strongly and frequently accepting goal DOs than ben DOs. 137

However, children will not differentiate goal and ben DOs, equally overaccepting both types of DOs.

The comparison between child L1 and adult L2 data in experiment 1 will tell us whether the acquisition of English DO structure by adult Korean speakers is influenced by L1 transfer effects or universal developmental effects.

Results In this section, both group and individual analyses (by verb and by subject)

are reported. The GJT results for the DO constructions as opposed to the PP are the main concern of this section.

4.1

Group analysis In order to evaluate the predictions of the structural transfer hypothesis, it is

necessary to examine the relative difficulty of one type of construction versus the other. To this end, I ran paired sample t tests to compare the mean responses to the two types of constructions for each proficiency level (i.e., licit goal vs. licit ben DOs; Latinate goal vs. Latinate ben DOs, etc). I also report the results of the adult control group for comparison. As was mentioned earlier, the results reported below are from those subjects who met the 60% accuracy criterion on the 32 filler sentences. The rationale behind 138

the 60% criterion is as follows.46 The criterion had to be stringent enough to exclude outliers, whose performance was at chance, but not so strict as to exclude subjects at lower proficiency levels whose performance was nonetheless better than chance. Thus, while the criterion had to be set sufficiently above chance (50%), if a higher percentage had been used, very few subjects at the beginner level would have met this criterion.

4.1.1

PP forms Mean acceptance rates of goal PPs were calculated by checking responses to

all PP forms of the three goal categories (licit, exceptional, and Latinate goal verbs). Note that regardless of the (un)grammaticality of the corresponding DO forms, the PP forms are always grammatical. The goal PP forms totaled 18, representing six tokens for each of the three goal categories. Similarly, the mean acceptance rates of ben PPs from the three ben categories were calculated. Like the goal PPs, the ben PP forms totaled 18, representing six tokens for each of three ben categories. The mean acceptance rates for both of the adult groups (i.e., the L1-Korean learners of English and the native English speakers) as well as the child group were above 3.5, definitively indicating that all groups considered goal and ben PP forms to be equally acceptable. The relatively small standard deviations show that the individual subjects judgments were quite consistent. All groups performed better with ben PPs than goal PPs, but this difference was only significant for the high
46

It should be noted that a criterion of this sort is inevitably arbitrary. Nevertheless, the 60% criterion was chosen after carefully considering subjects performance, particularly at the beginner level.

139

intermediates and the child group.47 The results for the PP forms are shown in Figure1.

Figure 1. Goal PP vs. Ben PP

4.5 Mean Acceptance Rates 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1
Begin Low inter High inter Adult-Contr Child

Goal PP Ben PP

Table 13 summarizes the results of paired sample t-tests, which compare the mean acceptance rates of the goal PPs to those of the ben PPs at each proficiency level. Statistically significant p-values are in bold.

47

The mean ratings given by these two groups were 3.73 and 3.90 for the high intermediates, and 3.86 and 3.93 for the child group for goal and ben PPs, respectively. These extremely small mean differences (0.17 and 0.06, respectively) appear to have reached significance due to their relatively small standard deviations. Their significance must be interpreted with caution, however, since their variability was limited by a ceiling effect, i.e., the fact that the vast majority of subjects responses were 4, which is the top bound of the rating scale.

140

Table 13. Paired sample t-tests: differences in mean acceptance rates for goal PPs vs. ben PPs Group Goal PPs vs. Ben PPs ( p < .05)a Beginners p = .133 Low intermediates p = .286 High intermediates p = .006 Adult control p = .694 Children p = .040
a

: significantly higher acceptance rate of ben PP than of goal PP.

4.1.2

Licit goal DOs vs. Licit ben DOs The comparison between subjects performance on the two types of licit DO

constructions (licit goal DOs vs. licit ben DOs) is presented in Figure 2. As the graph clearly shows, L1-Korean learners of English treated goal and ben DOs differently. More specifically, licit goal DOs were accepted more strongly than licit ben DOs, resulting in better performance with goal DOs than with ben DOs. This asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs is evident at all levels of proficiency.

Figure 2. Licit goal vs. Licit ben DOs

Mean Acceptance Rates 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1
Begin Low inter High inter Adult-Contr Child

Licit goal Licit ben

141

The results of paired sample t-tests are presented in Table 14. These show that there are statistically significant differences in the mean acceptance rates of licit goal DOs and licit ben DOs at all levels of proficiency. Nevertheless, there is a difference in the overall mean ratings given by Korean speakers at each proficiency level, such that speakers mean ratings increase as proficiency increases. More precisely, the mean ratings of both goal and ben DOs by high intermediates are above 3 (at least somewhat acceptable). This reveals that although they treated the two constructions as significantly different, they are aware that ben DOs are also acceptable. In the case of the low intermediates, the mean rating of the goal DOs is 3 while that of the ben DOs is just above 2.5. This indicates that the goal DOs are already considered acceptable whereas the ben DOs are just beginning to be accepted. The beginners tended to reject both constructions: the mean rating of the goal DOs is just above 2.5 while that of the ben DOs is below 2.5. Nevertheless, it is important to note that even the beginners, who tended to reject DOs in general, also treated the two constructions as significantly different, showing a higher rate of rejection with the ben DOs. The adult control group, on the other hand, did not show a statistically significant difference in responses to the two constructions. Crucially, the difference between the mean acceptance rates of the two constructions also did not reach significance for the child group. This suggests that like the adult controls, the child group did not differentiate between goal and ben DOs, correctly accepting both licit DO constructions. Furthermore, this acquisition pattern in the child group shows that 142

the trend of asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs by Korean-speaking learners of English cannot be attributed to developmental effects in that if the universal developmental effects were a source of their asymmetric treatment, contrary to fact, the same asymmetric pattern would be expected to hold for the child group unless they are past the acquisition stage.

Table 14. Paired sample t-tests: differences in mean acceptance rates for licit goal DOs vs. licit ben DOs Group Licit goal DOs vs. Licit ben DOs ( p < .05)a Beginners p = .047 Low intermediates p = .037 High intermediates p = .004 Adult control p = .306 Children p = .329
a

: significantly higher acceptance rate of licit goal DO than of licit ben DO.

4.1.3

Latinate goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs The comparison between subjects performance on Latinate goal DOs and

Latinate ben DOs is shown in Figure 3. It is worth noting that for the Korean speakers, the patterns in Figures 2 and 3 are very similar. This suggests that Koreanspeaking learners of English showed the same asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs regardless of their (il)licitness or the Germanic vs. Latinate distinction. More specifically, the Latinate goal DOs were rejected less (thus, accepted more) than the Latinate ben DOs at all levels of proficiency, which is exactly what the structural transfer hypothesis predicts.

143

It is also important to note that, as predicted, at all proficiency levels, the mean ratings of the Latinate goal and Latinate ben DOs are lower than those of the corresponding licit constructions. This difference clearly suggests that positive evidence is able to override L1 transfer to some extent.

Figure 3. Latinate goal vs. Latinate ben DOs

4.5

Mean Acceptance Rates

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1

Begin Low inter High inter Adult-Contr Child

Latinate goal Latinate ben

Table 15 summarizes the results of the paired sample t-tests, comparing the mean acceptance rates of the Latinate goal DOs and those of the Latinate ben DOs at each proficiency level. The mean difference between the Latinate goal DOs and Latinate ben DOs is statistically significant for the low and high intermediates and marginally significant for the beginners. Latinate goal DOs were rejected less (thus, accepted more) than Latinate ben DOs. Interestingly, the adult and child native

144

English speakers showed the opposite pattern.48 The difference between the mean ratings of the two constructions was significant for the adult native English speakers and was marginally significant for the child native English speakers. The acceptance of both Latinate DO constructions by the child subjects is evidence of overacceptance.

Table 15. Paired sample t-tests: differences in mean acceptance rates for Latinate goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs Group Latinate goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs ( p < .05) Beginners p = .095 Low intermediates p = .033 a High intermediates p = .039 a Adult control p = .003 b Children p = .093
: significantly higher acceptance rate of Latinate goal DOs than of Latinate ben DOs . significantly higher acceptance rate of Latinate ben DOs than of Latinate goal DOs

4.1.4

Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs For the sake of completeness, the comparison between subjects performance

on exceptional goal DOs and illicit ben DOs is shown in Figure 4. This comparison should be interpreted with caution because while illicit ben DOs are ruled out by the possessor constraint, exceptional goal DOs are not as discussed in section 2.3.2. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the structural transfer hypothesis makes a clear prediction about the relative rate of rejection (or acceptance) of the two constructions under discussion. Korean-speaking learners of English are not

48

It is not clear where this difference comes from. This issue deserves further investigation.

145

predicted to reject exceptional goal DOs more strongly than illicit ben DO constructions. As Figure 4 shows, the prediction was largely borne out.

Figure 4. Exceptional goal vs. Illicit ben DOs

Mean Acceptance Rates

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1

Begin Low inter High inter Adult-Contr Child

Except. goal Illicit ben

The results of the paired sample t-tests are presented in Table 16. These show that the difference in the mean ratings of exceptional goal DOs and illicit ben DOs reached significance for the low and high intermediates. The beginners did not show a statistically significant difference in responding to the two constructions, but rather tended to reject both constructions to the same degree. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the difference (albeit minimal) still goes in the predicted direction.49

49

Note that as clearly shown in Figure 4, the mean rating of illicit ben DOs by the beginners is higher than that by the low (and high) intermediates, while the mean rating of exceptional goal DOs by the beginners is lower than that by the low intermediates. As presented in Table 16, the mean difference between the two constructions reached significance in the case of the low intermediates but not in the case of the beginners. This suggests that the reason that the beginners did not show a statistically

146

Table 16. Paired sample t-tests: differences in mean acceptance rates for exceptional goal DOs vs. illicit ben DOs Group Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs ( p < .05)a Beginners p = .503 Low intermediates p = .018 High intermediates p = .002 Adult control p < .0001 Children p = .002
: significantly higher acceptance rate of Exceptional goal DOs than of illicit ben DOs

The mean difference between the exceptional goal DOs and illicit ben DOs was statistically significant for the adult control group as expected. This result arises from the high ratings of the exceptional goal DOs relative to the illicit ben DOs. A similar pattern emerged in the child group, and this difference reached significance. Nonetheless, it is clear that the children tended to accept both constructions to some extent: the mean ratings of the two constructions were above 2.5.

4.2

Discussion of group analysis The results of the experiment strongly support the structural transfer

hypothesis, which predicts more acceptance of goal DOs than of ben DOs. The predictions that follow from the structural transfer hypothesis are repeated in (19).

significant difference in the mean ratings of the two constructions is their relatively high rate of acceptance of illicit ben DOs. This result is somewhat unexpected given the expectation that L1 transfer effects will be particularly robust in lower levels of L2 proficiency. Nonetheless, a close examination of the individual analysis by verb reveals that, like the low and high intermediates, the beginners also rejected illicit ben DOs. However, the difference between the beginners and the low and high intermediates arose because, unlike the intermediates, the beginners accepted the ben DO form with keep at relatively high rates (*Mary Jane kept a cookie for Billy Bob). Interestingly, the child subjects also rated the DO forms with keep particularly high.

147

19.

Korean-speaking learners of English are predicted to accept goal DOs more strongly than the corresponding ben DOs. (i) (ii) Licit goal DOs will be accepted more strongly than licit ben DOs. Exceptional goal DOs will be accepted more strongly than illicit ben DOs. (iii) Latinate goal DOs will be accepted more strongly than Latinate ben DOs.

The patterns are clear and robust. Regardless of the (il)licitness or the Latinate vs. Germanic distinction, L1-Korean learners of English treated goal and ben DOs as fundamentally different, accepting goal DOs more strongly and frequently than the corresponding ben DOs at all levels of proficiency. This holds for licit and illicit DO constructions. Moreover, all of the differences were statistically significant for the low and high intermediates. Although the mean difference between goal DOs and ben DOs did not always reach statistical significance for the beginners, it always went in the predicted direction. It should be noted that within each construction (both goals and benefactives), licit DO constructions were accepted more than illicit DO constructions, although this was shown most clearly in the case of the low and high intermediates. I attribute this difference to the input. It is important to note that the beginners tended to reject all DO constructions, which is presumably due to either their initial conservatism or general uncertainty. Considering their general tendency to reject all DOs, it is striking that even these 148

beginners treated the two constructions differently, showing a higher degree of rejection with the ben DOs. Results from the adult control and child subject group contrast with those from the L2 learners in an interesting way. First, with respect to licit DO constructions, these two groups did not differentiate between goal and ben DOs, correctly accepting both constructions. The data from the child group are crucial in ruling out an alternative account of the L2 data, which is based on (universal) developmental effects. Second, with respect to Latinate DO constructions, the adult control and child group showed the opposite of the L2 learners pattern. That is, unlike their Korean counterparts, these adult and child native English speakers accepted Latinate ben DOs more strongly than Latinate goal DOs. This divergence between the English native speakers (both adult and child) on the one hand and the L1-Korean learners of English on the other strengthens the L1-transfer based explanation of the facts. It is interesting to note that the findings from the child group in this study are consistent with the findings of Mazurkewich and White (1984). In both studies, the child subjects were relatively more accurate in judging the ungrammaticality of DO sentences violating the semantic constraint (i.e., illicit ben DOs) than sentences violating the morphological constraint. Note that the mean ratings of the latter are relatively higher than those of the former, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. Mazurkewich and White attributed this finding to the early

149

occurrence of possessive constructions in child speech and the relative infrequency of Latinate verbs in child vocabulary.50 To summarize the group results, unlike the adult and child native English speakers, the Korean-speaking learners of English accepted goal DOs more strongly than ben DOs. This pattern held for all types of goal and ben DOs compared. The asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs by L1-Korean learners of English is precisely the pattern predicted by the structural transfer hypothesis.

4.3

Individual analysis The group results clearly show that, unlike native speakers of English (both

adult and child), Korean-speaking learners of English treated goal and ben DOs as fundamentally different, accepting goal DOs more strongly than ben DOs (whether licit or illicit). We need to be certain that this asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs holds at the individual subject (and verb) level as well. Individual results inform us as to whether or not there is individual variation within each proficiency level, and the extent of such variability. Furthermore, by checking individual results against the predictions of the structural transfer hypothesis, we can reevaluate the validity of this proposal. If individual Ll-Korean learners of English in fact follow the predicted pattern, this will provide additional evidence in favor of the account advanced, and
50

Mazurkewich and Whilte (1984) tested 22 L1-English speaking children. These subjects were divided into three groups according to ages: 9-, 12- and 15- years-old. The child subjects in their study were much older than the ones in experiment 1. Given their finding that even the children in the oldest group overgeneralized illicit DOs, it is not surprising that the children in experiment 1 overgeneralized illicit goal and ben DOs to some extent.

150

will inform us about the nature of interlanguage grammar. Our results generally indicate that the L1-Korean learners of English do treat goal DOs and ben DOs differently at the individual level as well as at the group level.

4.4

Individual analysis by verb We performed an individual analysis by verb to see whether the

generalization found at the group level also holds at the individual verb level. To this end, we calculated the percentage of subjects at a given proficiency level accepting the test item with a given verb, using score of 3 or 4. The target ratings were 3 or 4 for licit DOs and 1 or 2 for illicit DOs. Therefore, this individual verb analysis computed subjects accuracy with respect to licit DOs and subjects inaccuracy with respect to illicit DOs. For the sake of comparison, we take 70% to be a reference point for licit verbs and 40% for illicit verbs. In selecting these two reference points, the adult controls performance on a given category was taken into consideration for that category. With respect to licit verbs, except for find (50%) and kick (69%), the adult controls judged licit DOs acceptable at least 70% of the time. Thus, by adopting the 70% criterion, we can determine which of the licit test verbs the L2 learners accepted DO forms at native-like rates. Similarly, with respect to illicit verbs, except for design (40%), the adult controls judged illicit DOs acceptable at most 40% of the time. Hence, by adopting the 40% criterion, we can determine which of the illicit test verbs the L2 learners rejected DO forms at native-like rates. 151

All figures in this subsection display percentages of the number of subjects at a given proficiency level accepting the test item with a given verb, not raw numbers. The rationale behind using percentages, rather than raw numbers is that raw numbers can be misleading, since there are different numbers of subjects at different proficiency levels.

4.4.1

Licit goal verbs vs. licit ben verbs Figures 5 and 6 show the individual analyses of the six licit goal verbs and

six licit ben verbs, respectively. Figure 5. Percentages of acceptance of licit goal verbs

152

Figure 6. Percentages of acceptance of licit ben verbs

The contrast is clear and robust. The contrast between Figure 5 and Figure 6 unequivocally suggests that the L2-English learners at all proficiency levels performed better with goal DOs than with ben DOs: for licit goal DOs, even the beginner group met the 70% accuracy criterion for some verbs (specifically, tell, show, and bring). In striking contrast, for licit ben DOs, only the high intermediate group met the 70% accuracy criterion for three ben verbs (specifically, draw, buy, and fix (a sandwich)). Adult and child native English speakers, on the other hand, correctly and equally accepted both types of licit DO constructions. Nevertheless, it is not the case that the DO forms with all test verbs were accepted to the same degree. Note that the adult control group had a problem with find: half of the adult controls rated the DO form of find ungrammatical (Mary Jane found Billy Bob a cookie). I suspect that the 153

theme argument cookie is not felicitous in the context provided. Also note that among DO forms with licit goal verbs, the DO form involving kick was accepted at the lowest rates (Billy Bob kicked Mary Jane a ball). I attribute the low accuracy on kick to its low frequency in DO constructions, not to the felicitousness of the target sentence.51 Another interesting difference that can be seen by comparing Figures 5 and 6 is that the L1 and L2 groups exhibited similar effects with respect to licit goal DOs (thus, the shape of the curves is similar), but not in the case of licit ben DOs. More precisely, the licit goal DO forms which were misjudged at relatively high rates by the adult controls were also misjudged at relatively high rates by Korean-speaking learners of English. The DO forms with throw and kick are cases in point. The exact percentage of acceptance of each test verb is presented in Table 17.

51

This is corroborated by the fact that other studies reported low ratings/productivity of DO form with the verb kick as well (cf. Yoshinaga (1991), Wolfe-Quintero (1992)).

154

Table 17. Individual analysis by verbs: percentages of acceptance of licit goal and licit ben verbs Test verbs Adult Child High inter. Low inter. Begin. control n = 16 n = 22 n =11 n=9 n =11 17/22 11/16 5/11 2/9 0/11 kick (69%) (77%) (45%) (22%) (0%) 14/16 21/22 8/11 4/9 1/8 throw (88%) (95%) (73%) (44%) (13%) 15/15 22/22 11/11 7/9 8/11 tell (100%) (100%) (100%) (78%) (72%) 16/16 20/22 11/11 7/9 7/11 show (100%) (91%) (100%) (78%) (70%) 16/16 22/22 11/11 6/8 7/9 bring (100%) (100%) (100%) (75%) (78%) 16/16 22/22 10/11 7/8 3/7 hand (100%) (100%) (91%) (88%) (43%) build draw get fix a sandwich buy find 16/16 (100%) 13/15 (87%) 15/16 (94%) 15/16 (94%) 16/16 (100%) 8/16 (50%) 22/22 (100%) 22/22 (100%) 22/22 (100%) 21/22 (95%) 21/22 (95%) 19/22 (86%) 6/11 (55%) 9/11 (82%) 7/11 (64%) 8/10 (80%) 10/11 (91%) 7/11 (64%) 3/9 (33%) 4/8 (50%) 5/9 (56%) 4/9 (44%) 6/9 (67%) 2/9 (22%) 2/11 (18%) 2/11 (18%) 4/11 (36%) 1/7 (14%) 6/11 (55%) 4/11 (36%)

Percentages = % of the total number of subjects (correctly) accepting the test item with a given verb (score of 3 or 4); Columns with more than 70% acceptance are highlighted.

4.4.2

Latinate goal verbs vs. Latinate ben verbs The individual analyses of the six Latinate goal verbs and six Latinate ben

verbs are shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. The difference in subjects performance between Latinate goal DOs and Latinate ben DOs is not as great as the difference in subjects performance between 155

the two types of licit DO constructions. This is to be expected since, unlike licit DO constructions, the Latinate DOs in question are ungrammatical and, as such, do not occur in the input. Thus presence in the input, which is hypothesized to increase the acceptability of a given DO form, is not a factor in the acquisition of Latinate DO constructions. The absence of Latinate ben DOs from the input does not have much impact on the acceptability of these structures because L2-English learners tend to reject them anyway. However, the absence of Latinate goal DOs from the input has an obvious impact on the acceptability of these constructions, weakening subjects tendency to accept them. This explains why there is a smaller mean difference between Latinate goal and Latinate ben DOs as compared to the difference between licit goal and ben DOs. Nevertheless, the contrast shown in Figures 7 and 8 is clearly suggestive. Namely, the L2 learners (incorrectly) accepted Latinate goal DOs more strongly than Latinate ben DOs. Note that this pattern is evident even at the highest level of proficiency tested. Interestingly, the native English speakers, in particular, the adult control group, showed the opposite pattern: they preferred Latinate ben DOs to the Latinate goal DOs. Figures 7 and 8 show that as in the DO forms with licit verbs, there exists a certain amount of variation in the acceptance rates of DO forms with Latinate verbs. With respect to Latinate goal verbs, the DO forms with three verbs (suggest, explain, and recite) were misjudged at particularly high rates. Notably, the low and high intermediates patterned exactly the same in this regard. With respect to Latinate ben verbs, overgeneralization was attested only in the high intermediates. 156

The DO forms with construct and design were incorrectly accepted at high rates. The subjects at the lower proficiency levels clearly rejected ben DOs to a greater extent. Figure 7. Percentages of acceptance of Latinate goal verbs

Figure 8. Percentages of acceptance of Latinate ben verbs

157

The specific percentages of acceptance for each test verb are given in Table 18 below.

Table 18. Individual analysis by verbs: percentages of acceptance of Latinate goal and Latinate ben verbs Test Adult Child High inter. Low inter. Begin. verbs control n = 16 n = 22 n =11 n=9 n =11 10/15 9/11 7/9 6/11 1/16 suggest (6%) (67%) (82%) (78%) (55%) 2/15 17/22 3/11 2/8 2/11 return (13%) (77%) (19%) (25%) (18%) 0/16 19/22 6/11 5/9 3/11 explain (0%) (86%) (55%) (56%) (27%) 2/15 20/22 1/11 1/9 5/11 repeat (13%) (91%) (9%) (11%) (45%) 0/16 19/22 4/11 3/9 4/11 describe (0%) (86%) (36%) (33%) (36%) 3/16 11/13 9/11 4/9 4/11 recite (19%) (85%) (82%) (44%) (36%) construct collect obtain create select design 6/16 (38%) 2/16 (13%) 3/16 (19%) 2/16 (13%) 6/16 (38%) 8/16 (50%) 18/20 (90%) 18/22 (82%) 9/10 (90%) 20/21 (95%) 17/20 (85%) 19/22 (86%) 8/11 (73%) 1/11 (9%) 1/10 (10%) 3/10 (30%) 4/11 (36%) 7/11 (64%) 2/9 (22%) 2/9 (22%) 0/8 (0%) 2/9 (22%) 3/9 (33%) 0/8 (0%) 2/10 (20%) 2/11 (18%) 4/11 (36%) 2/11 (18%) 2/11 (18%) 2/11 (18%)

Percentages = % of the total number of subjects (incorrectly) accepting the test item with a given verb (score of 3 or 4); Columns with less than 40% acceptance are highlighted.

158

4.4.3

Exceptional goal verbs vs. Illicit ben verbs The individual analyses of exceptional goal verbs and illicit ben verbs of

Germanic origin are presented in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. The contrast between Figure 9 and Figure 10 clearly shows that the L1Korean learners of English treated exceptional goal DOs and illicit ben DOs differently. With respect to the exceptional goal verbs, the L2 learners accepted DO forms with these verbs to some extent (in particular, whisper, drag, and push). On the other hand, DO forms with illicit ben verbs were consistently and strongly rejected by subjects at all proficiency levels (except for keep in the case of the beginners). The adult controls accepted DO forms with exceptional goal verbs to some extent. Interestingly, the verbs accepted at high rates by L1-Korean learners of English were, in fact, the same ones accepted at high rates by the adult controls. The adult controls performance on illicit ben DOs stands in stark contrast with their performance on exceptional goal DOs. Illicit ben DOs were rarely accepted. To the extent that they accepted DO forms with illicit ben verbs at all, acceptance rates were very low (i.e., 6% for keep and solve and 13% for fix). The English-speaking children tended to accept both exceptional goal DOs and illicit ben DOs. In particular, DO forms with drag, push, and keep were accepted at very high rates. It is interesting to note that the DO form with open (*Billy Bob opened Mary Jane the door) was accepted at the lowest rate (32%), making it the only verb which reached the 40% criterion for the child subjects. 159

Figure 9. Percentages of acceptance of exceptional goal verbs

Figure 10. Percentages of acceptance of illicit ben verbs

160

The percentages of acceptance of exceptional goal verbs and illicit ben verbs of Germanic origin are presented in Table 19.

Table 19. Individual analysis by verb: percentages of acceptance of exceptional goal verbs and illicit ben verbs with Germanic origin Adult Child High inter. Low inter. Test control verbs n = 16 n = 22 n =11 n=9 12/22 0/16 2/11 1/9 yell (0%) (55%) (18%) (11%) 3/16 15/21 4/11 2/9 shout (19%) (71%) (36%) (22%) 6/16 17/22 8/11 5/9 whisper (38%) (77%) (73%) (56%) 6/15 21/22 5/11 6/9 drag (40%) (95%) (45%) (67%) 4/16 19/22 4/11 2/8 pull (25%) (86%) (36%) (25%) 8/16 14/20 8/11 3/9 push (50%) (70%) (73%) (33%) wash finish open fix a toy keep solve 0/16 (0%) 0/16 (0%) 0/16 (0%) 2/16 (13%) 1/16 (6%) 1/16 (6%) 10/22 (45%) 13/22 (59%) 7/22 (32%) 16/22 (73%) 18/21 (86%) 14/22 (64%) 1/11 (9%) 0/11 (0%) 3/11 (27%) 2/11 (18%) 1/11 (9%) 2/11 (18%) 1/9 (11%) 0/9 (0%) 1/9 (11%) 1/9 (11%) 0/9 (0%) 1/9 (11%)

Begin. n =11 2/10 (20%) 4/11 (36%) 7/10 (70%) 4/11 (36%) 2/10 (20%) 5/11 (45%) 1/11 (9%) 3/11 (27%) 3/11 (27%) 2/10 (20%) 7/11 (64%) 2/10 (20%)

Percentages = % of the total number of subjects (incorrectly) accepting the test item with a given verb (score of 3 or 4); Columns with less than 40% acceptance are highlighted.

161

4.5

Discussion of the individual analysis by verb The individual analyses by verb have clearly shown that the preference for

goal DOs over ben DOs hold at the individual verb level. Unlike the native English speakers (both adult and child), the Korean-speaking learners of English treated goal and ben DOs differently. They tended to accept both licit and illicit goal DOs whereas they tended to reject both licit and illicit ben DOs. This was precisely the pattern that was found at the group level. To summarize, the results from the individual verb analysis are consistent with the results from the group analysis. The individual verb analysis thus reinforces the findings of the group analysis in this regard, and also provides additional evidence in support of the structural transfer hypothesis.

4.6

Individual analysis by subject We now review the results of the individual analysis by subject to determine

whether the findings at the group level hold at the individual subject level as well. This individual subject analysis will also provide a further test of the structural transfer hypothesis. The results of the individual subject analysis are presented in the form of scatter-plots, in which each dot represents the mean acceptance rate of the relevant DO construction for a given subject. We take 2.5 as a reference line. The rationale behind adopting 2.5 as a reference line is as follows. 2 in the grammaticality scale denotes somewhat unacceptable and 3 in the scale denotes somewhat acceptable. Therefore, 2.5 can be considered as the point at which 162

subjects performance moves from rejection to acceptance. Thus, by adopting the 2.5 criterion, we can determine whether subjects performance, in particular, the performance of L1-Korean learners of English, was along the lines of rejection or acceptance.

4.6.1

Licit goal DOs vs. Licit ben DOs The scatter-plots of licit goal and licit ben DO constructions are presented in

Figure 11 and Figure 12, respectively. In each figure, control stands for the adult native English speakers.52 Figure 11. Scatter-plot of mean acceptance rates of licit goal DOs by subjects

52

The child data were excluded from the individual subject analysis. The group and individual verb analysis revealed that except for two licit DO constructions, the child subjects overaccepted the rest of DO constructions. As such, I reasoned that the child data wouldnt be very informative in the individual subject analysis.

163

Figure 12. Scatter-plot of mean acceptance rates of licit ben DOs by subjects

The picture which emerges upon comparing Figure 11 with Figure 12 is very revealing. Korean-speaking learners of English accepted goal DOs more frequently than ben DOs, which is most evident in the case of the low intermediate and beginner subjects. The subjects at these lower levels treated goal and ben DOs differently. More than half of them (i.e., 73% of beginners and 56% of low intermediates) had a mean acceptance rate below 2.5 for ben DOs. On the other hand, more than three quarters of the lower-level subjects (i.e., 73% of the beginners and 78% of the low intermediates) had a mean acceptance rate above 2.5 for goal DOs. This asymmetry had almost disappeared in the high intermediate group. Not surprisingly, the native English speakers did not make a grammaticality distinction between goal and ben DOs, treating both constructions as equally acceptable. 164

4.6.2

Latinate goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs The scatter-plots of Latinate goal and Latinate ben DO constructions are

presented in Figure 13 and Figure 14, respectively. As is clearly shown in the two figures, an asymmetry was also observed between Latinate goal DOs and Latinate ben DOs in the L2-English learners. More subjects gave ratings below the 2.5 reference point in the case of Latinate ben DOs (82% of the beginners and 78% of the low intermediates) than in the case of Latinate goal DOs (55% of the beginners and 56% of the low intermediates). This pattern was also observed in the high intermediate group. Indeed, in the case of Latinate ben DOs, 82% of the subjects in this group gave ratings below 2.5. In sharp contrast, in the case of Latinate goal DOs, only 36% of ratings were below 2.5. Interestingly, the opposite pattern held for the adult control group. More ratings of Latinate goal DOs were below 2.5 and, moreover, they were more tightly clustered as compared to Latinate ben DOs, revealing more internal consistency (less variation) in their ratings of Latinate goal DOs.

165

Figure 13. Scatter-plot of mean acceptance rates of Latinate goal DOs by subjects

Figure 14. Scatter-plot of mean acceptance rates of Latinate ben DOs by subjects

166

4.6.3

Exceptionalgoal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs Figures 15 and 16 present the scatter-plots of exceptional goal and illicit ben

DO constructions respectively. In Figure 16, we see a clear tendency to reject illicit ben DOs. The mean acceptance rates of illicit ben DOs for the vast majority of L1-Korean learners of English (except for two beginner and two low intermediate subjects) were below 2.5. On the other hand, the mean acceptance rates of exceptional goal DOs are higher than those of illicit ben DOs. That is, more L2 subjects gave ratings above 2.5 for exceptional goal DOs than for illicit ben DOs. Moreover, it should be noted that, even among the subjects whose mean ratings were below 2.5, the mean acceptance rates of exceptional goal DOs are generally higher than those of the corresponding illicit ben DOs. Note that a similar pattern is also attested in the adult control group. Nevertheless, the generalization made based on the L2 learners performance still holds in that the contrast is clear. While the difference in the L2 learners performance between exceptional goal DOs and illicit ben DOs was along the lines of acceptance versus rejection, the difference in the adult controls performance between the two categories was along the lines of weak versus strong rejections. In any case, the results from Figures 15 and 16 are consistent with the findings obtained by comparing between the two types of licit DO constructions and between the two types of Latinate DO constructions.

167

Figure 15. Scatter-plot of mean acceptance rates of exceptional goal DOs by subjects

Figure 16. Scatter-plot of mean acceptance rates of illicit ben DOs by subjects

168

4.7

Discussion of the individual analysis by subject To sum up, although there is a certain amount of individual variability, the

results of the individual analyses by subject are overwhelmingly consistent with the results of the group analysis. In particular, L1-Korean learners of English treated goal and ben DOs as fundamentally different, accepting goal DOs more strongly and frequently than ben DOs, whether licit or illicit, at both the individual subject level and at the group level.

4.8

Discussion of experiment 1 The results of the group analysis as well as those of the individual analyses

are interpreted in favor of the structural transfer hypothesis, and against the developmental effect-based explanation. As the structural transfer hypothesis predicted greater acceptance of goal DOs than of ben DOs, the Korean-speaking learners of English accepted goal DOs more strongly and frequently than ben DOs. This pattern held for both licit and illicit DO constructions, at both the group and individual levels. In sharp contrast, the adult and crucially, child native English speakers did not differentiate between goal and ben DOs. If any, L1 learners showed the opposite pattern of preferring ben DOs over goal DOs.

169

4.9

Results of the correction task To recapitulate, in the grammaticality judgment task, the learners were

instructed to correct the sentences that they judged as ungrammatical. Results of the correction task reveal that L1-Korean learners of English treat goal and ben DOs differently: the correction strategies for goal DOs and ben DOs are different. Results of the correction task show that the L2 learners had trouble with benefactive verbs in general and find, build, and fix (a sandwich) in particular. More precisely, beginners (and low-intermediates) had a problem integrating the benefactive DP into the DO structure. In many cases, these learners reanalyzed the benefactive DP as a modifier, using either an apostrophe or a preposition of. The prominent patterns of corrections with licit ben DOs are exemplified in (20). The correction patterns imply that the subjects at the lower levels of proficiency assigned a wrong semantics to the ben DOs.

20.

a. b.

Mary Jane fixed Billy Bob a sandwich. Billy Bobs sandwich Mary Jane found Billy Bob a cookie Billy Bobs cookie or a cookie of Billy Bob

c.

Billy Bob built Mary Jane a house Mary Janes house

This correction strategy was also utilized with benefactive PP forms. One low intermediate subject incorrectly judged the PP form with draw as ungrammatical and the subject corrected the PP form by changing for to of (e.g., Mary Jane drew a 170

picture for Billy Bob was turned into Mary Jane drew a picture of Billy Bob). Moreover, this strategy was more frequently used in correcting illicit ben DOs. In particular, this strategy was used with finish, fix (a toy), and wash. Some examples are given below.

21.

a. b. c.

*Billy Bob fixed Mary Jane a toy. Mary Janes toy *Billy Bob washed Mary Jane the dishes. Mary Janes dishes *Billy Bob finished Mary Jane the picture. the picture of Mary Jane

In striking contrast, this type of correction is rarely attested with goal verbs even at the lowest level of proficiency tested.53 When learners incorrectly rejected the grammatical goal DOs, they corrected the sentence by changing it into its PP counterpart. It suggests that at least, they do not have any difficulty in processing two objects as the arguments of the lexical verb. They prefer the PP form over its DO counterpart, the reason for which will be discussed in the next section. The prominent patterns of the corrections with goal DOs are presented in (22).

53

With respect to two goal verbs, kick and hand, subjects at the lower levels had a problem integrating a goal argument into DO structure. In the correction task, three beginners reanalyzed the goal DP with hand as a modifier, using either an apostrophe (e.g., Billy Bob handed Mary Jane a crayon was turned into Billy Bob handed Mary Janes crayon). Interestingly, two of them incorrectly judged the PP form with hand ungrammatical and in the correction task, they turned the preposition to into for, revealing that they mistakenly considered hand to be a benefactive verb. One low intermediate subject incorrectly judged the DO with kick as ungrammatical. The subject reanalyzed the goal DP as a modifier, using an apostrophe (e.g., Billy Bob kicked Mary Jane a ball was turned into Billy Bob kicked Mary Janes ball)

171

22.

a. b.

Billy Bob kicked Mary Jane a ball. a ball to Mary Jane Mary Jane threw Billy Bob a baseball. a baseball to Billy Bob.

The corrections that these learners provided are very interesting when they are interpreted in light of the predictions of the structural transfer hypothesis. Following the logic of the structural transfer hypothesis, in the ben DO constructions, the argument that presents a problem to the L2-English learners is the first DP (e.g., Mary made John a cake): while the benefactive DP argument in English is within the scope of the lexical verb, the benefactive DP in Korean is outside the scope of the lexical verb. Thus, if L1-Korean learners of English use the structure associated with Korean ben DOs in order to analyze English ben DOs, this attempt will fail in that the transferred structure cannot accommodate English ben DOs. As was seen above, this is indeed the case. The learners had more difficulty with ben DOs than with goal DOs and in particular, the learners had trouble with the benefactive DP in ben DOs. This result is in line with individual and group results and this suggests that the structural transfer hypothesis is on the right track.

4.10 Discussion of the preference of PP forms over DO forms In this chapter, we have mainly focused on the acquisition of DOs. When we compare the L2 learners acceptance rates of DOs with those of their PP counterparts, we can see a clear preference of PPs to DOs. This holds for both goal and ben DOs. 172

The preference of goal PPs over goal DOs is more meaningful and worthwhile to examine than the preference of ben PPs over ben DOs in that the latter type of preference is predicted by the hypothesis (the rejection of ben DOs). It should be noted that all that the structural transfer hypothesis predicts is that the acquisition of goal DOs is facilitated. Crucially, it does not predict that the PP forms will be acquired earlier or faster than their DO counterparts. The comparisons between the mean acceptance rate of the DO and of the PP form for goal and ben verbs are given in Figure 17 and Figure 18, respectively. In both figures, the mean acceptance rates of licit DOs and their PP counterparts are presented.

Figure 17. Goal DOs vs. Goal PPs

4.5

Mean Acceptance Rates

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Goal DO Goal PP

Begin

Low inter

High inter

Control

173

Figure 18. Ben DOs vs. Ben PPs

4.5

Mean Acceptance Rates

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Ben DO Ben PP

Begin

Low inter

High inter

Control

The above results clearly show that the subjects performance on the PP forms is very accurate. This is true across the board, including for the beginners. It has been noted in preceding sections that the beginners tended to reject the DO forms in general. The beginners successful performance on the PP forms indicates that they did not simply reject all goal or benefactive constructions: they rejected the DO form but not the PP forms. In this respect, they are very selective and their performance is not random. Somehow, some property of the English DOs makes these beginner learners reject them. We will now speculate on properties of DOs and PPs that might provoke this rejection. First, as argued in the literature (Marantz 1993), a PP construction is simpler than a DO construction: the former is simple VP structure while the latter is a complex verbal structure. It is logical to assume that a simpler structure will be acquired earlier, before the complex one. Second, PP forms are more common than 174

DO forms in terms of sentence form frequency (Almor et al. 2002). Third, the preposition to and for give explicit information about the meaning of the PP construction: it is about transfer, since to denotes path and for denotes benefaction. Accordingly, the PP construction is semantically more transparent than its DO counterpart. Fourth, case assignment in the PP forms, unlike in its corresponding DO forms, is unambiguous (due to one Case assignee to one Case assigner mapping). Confronted with the English DO forms, in which two objects follow the main verb, the subjects at the lower levels might wonder about the Case assignment in this construction. DPs in the DO constructions are morphologically ambiguous between accusative and dative and furthermore, given the one-to-one mapping (between a Case assignee and a Case assigner), the appearance of two DPs following a single verb looks very odd. Given that no easy solution is readily available for Case assignment in the DO constructions, the beginners opt for rejecting all DOs. Lastly, we can find another explanation for the beginners preference of PPs over DOs in the difference between the L1 and the L2 with respect to the presence/ or lack of overt Case marking on the first DP in the DO construction. More precisely, unlike the Korean DO, in the English DO, there is no overt Case marking on the first DP in the DO construction. If the beginner learners look for a transparent form-to-meaning relation, the PP, not the DO form, will be used. To conclude, I have suggested four possible explanations for the beginners preference of PP over DO forms. The beginners performance on the PP forms reveals that they behave in a selective way. It is not the case that they blindly reject 175

everything. Presumably, due to their low proficiency, they prefer (or acquire) a transparent form-meaning relation, which is easily obtained in the PP form. Successful performance on the PP forms is an outcome of this preference. This fact indicates that even the beginners behavior is one of fairly consistent performance rather than random performance.

An alternative approach In this section, we explore alternative explanations of the results of

experiment 1 and show why such alternatives are insufficient to account for the results obtained. We consider two such alternatives: (i) a frequency-based explanation and (ii) the morphological transfer hypothesis. Morphological transfer hypothesis is the main concern of this section.

5.1

A frequency-based explanation The findings of experiment 1 cannot be accounted for by a frequency-based

explanation. According to this explanation, the observed asymmetric treatment of goal DOs and ben DOs is due to the more frequent appearance of goal DOs than ben DOs in the input. In fact, Goldberg et al. (2003) advanced such a frequency-based proposal for child first language acquisition (FLA). Extending Goldberg et al.s proposal for child FLA to adult SLA could be one way of accounting for the results of experiment 1.

176

However, a frequency effect, although plausible, is insufficient to account for the differential treatment of illicit DO constructions such as Latinate goal DOs and Latinate ben DOs. Neither Latinate goal DOs nor Latinate ben DOs appear in the input. Nevertheless, the L1-Korean learners of English still differentiated between the two types of Latinate DO constructions. We rule out the frequency-based explanation on the basis of this problem.

5.2

A morphological transfer-based explanation Recent research on L1 transfer has addressed the question of the level of the

grammar at which transfer operates: transfer of syntax or transfer of morphology. So far in this chapter, the syntactic transfer hypothesis has been examined and argued for. A morphological transfer-based explanation of the results is certainly an alternative possibility. Morphological transfer in the domain of English DO constructions was in fact argued for by Whong-Barr and Schwartz (2002) in their study on child SLA. Thus, it is worthwhile to carefully examine the morphological transfer hypothesis as a possible interpretation of the results. We review the results of the experiments in Oh and Zubizarreta ( in pressa, in pressb), which were specifically designed to test the morphological transfer approach in adult SLA, and show why the morphological transfer hypothesis cannot explain the results of these studies.

177

5.2.1. The morphological transfer hypothesis The morphological transfer hypothesis is given in (23).

23.

Morphological transfer hypothesis Morphological items in the L1 which lack equivalents in the L2 have a blocking effect on L2 acquisition of related syntactic structures (cf. Montrul 1997, Whong-Barr and Schwartz 2002).

The idea of morphological blocking via L1 transfer is as follows. When the L1 uses a special morpheme to mark a particular syntactic construction, L2 learners expect to see special morphology in the equivalent L2 construction as well. If the L2 lacks such morphology, learners will be inclined to reject this construction in the L2. The morphological transfer hypothesis is relevant to the acquisition of English DO constructions by Korean speakers in that, as was illustrated in Chapter 2, overt morphology is required for ben DOs in Korean, unlike ben DOs of English, while no explicit morphology is required for goal DOs in either language. The morphological transfer hypothesis predicts that the overt morphology in Korean ben DOs (cwu-) will have a blocking effect on the acquisition of English ben DOs by Korean speakers, leading to different treatment of goal and ben DOs in English. Hence, the acquisition of English DO constructions by Korean speakers provides a good testing ground for the morphological transfer hypothesis. 178

This, however, is not enough. In order to truly test the morphological transfer hypothesis, it is necessary to compare L2 English learners whose L1s have morphologically very different ways of encoding DOs. Such a comparison is achieved by comparing L1-Korean and L1-Mandarin learners of English. Given the different status of morphological licensing in Mandarin versus Korean, the morphological transfer hypothesis predicts different results for L1-Mandarin and L1Korean learners of English. One of our earlier experiments, presented in Oh and Zubizarreta (in pressa, in pressb), was specifically designed to test this prediction.

5.3

Against morphological transfer: Oh & Zubizarreta (in pressa, in pressb) In Oh and Zubizarreta (in pressa, in pressb), we examined the role of

morphological transfer in the acquisition of English DO constructions by adult L2English learners from three different L1 backgrounds: Korean, Japanese and Mandarin.

5.3.1

Verbal morphology in the DO constructions of Korean, Japanese and

Mandarin The similarities and differences in verbal morphology associated with DOs in Korean, Japanese and Mandarin provide a means of testing the morphological transfer hypothesis. Unlike English, which lacks special morphology in all DO constructions, these languages have explicit verbal morphology for (some types of) DO constructions. To be more specific, overt morphology is required/ preferred for 179

ben DOs in Korean and Japanese and is required for goal DOs in Mandarin. Data illustrating these points are presented below. The morphemes associated with DOs in these languages are in italics.

24.

Goal and ben DOs in Korean a. John-i John-Nom Mary-eykey Mary-Dat senmwul-ul present-Acc ponay-ss-ta (goal DO)

send-Past-Decl

John sent Mary a present. b. John-i Mary-eykey kulim-ul kuly-e cwu-ess-ta (ben DO)

John-Nom Mary-Dat

picture-Acc draw-L Ben-Past-Decl

John drew Mary a picture. 25. Goal and ben DOs in Japanese a. Hanako-ga Taro-ni hagaki-o oku-tta (goal DO)

Hanako-Nom Taro-Dat

postcard-Acc send-Past

Hanako sent Taro a postcard. b. Watashi-wa I-Top ane-ni seetaa-o katte-ageta buy-Ben (ben DO)

my sister-Dat sweater-Acc

I bought my sister a sweater. 26. Goal and ben DO in Mandarin a. Ta he song send gei GEI women us

(McGloin 1989:130)

henduo many

shu book

(goal DO)

He sent us many books. 180

b.

?*Ta he

kao bake

gei GEI

le Asp

women us (Li 1990)

yige one

dangao (ben DO) cake

He baked us a cake.

All three languages under discussion have DO constructions. In the Japanese DAT-ACC structure, the first (goal/benefactive) DP asymmetrically c-commands the theme DP, as shown by pronominal variable binding (see Hoji 1985, Takano 1993, Yatsushiro 1998, 2003). The same holds for the Korean DAT-ACC structure, as was shown in Chapter 2. Mandarin also has a DO construction (Li 1990, den Dikken 1995). Following Li and den Dikken, I assume that the construction in (26a) constitutes a DO in Mandarin. An asymmetric c-command relationship holds between the two objects, as evidenced by anaphor binding (Li 1990). The following examples illustrate the asymmetric c-command property of Mandarin DOs.

27.

a.

Wo hui pai gei zhege ren taziji de gege. I will assign gei this person himselfs older brother I will assign to this person his own older brother.

b.

*Wo hui pai

gei taziji de gege Zhangsan/zhege ren.

I will assign gei himselfs older brother Zhangsan/this person I will assign to his own older brother Zhangsan/this person. (Zoe Woe, p.c.)

181

The verbal morphology associated with DOs in Japanese and Mandarin deserves further explanation. In Japanese, the goal DO is lexically licensed (no special morphology is required). As for ben DO constructions, Japanese, like Korean, has benefactive verbal morphology (Kuno 1973, McGloin 1989, Shibatani 1990, Tsujimura 1996). The Japanese counterpart of Korean cwu- is ageru. However, there is an interesting difference between cwu- and ageru. While cwu- is grammatically obligatory, ageru is not. Nonetheless, ageru is pragmatically preferred in certain discourse contexts with benefactives. Depending on the choice of lexical verb, the absence of ageru makes the sentence very awkward or odd (Emi Mukai, Yasuo Ishii, p.c.). Mandarin presents an interesting picture in that it is very different from Korean and Japanese with respect to the licensing of goal DOs: while neither Korean nor Japanese requires a morphological licensor for goal DOs, Mandarin does require a morphological licensor, namely, gei.54 On the other hand, benefactive verbs can

54

The verbal morpheme gei surfaces in three different constructions in Mandarin, as exemplified below. Despite their homophony, each functions differently (see Li 1990 for a more detailed discussion). Covering all of the details of the constructions would take us too far afield. Hence, we confine ourselves to briefly summarizing the main function of each. V V gei gei DP (goal/?benefactive) DP (theme) DP (theme) gei DP (goal/benefactive) DP (benefactive/goal) V (theme)

(i) (ii) (iii)

Depending on its linear position relative to the verb, gei in these constructions is classified as either postverbal gei or preverbal gei. Postverbal gei appears in (i) and (ii). The construction in (i), as mentioned earlier, functions as a DO construction. The construction in (ii) functions as a serial verb construction. When gei is used postverbally, it functions as a light verb. The construction in (iii), in which gei precedes the main verb, functions as a benefactive PP construction, and benefaction is generally expressed using preverbal gei. In Mandarin, a benefactive DP is marked by either gei or wei, both of which are translated as for (see Li & Thompson 1981 for a more detailed discussion). In this construction, gei functions as a preposition and as such, constructions with preverbal gei are benefactive PPs, not ben DOs. Its status as a preposition is

182

only marginally appear in the DO constructions. To the extent that they appear in the DO constructions at all, they also require gei as a licensor, as was illustrated in (26b). Table 20 summarizes the licensing types in goal and ben DOs in the languages under discussion.

Table 20. Licensor types in goal and ben DOs Language Type of licensor of a DO construction Benefactive DO construction Goal DO construction English Lexical licensing Lexical licensing Korean Morphological licensing (cwu-) Lexical licensing (required) Japanese Morphological licensing (ageru-) Lexical licensing (strongly preferred) Mandarin No benefactive DO (??) Morphological licensing (gei-) (required)

5.3.2

Morphological transfer hypothesis and predictions Given the similarities and differences summarized in Table 20, we put forth

the following predictions of the morphological transfer hypothesis.

supported by the fact that the aspectual marker cannot be attached to gei, as illustrated in (iv). In Mandarin, it is argued that aspectual markers can be attached to verbs, but not to prepositions (cf. Li 1990). As predicted, an aspectual marker can be attached to gei in both (i) and (ii). (iv) Ta gei (*le) wo 3sg for Asp I S/he built a house for me. zao build le Asp yi one dong fangzi. CL house (Li & Thompson 1981)

183

28.

Predictions of the morphological transfer hypothesis for DOs a. L1 Korean and L1 Japanese learners of English The presence of overt ben morphology in the L1 will lead the learners to expect a morpheme to license ben DOs in English. Since English lacks benefactive morphology, these L2 English learners are predicted to reject ben DO constructions in English. b. L1 Mandarin learners of English The presence of overt goal morphology in the L1 will lead the learners to expect a morpheme to license goal DOs in English. Since English lacks goal morphology, these L2 English learners are expected to reject goal DOs in English. c. Acceptance rates of goal DOs by Mandarin speakers versus Korean and Japanese speakers Korean and Japanese speakers will accept English goal DOs at higher rates than Mandarin speakers due to a blocking effect of gei- in the acquisition of goal DOs by Mandarin speakers.

Importantly, morphological transfer should lead to different results for L1 Mandarin learners of English on the one hand, and L1 Korean and L1 Japanese learners of English on the other. More specifically, for the Korean and Japanese groups, a preference for goal DOs over ben DOs is predicted. For the Mandarin group, on the other hand, there is no reason to expect goal DOs to be preferred over 184

ben DOs. The predictions of the morphological transfer hypothesis are summarized in Table 21.

Table 21. Predictions of the morphological transfer hypothesis 55 L1 group English Ben DOs English Goal DOs L1-Korean learners of English Less acceptance More acceptance L1-Japanese learners of English Less acceptance More acceptance L1-Mandarin learners of English Unclear prediction Less acceptance

5.3.3

Results Both L1-Korean and L1-Japanese groups preferred goal DOs over ben DOs

(whether licit or illicit). Specifically, licit goal DOs were accepted more strongly and frequently than licit ben DOs at all proficiency levels. Moreover, illicit goal DOs were rejected less (thus accepted more) than illicit ben DOs at all levels of proficiency.56 The difference in mean acceptance rates for goal DOs versus ben DOs (licit as well as illicit) were significant for the low and high intermediates in both language groups. Beginners, like intermediates, preferred goal DOs to ben DOs, but in their case this difference did not reach statistical significance. The asymmetric treatment of goal DOs and ben DOs was predicted by the morphological transfer hypothesis. Thus, we could say that the blocking effects of

55

The predictions for the treatment of ben DO constructions by L1 Mandarin learners of English are not entirely clear given the fact that benefactive verbs can only marginally appear in DO constructions with gei. In any case, it is important to note that the Mandarin learners, unlike their Korean and Japanese counterparts, are not predicted to reject ben DOs more than goal DOs. 56 In this experiment, illicit goal verbs were a mixture of Latinate goal verbs and exceptional goal verbs.

185

cwu- and ageru are at work in the acquisition of the English ben DO constructions, resulting in less acceptance of ben DOs than of goal DOs. However, the results from the L1-Mandarin learners of English clearly argue against the morphological transfer hypothesis. Crucially, L1-Mandarin learners of English, like their Korean and Japanese counterparts, also preferred goal DOs to ben DOs (licit as well as illicit). No blocking effect of gei was found. Unlike L2-English learners, the adult English controls did not differentiate between goal and ben DOs, correctly rejecting both illicit DO constructions, and correctly accepting both licit DO constructions. An even stronger argument against the morphological transfer hypothesis comes from the comparison between the acceptance rate of goal DOs by Mandarin speakers vs. Korean and Japanese speakers. The morphological transfer approach clearly predicts higher acceptance rates of goal DOs by Korean and Japanese speakers than by Mandarin speakers. Contrary to this prediction, Korean and Japanese speakers in fact rejected goal DOs more strongly than Mandarin speakers.57 With respect to licit goal DOs, a one-way ANOVA showed that Mandarin speakers accepted licit goal DOs to a greater extent than Korean/Japanese speakers (F (2,187) = 26.760, p <.0001). The same pattern held for the illicit goal DOs as well (F (2, 187) = 3.756, p = .025). The difference between Korean and Japanese speakers was not significant for licit DOs (p = .624) or for illicit DOs (p =.965).
57

This difference between Korean and Japanese learners on one hand and Mandarin learners on the other hand could be due to the fact that Mandarin, like English, does not have overt Case marking on the DP arguments. As mentioned, Korean and Japanese do have overt Dative and Accusative Case marking. This account is well in line with my account for where the preference of PPs over DOs come form.

186

5.4

Discussion The results of Oh & Zubizarreta (in pressa, in pressb) argue against the

morphological transfer hypothesis. Despite different requirements of morphological licensing in their L1s, all three groups showed the same asymmetric treatment of goal DOs and ben DOs. This means that we need a different explanation for these results, one that is not grounded in morphological licensing. One question immediately arises. What can be an alternative? I propose the structural transfer hypothesis. This proposal is motivated by the fact that Mandarin lacks a benefactive low applicative DO, while it does have a low applicative goal DO which is morphologically licensed (namely by the morpheme gei). More precisely, I assume that gei is a low applicative verb that gets incorporated into the main verb, thus forming a complex predicate (see also den Dikken 1995 and Li 1985, 1990). Given the complex predicate status of song gei in the example below, the aspectual marker le cannot intervene between them.

29.

*Ta He

song send

le Asp

gei to

women us

henduo many

shu book

He sent us many books.

If there is structural transfer of this property, this could explain the asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs attested by the Mandarin learners of English. The structural transfer hypothesis predicts that Mandarin-speaking learners 187

of English will accept goal DOs more readily than ben DOs- precisely the pattern that we found. In order to provide support for this possibility, a close examination of semantic and syntactic properties on Mandarin DOs would be needed. Similarly, we would also need to show that the same syntactic properties hold for Japanese DOs as well. We leave this for future research. Coming back to experiment 1, the Korean speakers in this experiment also showed the same asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs. We have argued for structural transfer as the driving force behind the asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs by Korean speakers.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have explored the role of the structural transfer hypothesis

in the acquisition of the English DO construction by Korean learners of English. The findings of experiment 1 clearly supported the structural transfer hypothesis. More precisely, as was predicted, the structural similarities and differences between Korean and English DOs have figured prominently in the process of acquiring English DOs, leading the learners to a general acceptance of goal DOs and to a general rejection of ben DOs. This asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs clearly held for both licit and illicit DO constructions, at both the group and individual levels. However, questions still remain. First, given the effects of the negative transfer of Korean ben DOs, an issue arises as to whether the Korean learners of 188

English can ever overcome these negative transfer effects. In other words, is the acquisition of English ben DOs by Korean learners of English permanently impaired or just temporally delayed? Second, when and how learners can overcome the negative transfer effects is a more fundamental issue that is worth considering. Lastly, we need to directly examine acquisition of the semantic properties of English DOs by using a more controlled experiment with contexts. Experiment 2, presented in next chapter, was designed with these issues in mind.

189

Chapter 5 Experiment 2: The acquisition of form-to-meaning mapping

Introduction This chapter investigates the acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings (i.e.,

the syntax-semantics interface) in the domain of the English DO construction. Among L2 studies on the syntax-semantics interface, of particular interest are cases where L2-acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings cannot be attributed to L1 transfer and is not easily deducible from L2 positive input. Studies of such cases are valuable in that they reveal how L2 learners recover from negative transfer effects in order to acquire the target mapping and may provide evidence for L2 learners access to UG. The results of experiment 1 have clearly showed the negative transfer effect of Korean ben DOs on the acquisition of English ben DOs. Unlike the adult and child native English speakers, the Korean-speaking learners of English accepted goal DOs more strongly and frequently than ben DOs at all levels of proficiency. This pattern held for both licit and illicit DO constructions and at both group and individual levels. These results are in support of the structural transfer hypothesis, which argues for negative transfer effects of Korean ben DOs on the acquisition of English ben DOs. These negative transfer effects are particularly interesting in the context of the acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings in that the acquisition of 190

English ben DOs cannot be attributed to L1 transfer and is not easily deducible from L2 positive input. Given the negative transfer effects, the question arises of whether Korean learners of English are ever able to overcome the negative transfer effects. This question leads to a more interesting question concerning L1 transfer: when and how learners can overcome negative transfer effects (i.e., restructure the form-tomeaning mapping). The main goal of the present chapter is to examine two issues at the syntaxsemantics interface: (1) whether, and how, L2 learners are able to acquire subtle form-to-meaning mappings, in particular, the distinct semantic properties associated with the DO and PP forms, which are not transferred from the L1 and are not directly deducible from L2 positive input; and (2) whether L2 learners are able to overcome negative transfer effects on ben DOs, restructuring the form-meaning mapping and if yes, when and how they can do that. In investigating the second issue, I also examine the role that learners knowledge of the relevant semantic distinctions between the DO and PP forms play in recovery from negative transfer effects. These issues were tested in experiment 2, which is discussed in this chapter. In order to answer these questions, I take up the issue of how the English dative alternation is learned, identifying possible steps of the acquisition process. The acquisition of the English dative alternation can be understood through an examination of a learners sensitivity to the relevant constraints. Carefully considering the saliency and robustness of each constraint figuring in the dative alternation, I propose a possible sequence of acquisition of the constraints. Most 191

importantly, I propose that the possessor constraint on goal DOs is acquired before the corresponding constraint on ben DOs, and provides theoretical motivation for this sequence. The specific goals of experiment 2 are to examine learners sensitivity to the subtle semantic distinctions associated with the DO and PP forms, and to test the proposed sequence of acquisition of the semantic constraints. This chapter is organized as follows. In section 2, I consider the issue of how argument structure alternations in general are acquired. I propose that once the two forms of the alternation can be considered as a part of the same paradigm (which is referred to as an argument structure paradigm), the acquisition of the argument structure alternation is guided by the Avoid Synonymy Principle; this in turn allows indirect negative evidence (i.e., nonoccurrence of a form in the input; cf. Chomsky 1981) to be used by the learners to acquire the subtle semantic differences between two forms in the alternation. I next show how DO and PP forms constitute an argument structure paradigm, bringing attention to constraints pertaining to the DO and PP forms. Then, a possible sequence of the acquisition of the constraints pertinent to the DO and PP forms is proposed. In section 3, I spell out the specific hypotheses of experiment 2. In section 4, I describe the experimental design of the current study and then provide detailed predictions of the hypotheses. In section 5, results of both group and individual analyses are presented and examined in light of the predictions. Section 6 concludes the chapter with a discussion of future investigations of form-to-meaning mappings. 192

2 2.1

Proposal and theoretical background of experiment 2 Proposal: the acquisition of argument structure alternation is viewed as the acquisition of a paradigm In this section, I put forth the proposal, presented in (1) and provide

theoretical motivation for the proposal.

1.

When the DO and PP forms of the dative alternation can be considered as a part of the same paradigm, the acquisition of the dative argument structure alternation is guided by the Avoid Synonymy Principle (Carstairs-McCarthy 1998).

Inflectional paradigms are governed by a very general and pervasive acquisition principle known as the Avoid Synonymy Principle (Carstairs-McCarthy 1998) or Uniqueness Principle (cf. Wexler and Culicover 1980, Pinker 1986, Clark 1987), which is presented in (2). Researchers have given various names to this principle (e.g., the Blocking principle of Marcus, Pinker, Ulman, Hollander and Xu 1992, the Elsewhere Condition of Kiparsky 1973, the Unique Entry Principle of Pinker 1984). Nevertheless, the main idea of these learning principles is shared by all of the aforementioned researchers and can be captured as follows. For purposes of presentation, I call it the Avoid Synonymy Principle.

193

2.

Two distinct forms in a paradigm cannot be associated with the same meaning or information content (Carstairs-McCarthy 1998).

A paradigm consists of related forms with differing grammatical properties. Each form is related to the other forms in the paradigm (morpho-phonologically or categorically), but each form is semantically distinct from the rest of the forms. Learning a particular form in a paradigm involves learning that the form contrasts in meaning or informational content with the other forms. As a result, a one-to-one form-meaning mapping should be established. Williams (1997) expresses the same idea in terms of specificity, claiming that a notion of specificity is a crucial factor in the acquisition of any paradigm. He argues that it is important to make a distinction in specificity: X is specified in more detail than Y. Put another way, although X and Y are similar in certain ways, crucially, on some point, X is different from Y, having a more specified (or detailed) property. The acquisition of past tense forms is a good illustration. It has widely been reported that, in the acquisition of past tense forms, children overextend the regular inflectional rule (verb + ed) to irregular verbs, producing non target-like forms such as goed. Pinker (1986, 1989) advanced the Avoid Synonymy Principle in this context to account for how children recover from overgeneralization of the regular inflectional rule. He suggests that hearing the irregular form went in a past tense context provides evidence that the regular form goed is ill-formed in that a more specific form blocks the application of the regular rule. In other words, the existence 194

of a more specific form indicates that the relatively less specific form cannot have the same meaning. Since no other meaning is available, the more general form (goed) cannot exist. Another domain in which the Avoid Synonymy Principle works well is the grammatical person paradigm of Spanish. If a learner knows that com-o (I eat) is the 1st person singular form and com-e (s/he eats) is the 3rd person singular form in Spanish, and the learner then hears a new but related form, com-es (you (sg) eat) in a context where only one person is present, the learner can conclude that this corresponds to the 2nd person singular. Learning is successful because the learner pairs up one form to one meaning. The Avoid Synonymy Principle extends to the learning of the argument structure alternation in that, at a formal level of analysis, learning argument structure alternation is comparable to learning a paradigm. Just as there can be related but distinct forms in person and gender paradigms, there can also be forms in an argument structure alternation that are related but semantically distinct, such that one form is more appropriate than the other for a given context. Moreover, sometimes, this subtle meaning difference between the two forms of an alternation ensures that one form but not the other form is allowed in a given context. With these similarities taken into consideration, I propose that the DO and PP forms of the English dative alternation constitute an argument structure alternation paradigm (henceforth, the DO-PP paradigm) and that the acquisition of these two

195

forms is guided by the Avoid Synonymy Principle, presented in (2). Given the statement in (2), it must then be case that these two forms are non-synonymous.

2.2

The DO-PP paradigm: semantic distinction between DO and PP forms As was discussed in depth in Chapter 2, research on the grammatical

properties of the DO and PP constructions has shown that the two constructions are associated with two distinct meanings and thus, with two distinct structures (cf. den Dikken 1995, Harley 2002). The DO construction encodes the prospective possession relation between the two objects. In the DO, the referent of the first DP complement is understood as the prospective possessor of the referent of the second DP complement (whether literally or metaphorically). I refer to this meaning encoded by the DO construction as the possessor constraint. The possessor constraint accounts for the contrast in (3). An inanimate goal, New York, cannot appear in the DO form in that an inanimate goal cannot function as a potential possessor of the referent of the second DP. On the other hand, the goal PP construction has a physical transfer interpretation (cf. Green 1974, Oehrle 1976). Specifically, the goal PP construction is interpreted as transfer of the referent of the theme to a physical location denoted by the PP, as shown by the contrast in (4). That is, the goal argument in the PP construction is uniquely locational. As illustrated in the contrast in (4), the possession relation between goal and theme is a property of DOs, not of the PP forms. I refer to this meaning encoded by the PP construction as the physical transfer constraint. As was pointed out in Chapter 2, the possessor constraint holds 196

for ben DOs as well, as illustrated in (5). On the other hand, ben PP construction is not restricted to the possession relation, encoding a wide benefaction reading and therefore, ben PP counterparts of ungrammatical ben DOs in (5) are all grammatical.

3.

a. b.

John sent a letter to Mary/New York. John sent Mary/*New York a letter. *John gave a headache to Mary. John gave Mary a headache. John fixed Mary a sandwich/ *a car. John poured Mary a cup of coffee/*some cement. (Jackendoff 1990) (Jackendoff 1990)

4.

a. b.

5.

a. b.

The semantic distinction between the DO and PP constructions has been attributed to presence (or absence) of a projection, which is present in the DO but absent in the PP. We refer to this projection as the low applicative projection (in the sense of Pylkknnen 2002). The first DP in the DO structure is in the Spec of an applicative head and the possessor relation between the first DP and the second DP is established via this applicative head (see section 2.6 for a detailed discussion of the applicative construction in English). It has been shown above that DO and PP constructions are semantically distinct. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the two constructions are grammatically related. The verbs in the DO form and in the PP form have the same basic core meaning. The DO construction adds a layer of meaning, namely the meaning of 197

(prospective) possessor (via the applicative head). In other words, DO and PP forms are grammatically related but crucially also semantically different. These dual properties (e.g., related but distinct) of DO and PP forms meet the condition to constitute a paradigm. Then, I reasonably conclude that the DO and PP forms are part of an argument structure paradigm (i.e., the dative alternation). Since the DO and PP forms are members of the same paradigm (i.e., the DO-PP paradigm), their acquisition should therefore be guided by the Avoid Synonymy Principle.

2.3

Acquisition of the DO-PP paradigm, and the role of indirect negative evidence In the preceding section, I have concluded that the acquisition of the DO-PP

paradigm is guided by the Avoid Synonymy Principle. In this section, I propose that this allows indirect negative evidence (i.e., nonoccurrence of a form in the input; cf. Chomsky 1981) to be used by the learners to acquire the subtle semantic differences between the two forms in the alternation. I elaborate these proposals below. I hypothesize that the first step in the acquisition of the DO-PP paradigm is to recognize that the DO and PP forms are part of the DO-PP paradigm (i.e., they involve the same lexical verb). Once the learner has recognized that the DO and the PP forms are part of the paradigm, the Avoid Synonymy Principle comes into play and the learner can begin to use form-to-meaning contrasts to acquire the subtle meaning differences described in section 2.2. Specifically, the learner, driven by the Avoid Synonymy Principle, endeavors to locate the semantic differences between the 198

two forms. Crucially, I hypothesize that at this stage, indirect negative evidence can be used by the learners to acquire the distinct meanings associated with DO and PP forms. Given this hypothesis, the question arises as to the context in which indirect negative evidence can be utilized. Obviously, acquisition cannot rely on indirect negative evidence across the board in that there are many forms that are not attested in the input but that learners are nevertheless willing to accept as possible forms. Note that Mazurkewich and White (1984) invoked positive evidence as a source of acquisition of the DO and PP forms (see section 3.4 of Chapter 3) and discarded the role of indirect negative evidence, arguing that indirect negative evidence works only in controlled or constrained environments or contexts. At this point, my assumptions that the DO and PP forms constitute the DO-PP paradigm and that this paradigm is guided by the Avoid Synonymy Principle come to be relevant. A crucial point here is that indirect negative evidence can be used by the learner if and only if it involves the acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings within a paradigm, which is guided by the Avoid Synonymy Principle; if the DO and PP forms are members of a paradigm, the learner can make use of the nonoccurrence of one member of the alternation in the input to bootstrap the form-to-meaning mapping that distinguishes the two forms in the alternation (i.e., the prospective possessor meaning of the goal argument in the DO form and the purely locational meaning of the goal argument in the PP form).

199

2.4

A possible sequence of acquisition of the constraints pertinent to the DOPP paradigm In this section, I outline a possible sequence of the acquisition of the

constraints pertaining to the DO-PP paradigm. Most importantly, I propose that the possessor constraint on goal DOs is acquired before the corresponding constraint on ben DOs, and provide motivation for this proposal. The acquisition of the DO-PP paradigm can be understood through an examination of a learners sensitivity to the relevant constraints. Furthermore, the acquisition of constraints associated with the DO and PP forms can give us information about possible steps that learners take in acquiring the DO-PP paradigm. Additionally, the study of how form-to-meaning mappings between the DO and PP forms are acquired is a means of answering the question of how and when L2 learners are able to recover from the negative transfer effects, restructuring the formto-meaning mappings. We need to know what knowledge can act as a triggering factor in bootstrapping the learners out of the negative transfer effects. In outlining a sequence of acquisition of the semantic constraints, we can see which constraints are known to learners who have already recovered from the negative transfer effects vs. learners who still show negative transfer effects. As was hypothesized in the preceding section, the very first step in the acquisition of the DO-PP paradigm is to recognize that the DO and PP forms are part of a paradigm. At this stage, learners are still unaware of the target form-to-meaning mapping of DO and PP forms. However, the Avoid Synonymy Principle is now at 200

work and this allows indirect negative evidence to be used by the learners to acquire the subtle semantic differences between the two forms of the paradigm. I hypothesize that the non-existence of inanimate goals in DO forms will be the first piece of indirect negative evidence to be used by the learners in bootstrapping the meaning difference between the DO and PP forms. In other words, this nonoccurrence acts as the triggering factor in bootstrapping form-to-meaning mappings of the DO and PP forms: the acquisition of the (prospective) possession relation between the goal or benefactive argument and the theme argument, which is a unique property of the DO forms.58 The relevant contrast is presented in (6). While (6a) respects the possessor constraint, (6b) violates it. Furthermore, in (6a) but not in (6b), the theme is animate. For purposes of exposition, I use the term animacy constraint to describe the contrast in (6): The DO form in (6a) respects the animacy constraint while the DO form in (6b) violates it. It should be noted that there is no such constraint on the English DO forms, although, as was pointed out in section 2.3.1 of Chapter 2, it is true that in most cases, the goal argument is animate and it is likely that this salient property can play an important role in bootstrapping the form-to-meaning mapping of the DO form. In other words, the real constraint is possession, but animacy is a side effect.

6.

a. b.

John sent a letter to Mary/New York. John sent Mary/*New York a letter. (Jackendoff 1990)

58

There is another logically possible alternative: the information about (in)animate goals does not lead to the possessor constraint and learners settle for a much simpler animacy constraint.

201

The justification of this hypothesis that the information about (in)animate goals bootstrap form-to-meaning mappings between DO and PP forms is as follows. In the vast majority of cases, the goal argument in the DO construction is animate, a property that is both salient and robust, so it is reasonable to assume that the distinction illustrated in (6) will be prominent to the learner early on, becoming the first distinction that the learner acquires. The learner will notice that inanimate goals always appear in the PP form but not in the DO form of the paradigm. So, the learner will use that piece of information to semantically distinguish the two members of the paradigm. This means that if a learner shows sensitivity to the animacy constraint, this learner is beginning to develop sensitivity to the possessor constraint on the DO form: possession entails animacy for the learners. 59 Next, I hypothesize that the target form-to-meaning mapping is first acquired for goal DOs. In other words, the possessor constraint on goal DOs is acquired before the corresponding constraint on ben DOs. This hypothesis is motivated by the following considerations. First, the negative transfer effects of the structural properties of Korean ben DOs delay the acquisition of English ben DOs anyway, leading learners to a blind rejection of English ben DOs. Second, ben DOs in Korean and English are semantically distinct: unlike English ben DOs, Korean ben DOs encode a wide benefactive meaning and are not restricted to the possession relation. Third, the physical transfer constraint on the PP, which is directly relevant in
59

There is another logically possible alternative. Although I assume a connection between sensitivity to the animacy constraint and sensitivity to the possessor constraint, it is also logically possible that the learners sensitivity to the animacy constraint might simply reflect the learners sensitivity to animacy, without revealing any deep underlying principles, such as the possessor constraint.

202

bootstrapping the possessor constraint on the DO (since getting the meaning component of the PP forms helps getting the meaning component of the DO forms, the other member of the same paradigm), is pertinent only to the goal PP forms (and irrelevant to ben PP forms); therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if the physical transfer constraint on the goal PP form is acquired, it will be an immediate and direct boost for the acquisition of the possessor constraint for goal DOs rather than ben DOs. The examples illustrating the physical transfer constraint are presented below.

7.

a. b.

*John/the movie gave an idea to Mary. John/the movie gave Mary an idea. *John gave a kick/a kiss/a hug to Mary. John gave Mary a kick/a kiss/a hug.

8.

a. b.

Then, when do learners acquire the possessor constraint on ben DOs, extending their knowledge of the possessor constraint on goal DOs to ben DOs? In an attempt to provide one possible account, I explore the issue of what can be the triggering factor in bootstrapping the form-to-meaning mapping for ben DOs. I argue that the acquisition of the physical transfer constraint in conjunction with the acquisition of the possessor constraint on goal DOs bootstrap the target form-tomeaning mapping of ben DOs. In this regard, the learners sensitivity to the physical transfer constraint can be one indicator (albeit not a sole factor) of the learners emerging sensitivity to the possessor constraint on ben DOs. 203

The motivation for this hypothesis is as follows. I first assume that a learners sensitivity to the physical transfer constraint usually comes in relatively late because this property is not as salient and robust as the animacy constraint. Granting this, the learners sensitivity to the physical transfer constraint means that this learner is tuned to an extremely subtle semantic distinction. That is, this learner notices that the abstract transfer reading can only be encoded in the DO form (i.e., another type of indirect negative evidence: absence of (7a) and (8a) in the input), and that the PP forms cannot encode the abstract transfer reading. This awareness helps the learners to completely acquire the possessor constraint on the goal DOs. Alternatively, the physical transfer constraint and the possessor constraint on goal DOs are emerging around the same time. Once the learner is sensitive to possession (on goal DOs), s/he will be sensitive to the property across the constructions. This, in turn, implies that this learner has completed acquiring the DO-PP paradigm. By this time, it is assumed that the learner fully establishes the target form-to-meaning mapping for English ben DOs, overcoming the negative transfer effects. By then, the learner reanalyzes English ben DOs as low applicative. To summarize, I have advanced a possible sequence for the acquisition of the constraints on DO and PP forms; (1) the animacy constraint is acquired very early on and it bootstraps the possessor constraint on DO forms; (2) the possessor constraint on goal DOs is acquired before the corresponding constraint on ben DOs; and (3) awareness of the possessor constraint on goal DO and the physical transfer constraint 204

on goal PPs bootstrap the possessor constraint on ben DOs. The final points suggests that awareness of the subtle but distinct semantics associated with goal DO and PP forms helps learners to overcome negative transfer effects.

Hypotheses Based on the discussion in section 2.4, the following specific hypotheses are

advanced.

9.

a.

If the learner has acquired the animacy constraint on the goal DO form, the learner begins to show sensitivity to the possessor constraint on the goal DO form (i.e., animacy before possession).

b.

If the learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on ben DOs, the learner necessarily shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on goal DOs (i.e., the possessor constraint on goal DOs is acquired before the corresponding constraint on ben DOs: goal before ben)

c.

If the learner has acquired the possessor constraint on the goal DO form and the physical transfer constraint on the goal PP form, the learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on ben DO form.

In particular, with respect to the hypothesis in (9a), I reason that, in order to truly test learners knowledge of the possessor constraint, a task that can tease apart animacy 205

and possession is needed. By teasing apart animacy and possession, we can distinguish between two possibilities: (i) learners sensitivity to the animacy constraint does not reflect knowledge of the possessor constraint i.e., learners posit an animacy constraint with no deeper linguistic meaning; and (ii) learners sensitivity to the animacy constraint reflects their developing sensitivity to the possessor constraint. As pointed out earlier, I hypothesize that possession entails animacy: acquisition of the possessor constraint entails acquisition of the animacy constraint, but not the other way around. Thus, learners should acquire the animacy constraint before the possessor constraint; acquiring animacy should help them develop sensitivity to the possessor constraint. It is natural to think that animacy should be acquired before possession, since the animacy distinction is not contextdependent, while the possession distinction is context-dependent. Experiment 2 was administered in order to test these hypotheses.60 Testable predictions of the hypotheses in (9) are put forth in section 4.6, after discussion of the experimental design.

4 4.1

Methods Participants The participants in this study were 33 adult native speakers of Korean. Their

characteristics are summarized in Table 22. All subjects had received English
60

Along with the hypotheses in (9), there is another logically possible alternative. The alternative is that the learner shows sensitivity to various distinctions (e.g., the animacy constraint and the possessor constraint; the possessor constraint on goal and ben DOs) simultaneously. This alternative does not predict any ordering at all.

206

instruction prior to arriving in the U.S. All spoke English as an L2 and used it daily. The subjects in the experimental group were recruited at USC. The vast majority were graduate students from various departments. The subjects at the lower proficiency levels were recruited from an intensive English program.61

Table 22: Characteristics of L1-Korean participants L1-Korean participants Number 33 (10 male, 23 female) Age range 20 to 44 (mean: 28.30) Age at arrival in the U.S. 18;0 to 36;9 (mean 25;6) (start of intensive exposure to English) Time in the US 0;1 to 9;0 (mean 2;8) Additionally, 12 adult native English speakers participated in the study as controls (mean age: 22.75; range: 17 to 33). All were undergraduate and graduate students at USC. Some had had exposure to languages other than English but were not proficient in these languages.

4.2

Cloze test The cloze test administered in experiment 1 was used in experiment 2 as well

(see section 2.2. of Chapter 4 for test description). Only the L2 participants completed the cloze test, the aim of which was to gauge their English proficiency

The Korean speakers in experiments 1 and 2 are comparable with respect to the score range in the cloze test. Nevertheless, there is a difference between subjects in the two studies with respect to age. Unlike experiment 2, the vast majority of subjects in experiment 1 were undergraduate students. The subjects in experiment 1 (mean age: 23.03) were younger on average, than those in experiment 2 (mean age: 28.30). Moreover, the subjects in experiment 1 arrived in the U.S. earlier than those in experiment 2, and more of the subjects in experiment 1 arrived in the U.S. as early adolescents.

61

207

level (this test is from Oshita 1997, 2001).62 According to their performance on the cloze test, the learners were broken down into groups: 12 beginners, 9 low intermediates and 12 high intermediates.63 The results of the L2 participants are summarized in Table 23. The results of the native English speakers from experiments in Oh & Zubizarreta (2003, 2005, in pressa, in pressb) are added for comparison.

Table 23. Classification of L1-Korean learners of English Group Mean score of Standard cloze test Deviation Beginners (n = 12) 20.42 6.61 Low intermediates (n = 9) 42.11 4.83 High intermediates (n =12) 56.08 5.85 Control (n = 11) 64.91 3.65 Notes: ANOVA: F (3, 40) = 148.76, p < .0001 4.3 4.3.1 Written Grammaticality Judgment Task Overall format

Min-Max 9-32 35-48 49-65 60-70

In written grammaticality judgment (GJT), subjects were asked to evaluate the grammaticality of the sentences in a given context, using a scale ranging from 1 to 4 (1 = completely unacceptable; 2 = somewhat unacceptable; 3 = somewhat acceptable; 4 = completely acceptable). A Not sure option was given separately from the scale. The GJT was designed to examine four constraints pertinent to DO and PP forms (i.e., the animacy constraint, the physical transfer constraint and the possessor
62

The native English speakers who participated in experiment 2 did not take the cloze test for the reasons explained in Chapter 4. See footnote 4 in Chapter 4 for the relevant discussion. 63 To allow direct comparison between experiment 1 and experiment 2, I impose cutoff points used for experiment 1 on experiment 2 as well. The cutoff points in experiment 1 came from the Discriminant analysis of the cloze test results of experiment 1.

208

constraint on goal and ben DOs), the details of which are presented in the following section. The first two categories were tested with two verbs and the latter two categories were tested with three different verbs. There were additional contexts tested, whose results are reported in Appendix D: those in which the possessor reading cannot be obtained (viz. DO forms involving the illicit dative verbs). Each category was tested with four different verbs. There were a total of 28 target sentences. Furthermore, 10 filler sentence were used. As in experiment 1, the filler contexts in experiment 2 serve two purposes: (i) they were needed to break up the pattern of sentences tested and (ii) they were used to determine whether subjects were outliers. In order to be included in the data analysis, participants needed to meet a 50% accuracy criterion on the 10 filler contexts. Notice that as compared to experiment 1, the accuracy criterion is lowered by 10%.64 In addition to 33 subjects, two Korean speakers were tested but excluded from the analysis because they failed to meet the 50% criterion. The common procedure which applies to all test verbs is as follows. For each test verb, two contexts were given, only one of which satisfied the constraint being tested. It is predicted that if a subject knew the constraint being tested, s/he would give a response of 3 or 4 for a context satisfying the constraint and 1 or 2 for a
64

The justification of selecting the 50% criterion is as follows. Out of the 10 fillers, the controls responses varied for two fillers and thus, these two items had to be discarded. To meet the 60% criterion out of the remaining 8 fillers, subjects should get at least 5 fillers. Given the fact that some of the fillers checked the appropriateness, not straightforward grammaticality, the 60% criterion was so stringent as to exclude many beginners (note that all filler items in experiment 1 were about straightforward grammaticality). Nevertheless, the criterion had to be strict enough to exclude outliers. Considering all these factors, the 50% criterion was adopted.

209

context violating the constraint. The contexts were presented separately. For each context, sentences containing the DO and PP forms were provided together, as a pair. Korean translations of the key words used in each of contexts in the GJT were provided. This ensured that the responses from Korean-speaking learners of English were not influenced by lack of vocabulary knowledge. In particular, the lexical items that were most likely to be unfamiliar to Korean speakers were translated. Korean translations of key lexical items from the instructions were also provided. Given the fact that the same test verb appeared twice in different contexts, control over ordering was an issue. In order to prevent two occurrences of the same verb from appearing too close together, two test sets (Test A and Test B) were prepared. One context with a given test verb was presented in Test A and the other balancing context with the verb was presented in Test B. The 19 test items (including 5 filler items) in each test set were presented in random order. Moreover, the order in which the two sets were administered was balanced across subjects, so that roughly half of the subjects began with Test A and half began with Test B. All subjects did both test sets (a within-subjects design).

4.3.2

Categories of test items The GJT was designed to tap the L1 Korean speakers knowledge of: (1) the

possessor constraint on goal and ben DOs; (2) the animacy constraint; (3) The physical transfer constraint. It should be noted that for the animacy constraint and the 210

physical transfer constraint, items check the (un)grammaticality. For the possessor constraint, items check (in)appropriateness in the given context. In order to test learners knowledge of the possessor constraint on goal and ben DOs, two contexts were prepared; Poss contexts. I refer to contexts that satisfy this constraint as +Poss and those that do not as Poss. With respect to the possessor constraint, three goal verbs (send, bring, take) and three ben verbs (find, pour, make) were used. Each verb was presented in a DO and a PP form in a +Poss context and in a Poss context. These are summarized in Table 24. The shaded boxes are the ( Poss) contexts, where the DO is ungrammatical.

Table 24. Contexts testing learners knowledge of the possessor constraint DO form PP form Context Goal Benefactive Goal Benefactive Context (+Poss) Send Find Send Find Bring Pour Bring Pour Take Make Take Make Context (-Poss) Send Bring Take Find Pour Make Send Bring Take Find Pour Make

One important point to be made for Poss contexts is that the use of an animate goal is needed to tease apart animacy and possession. By using an animate goal, we can truly test learners knowledge of the possessor constraint. If the learners sensitivity to the animacy constraint is related to their emerging sensitivity to the possessor constraint, s/he will differentiate the Poss contexts with goal verbs, rating +Poss contexts with an animate goal by using 3 or 4 and Poss contexts with

211

an animate goal by using 1 or 2. If the learner is sensitive simply to animacy, without knowledge of the possessor constraint, s/he will not differentiate Poss contexts, rating both contexts by using 3 or 4. I provide examples of the Poss contexts with the verb find for ben DOs and bring for goal DOs. The contexts are presented in (10) and (11), respectively. It should be noted that the six verbs which were selected to test the Poss distinction are all licit dative verbs whose DO form is grammatical under ordinary circumstances. In other words, if judged out of context, the test sentences would be equally grammatical.65 In the +Poss context, both the DO and PP sentences are in fact appropriate. However, in the Poss context, only the PP sentence, but not the DO sentence, is appropriate.66 For the purpose of presentation, the target responses are put in the parentheses. In the case of grammatical items, 4 is circled and in the
This is true for the three ben verbs tested. However, it was not entirely clear how this statement would fare with respect to the three goal verbs tested. The test sentences involving these three verbs are presented below. (i) Linda sent the dentist a student (-Poss) vs. Dr. Jacobson sent Dr. Roberts a new student (+ Poss) Linda sent a student to the dentist Dr. Jacobson sent a new student to Dr. Roberts (ii) Olive brought the doctor a child (-Poss) vs. Alex brought Danielle some clients (+Poss) Olive brought a child to the doctor Alex brought some clients to Danielle (iii) Mary took the veterinarian a cat (-Poss) vs. James took Jane a kitten (+Poss) Mary took a cat to the veterinarian. James took a kitten to Jane Unlike the licit ben DOs, in the licit goal DOs, both objects were animate. The reason we had to use two animate objects with the goal verbs was that with goal verbs (in particular, send and bring), it was not easy to separate the possessor reading from inherent verb semantics. In other words, the inherent semantics of these verbs is naturally tied with the possessor reading. In order to create a context in which the possessor reading was not easily obtained, two animate objects were used. To be consistent, for test sentences in the +Poss contexts, animate objects were also used in the two object positions. 66 Nevertheless, I believe that this appropriateness under investigation is grounded in grammar, not pragmatics, in that the absence of the possession construal in a given DO form makes that DO sentence very awkward. In other words, the grammaticality of a DO sentence in a Poss context is sharply degraded as compared to one in a +Poss context. As we will see in the section 5, the vast majority of the native English speakers indeed rated the DO sentence in the Poss context using either 1 or 2, showing that the Poss distinction is within the domain of grammar.
65

212

case of ungrammatical items, 1 is circled (however, in the data analysis, 3 for grammatical items and 2 for ungrammatical items were also considered to be correct answers).

10.

Contexts testing learners knowledge of the possessor constraint on ben DOs a. The +Poss context with find Rodney was looking for an apartment, but he didnt know the area well, so even after weeks of looking, he didnt see any that he wanted to live in. Finally, he asked his friend Heather to help him look, because he knew she used to be a realtor. Within the week, Heather had one that Rodney liked. A. Heather found Rodney an apartment. 1 B. Heather found an apartment for Rodney. 1 b. The Poss context with find Bettys company hired a consultant for a month, and Betty needed to find somewhere for the consultant to stay, but after looking in all the papers, she couldnt find anything. Finally, she asked Peter to help her since she knew Peter knew a lot of the landlords. Within the week, Peter had one that Betty liked. Now the consultant has a place to stay! A. Peter found Betty an apartment. B. Peter found an apartment for Betty. (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure

213

11.

Contexts testing learners knowledge of the possessor constraint for goal DOs a. The +Poss context with bring Danielle was just starting out as an accountant, and needed new clients. Her friend Alex was an accountant across town, and he was thinking of leaving the company he was in. He decided to join Danielles new company, and many of his clients followed him to Danielles company. Now Alexs clients became the clients of Alex and Danielle. A. Alex brought Danielle some clients. 1 B. Alex brought some clients to Danielle. 1 b. The Poss context with bring Olive went to the doctors office yesterday. She wasnt sick herself: she came because one of the children that she was baby-sitting got sick. He had a really bad tummy-ache! A. Olive brought the doctor a child. B. Olive brought a child to the doctor. (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure

Briefly commenting on the Poss contexts, the DO sentences in the Poss contexts ((10b) and (11b)) are ungrammatical in that the goal argument, (Betty or the doctor), is construed as a benefactor of the event, but not as the possessor of the referent of the theme argument.

214

In order to test learners knowledge of the animacy constraint, the animate vs. inanimate nature of the goal was manipulated with two verbs (send, mail) in DO and PP forms; Animate goal contexts. The +Animate goal was embedded in a +Poss context and the Animate goal was embedded in a Poss context; see Table 25. Again, the sentences in the shaded box are ungrammatical.

Table 25. Contexts testing learners knowledge of the animacy constraint Context DO form PP form + Animate Harry sent Jane a letter. Harry sent a letter to Jane. goal Lawrence mailed Irene a Lawrence mailed a letter to letter. Irene. John sent an envelope to -Animate John sent Chicago an envelope. Chicago. goal Tim mailed Paris a box. Tim mailed a box to Paris. I provide the Animate goal contexts with the verb send as examples, presented in (12). Note that out of context, such sentences can be grammatical if Chicago is taken to denote an animate entity (i.e., people in the Chicago office). The context rules out this possibility.

12.

Contexts testing learners knowledge of the animacy constraint a. The + Animate goal context with send Harry was on a trip to Europe, and he saw something that he knew that his friend Jane would think was funny. Harry didnt have access to e-mail, so he described what he saw in a letter, and put it in the mail with Janes address on the envelope.

215

A. Harry sent Jane a letter B. Harry sent a letter to Jane

1 1

2 2

3 3

(4) (4)

Not sure Not sure

b. The Animate goal context with send John is crazy. One day decided he didnt like the city of Chicago, so he addressed an envelope that said WARNING: Anthrax Samples to Chicago, IL. Hes in jail now. A. John sent Chicago an envelope B. John sent an envelope to Chicago (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

Briefly commenting on the Animate goal contexts, the DO sentence in (12b) is ungrammatical in that Chicago, being an inanimate goal, cannot be construed as a potential possessor of the referent of the theme argument. This DO sentence, thus, is excluded by the violation of the possessor constraint. In order to test learners knowledge of the physical transfer constraint, two pairs of sentences with the verb give in the DO form and the PP form were included, in which PP forms are ruled out by the violation of the physical transfer constraint; see Table 26. I refer to contexts that satisfy this constraint as +Physical transfer and those that do not as Physical transfer. The shaded boxes contain ungrammatical forms.

216

Table 26. Contexts testing learners knowledge of the physical transfer constraint Context DO form PP form +Physical Hannah gave Eddie some Hannah gave some medicine to transfer medicine. Eddie. Irene gave William a cat. Irene gave a cat to William. -Physical Jerry gave Margaret a Jerry gave a headache to Margaret. transfer headache. The book gave an idea to Patty. The book gave Patty an idea. I exemplify the contexts for testing the physical transfer constraint below. If the learner shows sensitivity to the physical transfer constraint, it implies that the learner is sensitive to the distinct semantics of DO and PP forms in such a way that the PP form, unlike the DO form, cannot encode abstract transfer. As for Physical transfer distinction, the PP sentences are grammatical in the +Physical transfer context while ungrammatical in the Physical transfer context. The DO sentences are grammatical in both contexts. Some might argue that contexts are not needed to test the physical transfer constraint on the PP forms, given the fact that these PP forms are ungrammatical out of context. Nevertheless, I believe that providing contexts is useful in that we can be confident that a given sentence will be evaluated in that particular context, leaving little room for other interpretations. The contexts used to test the physical transfer constraint are given in (13).

13. Contexts testing learners knowledge of the physical transfer constraint a. The + Physical transfer context Eddie had a headache, but he didnt have any medicine for it. He went to his neighbor, Hannah, to see if she had some. She let him have some of hers. 217

A. Hannah gave Eddie some medicine.

2 2

3 3

(4) (4)

Not sure Not sure

B. Hannah gave some medicine to Eddie. 1 b. The Physical transfer context

Jerry used to live next door to Margaret. Jerry was really boring, and he would talk to Margaret for hours. She always got a headache when he came over. She was glad when he moved out. A. Jerry gave Margaret a headache. B. Jerry gave a headache to Margaret. 1 (1) 2 2 3 3 (4) 4 Not sure Not sure

Briefly commenting on the Physical transfer context, the PP form in (13b) is ungrammatical in that headache, unlike some medicine, is not a thing that can be physically transferred from one location to another. Along with the test contexts, 10 filler contexts were used. Contexts tapping into the appropriateness, rather than the grammaticality, of tested items were included as the fillers in order to be comparable with the test items. The contexts for the filler items were of three different kinds (aspect, tense, and eventive properties). These are presented in (14).

218

14.

Filler contexts67 a. The first context type describes a habitual activity that did not take place on a particular day. Sample context: One of Marvins hobbies is running marathons. Every day, he goes out for a run of several miles to keep in shape. Today, though, its raining cats and dogs so hes not going to go out today. A. Marvin runs. B. Marvin is running. 1 (1) 2 2 3 3 (4) 4 Not sure Not sure

b. The second context type describes an event involving stative verbs. In the sentences accompanying the context, the stative verbs are presented in bare and in progressive form. Stative verbs in English appear only in bare form. Sample context: Phils moms favorite vegetable is spinach. She cooks spinach at least every week, but Phil never eats it. He says it tastes like socks. A. Phil hates Spinach. B. Phil is hating spinach. 1 (1) 2 2 3 3 (4) 4 Not sure Not sure

c. The third context type describes an event in the past, and the sentences accompanying this context are presented in a present tense form, either in a simple present tense or present progressive.

67

The first and third filler contexts checked the appropriateness of target sentences in the given contexts while the second filler context checked the grammaticality of target sentences. Note that out of context, the filler items belonging to the second context type are ungrammatical.

219

Sample context: Last week, Joe got a new sound system, and he wanted to know how to use all the functions it had. He sat in his living room and looked at the manuals for the different components. A. Joe is reading some manuals. (1) B. Joe reads some manuals. (1) 2 2 3 3 4 4 Not sure Not sure

A summary of all categories of test items is presented in Table 27. The test forms in the shaded boxes are ungrammatical.

Table 27. Summary of all categories of test items Constraint Context DO being tested form Possessor constraint +Poss (goal) - Poss (goal) + Poss (ben) - Poss (ben) + Animate goal - Animate goal +Physical transfer -Physical transfer 4.3.3 Procedure

PP form

Animacy constraint Physical transfer constraint

Number of test items 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

As presented in the preceding section, for each verb, both DO and PP forms were presented. It was important to make sure that the learner rated each sentence independently of the other. In order to train them to do so, a training session was provided prior to administration of the GJT. Four sample contexts were presented with two sentences for each context. These sample contexts illustrated all three 220

possibilities: (i) both sentences being acceptable in the given context; (ii) both sentences being unacceptable in the given context; (iii) one sentence being acceptable while the other is unacceptable. For each sample context, the target responses were marked on the test, along with an explanation of the responses. The sample contexts and their sentences are presented in (15). After the training session ended, the GJT followed.

15.

Sample contexts and sentences (practice session with pre-test items) a. The first possibility: both sentences are acceptable for a given context Tommy loves ice cream. Yesterday, Tommy had his tonsils taken out. The doctor tells him that he needs to eat ice cream now, because it will be good for his throat. Tommy thinks this is wonderful! A. Tommy may eat ice cream. B. Tommy must eat ice cream. 1 1 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure

Both sentences are completely acceptable. Since the doctor recommends Tommy to have ice cream, he may and must have ice cream. b. The second possibility: both sentences are unacceptable for a given context Erins class was supposed to go on a camping trip. In total, there are 10 students in Erins class. 4 students signed up for the camping trip and the rest of the class didnt sign up. But then a tornado hit the area where they planned to camp! So the camping trip was cancelled. A. All of the students went to camping. (1) 2 3 4 Not sure 221

B. Some of the students went to camping. (1) 2

Not sure

Both sentences are completely unacceptable because no one went to the summer camp. c. The third possibility: only one sentence is acceptable for a given context Jerry went to the library to check out books. He checked out three books: War and Peace; Gone with the Wind; Lord of the Rings. Within a month, he read them all. A. Jerry read three books. B. Jerry read one book. 1 1 2 (2) 3 3 (4) 4 Not sure Not sure

Sentence B may be rated somewhat unacceptable. It does not describe the context very accurately.

4.4

Vocabulary Translation Task The Vocabulary Translation Task (VTT) was only administered to the L2

learners. In the VTT, subjects were asked to translate the 26 test verbs (16 from the actual test items and 10 filler) into Korean68. The purpose of this task was to ensure that subjects knew the meanings of the verbs used in the grammaticality judgment task. In computing results, I only counted responses to those verbs in the GJT that the learners correctly translated in the VTT (cf. Juffs 1996, Montrul, 2001).

Note that the verb send was selected for testing both the animacy constraint and the possessor constraint. As for the physical transfer constraint, the two pairs of sentences were prepared with the verb give.

68

222

4.5

Overall procedure

The GJT was administered in a classroom environment. Subjects were tested either singly or in small groups. After the main task, subjects were asked to fill out a short questionnaire that collected information such as age, gender, length of exposure to English, and age of arrival in the U.S. Along with the questionnaire, the L2 learners did another task: the vocabulary translation task. The whole experiment lasted between 50 and 70 minutes for the L2 learners. The total time of testing for the controls was about 25-30 minutes.

4.6

Predictions Given the hypotheses in (9) and the categories illustrated in section 4.3.2, I

put forth the following specific and testable predictions. For convenience, the hypotheses in (9) are repeated in (16). The testable predictions are presented in the form of possible and impossible learning patterns. Specific learning patterns are considered for hypotheses (16a) and (16b). Given the complexity of the possible and impossible patterns for hypothesis (16c) (i.e., there are 4 possible and 4 impossible learning patterns), I content myself with a general discussion and examination of the hypothesis (16c).

16.

a.

If the learner has acquired the animacy constraint on the goal DO form, the learner begins to show sensitivity to the possessor constraint on the goal DO form (i.e., animacy before possession). 223

b.

If the learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on ben DOs, the learner necessarily shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on goal DOs (i.e., the possessor constraint on goal DOs is acquired before the corresponding constraint on ben DOs: goal before ben)

c.

If the learner has acquired the possessor constraint on the goal DO form and the physical transfer constraint on the goal PP form, the learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on ben DO form.

For the hypothesis (16a), I predict the possible and impossible learner patterns in (17).

17.

Possible and impossible learner patterns for hypothesis (16a) Possible patterns: a. The learner does not show sensitivity to either the animacy constraint or the possessor constraint on goal DOs. b. The learner shows sensitivity to both the animacy constraint and the possessor constraint on goal DOs c. The learner shows sensitivity to the animacy constraint but not to the possessor constraint on goal DOs.

224

Impossible pattern: a. The learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on goal DOs but not to the animacy constraint.

For the hypothesis (16b), the following possible and impossible learner patterns are predicted.

18.

Possible and impossible learner patterns for hypothesis (16b) Possible patterns: a. The learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on neither DO type. b. The learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint only on goal DOs. c. The learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on both types of DOs. Impossible pattern: a. The learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on ben DOs but not on goal DOs.69

69

Putting the hypothesis in (16a) and (16c), the following learner pattern is predicted not to be attested: the learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on ben DOs but not to the animacy constraint. This inference is grounded in the assumption that the learners sensitivity to the animacy constraint emerges before sensitivity to the possessor constraint on goal DOs, which in turn, emerges before sensitivity to the corresponding constraint on ben DOs.

225

By testing the predictions in (17) and (18), I can examine whether the assumptions and hypotheses advanced are on the right track. Experiment 2 was meant to test the above hypotheses and predictions. The main focus is on testing the predictions in (18): the target form-to-meaning mappings for ben DOs cannot be transferred from the L1 and are not directly deducible from L2 positive input alone. Instead, it is predicted that the target meaning of ben DOs is acquired after the possessor constraint on goal DOs has been acquired. An examination of this hypothesis gives us direct insights into whether L2learners are capable of overcoming the poverty of the stimulus problem, and what can function as the triggering factor. The poverty-of-the stimulus problem in L2 acquisition refers to the following learning situation: the target form-to-meaning mapping is underdetermined by the target input in the L2, by L1 knowledge, and by classroom instructions. As mentioned above, the first two are not available in acquiring the target form-to-meaning mapping for English ben DOs by Korean learners and furthermore, this mapping is not taught in the classroom settings. Examining the poverty-of-the stimulus problem in L2 acquisition is useful in discovering whether L2 learners have access to UG. As I predict, if Korean learners of English acquire the target form-to-meaning mapping for English ben DOs, it will show that L2 learners indeed have access to UG.

226

Results In this section, for each constraint tested, both group and individual analyses

(by verb and subject) are reported. Then, the results are examined in light of the predictions proposed in section 5.4.

5.1 5.1.1

Testing the possessor constraint: the Poss distinction Group analysis The Poss contexts for each verb were presented to test subjects knowledge

of the possessor constraint on English DOs. By comparing the acceptance rates for the +Poss contexts with those for the Poss contexts, we can examine the learners knowledge of the possessor constraint. To this end, paired sample t-tests were used. Paired sample t-tests compare the mean acceptance rates between the Poss contexts for each proficiency level. I first report subject performance with respect to the Poss contexts with goal DOs. The comparison between subjects performances on the +Poss context and on the Poss context is presented in Figure 19. Subjects at all levels of proficiency made some distinction between contexts with +Poss and with Poss. The distinction between the two at all proficiency levels went in the expected direction. In other words, the subjects rated DOs in the +Poss context relatively higher than the corresponding Poss context. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that beginners generally tended to reject both contexts. Like the high intermediates, low intermediates made a distinction between the two contexts to some extent. 227

Nevertheless, the difference between the two for low intermediates was not as big as the one for high intermediates.

Figure 19: Goal DO (+Poss) vs. Goal DO (-Poss)

4.5

Mean Acceptance Rates

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Goal (+Poss) Goal (-Poss)

Begin

Low inter

High inter

Control

The results of paired sample t-tests are summarized in Table 28. Statistically significant p-values are in bold. As presented below, the mean difference between the +Poss and Poss contexts reached significance only for the high intermediates, among the L2 learners. In this regard, the high intermediates patterned together with the controls. Table 28. Paired sample t-tests: differences in mean acceptance rates for goal DOs (+Poss) vs. Goal DOs (-Poss) Group goal DOs (+Poss) vs. goal DOs (-Poss) ( p < .05)a Beginners p = .133 Low intermediates p = .088 High intermediates p = .002 Control p < .0001
a

: significantly higher acceptance rate of goal DOs (+Poss) than of goal DOs (-Poss)

228

The comparison between subjects performance on ben DOs in the + Poss contexts and that in the Poss contexts is shown in Figure 20. The contrast between Figure 19 and Figure 20 is clear. Notably, the beginners failed to make the relevant distinction between the Poss contexts. Furthermore, the distinction that they made is in fact in the opposite direction: they rated the Poss contexts higher than the +Poss contexts.

Figure 20: Ben DO (+Poss) vs. Ben DO (-Poss)

4

Mean Acceptance Rates

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Ben (+Poss) Ben (-Poss)

Begin

Low inter

High inter

Control

The low intermediates made a distinction in the predicted direction but the difference between the two contexts is minimal. Moreover, their mean ratings for both contexts were below 2.5. This suggests that the low intermediates tended to reject both contexts to a similar degree. On the other hand, the high intermediates were beginning to accept ben DOs with +Poss, whose mean rating was close to 3,

229

and made the relevant distinction between the Poss contexts. The mean difference between the two was substantial. Table 29 summarizes the results of paired sample t-tests, comparing the mean acceptance ratings for ben DOs in the Poss contexts at each proficiency level. The results show that among the three proficiency levels, only the high intermediates showed a statistically significant difference in responses to the two contexts. As predicted, the mean difference between the two contexts reached significance for the control group.

Table 29. Paired sample t-tests: differences in mean acceptance rates for ben DOs (+Poss) vs. ben DOs (-Poss) Group ben DOs (+Poss) vs. ben DOs (-Poss) ( p < .05)a Beginners p = .205 Low intermediates p = .111 High intermediates p = .032 Control p < .0001
a

: significantly higher acceptance rate of ben DOs (+Poss) than of ben DOs (-Poss)

Bringing the results of Figure 19 and Figure 20 together, we can make the following conclusions. First, it seems that the learners sensitivity to the possessor constraint emerges earlier with goal DOs than with the ben DOs. The data from the low intermediates were crucial in drawing this conclusion. They showed a sharper distinction between the Poss contexts for goal DOs than for ben DOs and the mean difference between the two contexts in the case of goal DOs reached marginal significance. 230

Second, sensitivity to the Poss distinction increases as proficiency increases. The beginners did not show sensitivity to the Poss distinction for either goal DOs or ben DOs. The low intermediates showed an emerging sensitivity to the Poss distinction and the mean difference between the Poss contexts reached marginal significance for goal DOs. The high intermediates clearly showed sensitivity to the Poss distinction for both goal and ben DOs. They were able to distinguish the +Poss contexts from the Poss contexts and rated the former higher than the latter. This mean difference between the two reached significance for both goal and ben DOs. The relevant data are summarized in Table 30. Table 30. Paired sample t-tests: differences in mean acceptance rates for DOs (+Poss) vs. DOs (-Poss) Group Goal DOs Ben DOs ( Poss distinction) ( Poss distinction) Beginners p = .133 p = .205 Low intermediates p = .088 p = .111 High intermediates p = .002 p = .032 Control p < .0001 p < .0001 Lastly, with respect to the +Poss contexts, the subjects performed better with goal DOs than with ben DOs. This trend was evident at the beginner and low intermediate levels. The mean difference of the +Poss contexts of goal DOs and the +Poss contexts of ben DOs was significant for the beginners (p =.024) and marginally significant for the low intermediates (p =.077).

231

5.1.2

Individual analysis by verb The group analysis clearly shows that as proficiency increases, subjects

develop a sensitivity to the Poss distinction (viz. the possessor constraint) and that this distinction emerges earlier with goal DOs than with ben DOs. Next, we have to ensure that the pattern observed at the group level also holds at the individual level. To this end, I will perform both an individual verb and an individual subject analysis. For the individual verb analysis, I checked the mean acceptance rate for the + Poss context and the mean acceptance rate for the Poss context of each test verb. In this way, I am able to check internal consistency among the mean acceptance ratings of the +Poss contexts and those of the Poss contexts for each DO type. Figure 21 shows the individual analysis of the three goal verbs in the Poss contexts for each proficiency level. Not surprisingly, the native English speakers made the relevant distinction between the +Poss and the Poss context for all three verbs along expected lines, rating the + Poss context substantially higher than the corresponding Poss context. The distinction was the most clear in the case of contexts with take.

232

Figure 21: Individual analysis by goal verb (+/-Poss distinction)

4

Mean Acceptance Rates

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1

Send (+Poss) Send (-Poss) Bring (+Poss) Bring (-Poss) Take (+Poss) Take (-Poss)

Begin

Low inter

High inter

Control

First, note that the L2 learners at all proficiency levels were less successful with contexts that had take. Only the high intermediates managed to make the relevant distinction with take, but the difference was minimal.70 Second, subjects at all levels of proficiency made some distinction with the Poss contexts with send and bring. This distinction was clearest with the high intermediates.71

70

All beginner learners rejected the + Poss context with take entirely: the mean acceptance rating for that context was 1. 71 Notice that in the case of beginners, the mean acceptance rates of the +Poss contexts with send and bring were below 3 but above 2.5 (note that in the case of low and high intermediates, the mean acceptance rates of the + Poss context were at least 3). Given that 2.5 can be considered as the point at which subjects performance moves from rejection to acceptance, it can be inferred that the beginners were beginning to accept goal DOs and furthermore, that some of them started making the Poss distinction with goal DOs.

233

The individual analysis of the three ben verbs in the Poss contexts is presented in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Individual analysis by ben verb (+/-Poss distinction)

4

Mean Acceptance Rates

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1

Find (+Poss) Find (-Poss) Pour (+Poss) Pour (-Poss) Make (+Poss) Make (-Poss)

Begin

Low inter

High inter

Control

Figure 22 is in stark contrast with Figure 21. Most notably, mean acceptance rates for the +Poss contexts for ben verbs were much lower than those for the + Poss contexts for goal verbs. At the beginner and low intermediate levels, the mean acceptance rates for all contexts with ben verbs were below 2.5. In contrast, the mean acceptance rates for contexts with goal verbs were above 2.5. The asymmetric treatment of goal DOs and ben DOs attested in experiment 1 was replicated in experiment 2. Moreover, subjects at the beginner and low intermediate levels largely failed to make the relevant distinction between the Poss contexts of each ben verb. To the

234

extent that some distinction was made between the two contexts, the difference was minimal. It is noteworthy that the L2 learners at all proficiency levels were least successful with contexts involving pour (Gary poured Wendy a cup of coffee (+Poss) vs. Esther poured Mark some cement (-Poss)). Even the high intermediates failed to make the relevant distinction. In contrast, the controls made the clearest distinction on contexts with pour. The high intermediates differentiated the +Poss context from the Poss context with find and make, revealing their awareness of the Poss distinction on ben DOs. Furthermore, the high intermediates were aware that ben DOs are acceptable. The mean acceptance rates for the + Poss contexts with find and make were above 3.

5.1.3

Individual analysis by subject Next, I review the results of the individual analysis by subject. For the

individual subject analysis, I assigned one point to subjects who made the right distinction for a given verb (3 or 4 for the + Poss context as well as 1 or 2 for the Poss context). Any individual subject can have a maximum score of 3 points. I then calculated the percentages of subjects at a given proficiency level who had a score of 0, 1, 2, and 3 points. All figures in this subsection display percentages, not raw numbers. The rationale behind using percentages rather than raw numbers is that raw numbers can be misleading, particularly since there are different numbers of subjects 235

at different proficiency levels. The results are summarized in Table 31. The results are presented graphically in Figure 23 for goal DOs and in Figure 24 for ben DOs. The most notable pattern across all levels of proficiency is that the number of distinctions made for goal DOs was higher than the number of distinctions made for ben DOs. Another interesting pattern to note is that we can see a clear effect of proficiency. With respect to ben DOs, 25% of the beginners, 33% of the low intermediates, and 50.3% of the high intermediates made a distinction with one or two verbs. With respect to goal DOs, 58% of the beginners, 67% of the low intermediates, and 75% of the high intermediates made a distinction with one or two verbs. Moreover, to the extent that we get subjects who made a distinction with two verbs, it was mostly the high intermediate learners.72 It should also be noted that not a single L2 learner made the relevant distinction for all three contexts for either goal or ben DOs. As predicted, some of the controls successfully made the relevant distinction for all three verbs. A relatively small number of controls belonged to the 0 or 1 distinction category.

72

Furthermore, as proficiency increases, the number of subjects who did not make any distinction (i.e., the 0 distinction category) decreases, this pattern held for both goal and ben DOs.

236

Table 31. Percentages of subjects making the relevant distinction with the Poss contexts Number of Beginners Low inter. High inter. Control distinction made (n =12) (n = 9) (n =12) (n =12) (out of 3) 0 distinction (ben) 75% (9/12) 66% (6/9) 50% (6/12) 8.3% (1/12) 1 distinction (ben) 25% (3/12) 22% (2/9) 42% (5/12) 42% (5/12) 2 distinctions (ben) 0% (0/12) 11% (1/9) 8.3% (1/12) 17% (2/12) 3 distinctions (ben) 0% (0/12) 0% (0/9) 0% (0/12) 33% (4/12) 0 distinction (goal) 42% (5/12) 33% (3/9) 25% (3/12) 8.3% (1/12) 1 distinction (goal) 33% (4/12) 56% (5/9) 25% (3/12) 25% (3/12) 2 distinctions (goal) 25% (3/12) 11% (1/9) 50% (6/12) 25% (3/12) 3 distinctions (goal) 0% (0/12) 0% (0/9) 0% (0/12) 42% (5/12)

Figure 23: Individual analysis by subject (number of +/- Poss distinction made-goal DOs)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Percentages

0 distin (goal) 1 distin (goal) 2 distin (goal) 3 distin (goal)

Begin

Low inter

High inter

Control

237

Figure 24: Individual analysis by subject (number of +/- Poss distinction made-ben DOs)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Percentages

0 distin (ben) 1 distin (ben) 2 distin (ben) 3 distin (ben)

Begin

Low inter

High inter

Control

5.2 5.2.1

Testing the animacy constraint: the Animate goal distinction Group analysis I report subject performance with respect to the +Animate vs. -Animate goal

distinction. In order to test subjects knowledge of this distinction, I perform a twoway comparison. First, animate DO forms are compared with inanimate DO forms. Second, inanimate DO forms are compared with inanimate PP forms. For the sake of convenience, the table presenting the Animate goal distinction is repeated below.

Table 32. Contexts testing learners knowledge of the animacy constraint Context DO form PP form + Animate Harry sent Jane a letter. Harry sent a letter to Jane. goal Lawrence mailed Irene a Lawrence mailed a letter to Irene. letter. -Animate John sent Chicago an John sent an envelope to Chicago. goal Tim mailed a box to Paris. envelope. Tim mailed Paris a box. 238

The group results of the comparison between animate and inanimate goal DOs are presented in Figure 25. The results of paired sample t tests are summarized in Table 33. The beginners failed to make the relevant distinction between the animate and inanimate goal DOs and moreover, the distinction that they made was in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the low and high intermediates made the relevant distinction and the mean difference between the two reached significance. This suggests that the low intermediates, along with the high intermediates, have already developed sensitivity to the animacy constraint. This, in turn, indicates that they are beginning to become aware that inanimate goals, which cannot function as potential possessors, cannot appear in DOs. This awareness further implies that the low intermediates are also developing their sensitivity to the possessor constraint.

Figure 25. Animate goals vs. *Inanimate goals

4.5

Mean Acceptance Rates

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Animate goal Inanimate goal

Begin

Low inter

High inter Control

239

Table 33. Paired sample t-tests: differences in mean acceptance rates for animate goal DOs vs. inanimate goal DOs Group Animate goal DOs vs. *Inanimate goal DOs ( p < .05)a Beginners p = .634 Low intermediates p = .013 High intermediates p < .0001 Control p < .0001
a

: significantly higher acceptance rate of animate goals than of inanimate goals

The group results of the comparison between inanimate goal DOs and inanimate goal PPs are presented in Figure 26. The results of paired sample t-tests are given in Table 34. The results show that the low intermediates patterned with the high intermediates and controls, making a distinction between the inanimate goal DOs and inanimate goal PPs. Furthermore, this difference was statistically significant for these three groups. In this regard, the low and high intermediates patterned together with the control. On the other hand, the beginners failed to make a distinction between the two categories. This result suggests that unlike the beginners, subjects at the low and high intermediate level were beginning to aware of the restriction (i.e., the form-to-meaning mapping) imposed on English DOs. Namely, inanimate goals, which are allowed in PP forms, are not allowed in DO forms. Their emerging native-like awareness suggests that sensitivity to the possessor constraint is developing (in the case of the low intermediates) or already in place (in the case of the high intermediates).

240

Figure 26. *Inanimate goal DO vs. Inanimate goal PP

4.5

Mean Acceptance Rates

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Inanimate goal DO Inanimate goal PP

Begin

Low inter High inter Control

Table 34. Paired sample t-tests: differences in mean acceptance rates for *Inanimate goal DOs vs. Inanimate goal PPs Group *Inanimate goal DOs vs. Inanimate goal PPs ( p < .05)a Beginners p = .685 Low intermediates p < .0001 High intermediates p < .0001 Control p < .0001
a

: significantly higher acceptance rate of inanimate goal PPs than of inanimate goal DOs

5.2.2

Individual analysis73 For the individual verb analysis, like the group analysis with respect to the

Animate goal distinction, I perform a two-way comparison. First, I compare the

73

Given that only two pairs of test items were elicited, even small variation among subjects judgments can influence the results. This is particularly true in the case of individual analysis by subject. Considering this potential problem, for the categories tested with two test verbs, I confine myself to an individual analysis by verb. Unlike an individual analysis by subject, an individual analysis by verb checks the mean ratings for a given verb and therefore, the problem pointed out for the individual analysis by subject does not hold.

241

mean acceptance rate of animate DOs with that of inanimate DOs for each verb. Second, I compare the mean acceptance rate of inanimate DOs with that of inanimate PP forms for each verb. The individual analysis by verb with respect to inanimate vs. animate goal DOs is shown in Figure 27. The high intermediates are in line with the controls. Both groups made a clear distinction between inanimate and animate goal DOs along the right dimension. They rated the latter much higher than the former. The low intermediates also made the relevant distinction. They also rated the animate goal DOs higher than the inanimate goal DOs. This pattern was particularly clear with send. The beginners largely failed to make the right distinction. If anything, beginners generally rejected DO forms across the board, evidenced by the low mean acceptance rates. The individual verb analysis reinforces the group analysis. At both the group and the individual levels, only the low and high intermediates made the right distinction. On the other hand, the beginners failed to make the relevant distinction. If any, the difference between the two categories was minimal.
Figure 27: Individual analysis (*Inanimate goals vs. Animate goals)
Mean Acceptance Rates
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Mail Irene a letter *Mail Paris a box *Send Chicago an envelope Send Jane a letter

Begin

Low inter

High inter Control

242

The individual analysis by verb with respect to the inanimate DO vs. inanimate PP distinction is presented in Figure 28. Low and high intermediates made the right distinction with send and mail. They rated the inanimate PPs much higher than the inanimate DOs, revealing their native-like sensitivity to the animacy constraint (and also likely to the possessor constraint). It is suggested that this sensitivity leads them to a strong rejection of the inanimate DOs. Interestingly, the beginners showed mixed behavior. They managed to make the right distinction with mail. However, they did not make any notable distinction with send. They accepted the inanimate DO and inanimate PP with send to the same degree. This indicates that the beginners are beginning to develop some sensitivity to the distinction. Nevertheless, this sensitivity has not been fully established and as such, there is room for variation among the test items.

Figure 28: Individual analysis (*Inanimate goal DOs vs. Inanimate goal PPs)
Mean Acceptance Rates
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Mail a box to Paris *Send Chicago an envelope Send an envelope to Chicago *Mail Paris a box

Begin

Low inter

High inter Control

243

5.3 5.3.1

Testing the physical transfer constraint: the Physical transfer distinction Group analysis I report subject performance with respect to the Physical transfer distinction.

In order to test subjects knowledge of this distinction, I perform a two-way comparison. First, the PP forms in the +Physical transfer contexts are compared with the PP forms in the Physical transfer contexts. Second, the DO forms in the Physical transfer contexts are compared with the PP forms in the Physical transfer contexts. For the sake of convenience, the table presenting the Physical transfer contexts is repeated below. The group results of the comparison between goal PPs in the Physical transfer contexts are presented in Figure 29. The results of paired sample t-tests are summarized in Table 35. Table 35. Contexts testing learners knowledge of the physical transfer constraint Context DO form PP form +Physical Hannah gave Eddie some Hannah gave some medicine to transfer medicine. Eddie. Irene gave William a cat. Irene gave a cat to William. -Physical Jerry gave Margaret a Jerry gave a headache to transfer headache. Margaret. The book gave Patty an idea. The book gave an idea to Patty.

244

Figure 29. +Physical transfer PPs vs. *-Physical transfer PPs

(give a cat to someone vs. *give an idea to someone )

Mean Acceptance Rates

5 4 3 2 1 +Physical PP -Physical PP

Begin

Low inter

High inter

Control

Table 36. Paired sample t-tests: differences in mean acceptance rates for +Physical transfer PPs vs. *Physical transfer PPs Group +Physical transfer PPs vs. *Physical transfer PPs ( p < .05)a Beginners p = .076 Low intermediates p = .169 High intermediates p = .008 Control p < .0001
a

: significantly higher acceptance rate of +Physical transfer PPs than of -Physical transfer PPs

The high intermediates made the distinction between the +Physical transfer PPs and Physical transfer PPs to some extent and this distinction reached significance. In this respect, the high intermediates patterned with controls. Like the controls, the high intermediate learners showed some awareness that the abstract transfer cannot be encoded in the PP form. It should be noted that the mean acceptance rates for the Physical transfer PPs of the high intermediates and of controls are different. In the case of the high intermediates, the mean rating of the

245

Physical transfer PPs is above 3 while in the case of the controls, the mean rating of the -Physical transfer PPs is below 2. This difference suggests that the high intermediates performance was not perfectly comparable to the controls performance. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that these advanced learners are beginning to develop sensitivity to the subtle semantic distinction between the PP forms in the Physical transfer contexts. Interestingly, the beginners performed better than the low intermediates with respect to the +Physical transfer vs. Physical transfer distinction. The distinction between the two was marginally significant. The group results of the comparison between goal DOs and goal PPs in the Physical transfer contexts are shown in Figure 30. The results of paired samples ttests are given in Table 37.

Figure 30. -Physical transfer DOs vs. *-Physical transfer PPs

(give someone an idea vs. *give an idea to someone )

4.5

Mean Acceptance Rates

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 -Physical DO -Physical PP

Begin

Low inter

High inter Control

246

Table 37. Paired sample t-tests: differences in mean acceptance rates for Physical transfer DOs vs. *Physical transfer PPs Group Physical transfer DOs vs. *Physical transfer PPs ( p < .05)a Beginners p = .136 Low intermediates p = 1.00 High intermediates p = .016 Control p < .0001
a

: significantly higher acceptance rate of Physical transfer DOs than of Physical transfer PPs

The Korean speakers at the three proficiency levels behaved differently with respect to the distinction between the Physical transfer DO vs. Physical transfer PPs. The high intermediates made the distinction, patterning with the controls. This result, in conjunction with the result given in Figure 29, shows that the high intermediates are beginning to be aware that the abstract transfer is encoded only in the DO form, not in the PP form. Again, the high intermediates are in line with the controls in this regard. The beginners made the distinction in the opposite direction: they rated the Physical transfer PPs higher than the DO counterparts, clearly showing their preference of the PP to DO form, as usual. The low intermediates failed to make a relevant distinction: the mean acceptance rates of both forms are the same.74

5.3.2

Individual analysis As with the group analysis, for the individual verb analysis, I perform a two-

way comparison. First, I compare the mean acceptance rate of the Physical transfer
74

The low intermediates behaviors are not uniform. Some patterned like the high intermediates, successfully making the distinction. Some patterned like the beginners, making a distinction in the opposite direction, and some failed to make a distinction.

247

PP with that of the +Physical transfer PP for each verb. Second, I compare the mean acceptance rate of the Physical transfer DO with that of the Physical transfer PP form for each verb. This two-way comparison allows us to double-check the learners knowledge of the form-to-meaning mapping that the abstract transfer is encoded only in the DO form, not in the PP form. If the learner is developing sensitivity to this target form-to-meaning mapping, s/he is predicted to treat the Physical transfer PPs differently from both the Physical transfer DOs and the +Physical transfer PPs. The individual analysis by verb with respect to Physical transfer PPs vs. +Physical transfer PPs is shown in Figure 31. The pattern attested at the group level is also attested at the individual level. In the case of the beginners, the individual verb analysis provides more fine-grained information. As mentioned earlier, as for the distinction between +Physical transfer PPs and Physical transfer PPs, the beginners outperformed the low intermediates, rating the Physical transfer PPs relatively lower than the low intermediates, which was in the right direction. Figure 31 reveals that the beginners relatively low acceptance rate of one item *The book gave an idea to Patty, as opposed to its +Physical transfer PP counterpart, gave rise to the result. For the other pair the rating went in the opposite direction: this time they incorrectly rated the Physical transfer PPs higher than the +Physical transfer PPs. This fluctuation in their judgment suggests that the knowledge of the distinction is not in place yet. In this respect, the high intermediates are in contrast with the beginners. There is not much variation in the high intermediates performance: they 248

consistently rated the Physical transfer PPs lower than the +Physical transfer PPs, implying that knowledge of the distinction is in place. As for the low intermediates, they rarely made any distinction: if any, the difference between the two is minimal.

Figure 31: Individual analysis

(*-Physical tranfer PPs vs. +Physical transfer PPs)
Mean Acceptance Rates
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 *give a headache togive some medicine to*give an idea togive a cat to-

Begin

Low inter

High inter Control

The individual analysis by verb with respect to Physical transfer DOs vs. Physical transfer PPs is given in Figure 32. The results in Figure 32 lend further support to the claims proposed based on Figure 31. Only the high intermediates made the relevant distinction, rating the Physical transfer PPs lower than Physical transfer DOs. Their judgment was consistent. In this respect, the high intermediates are native-like, patterning with the controls. Note though that there is some difference in mean ratings of the Physical transfer PPs of the two groups. As for the beginners, the results show that they preferred PPs to DOs and that they are unaware of the distinction. The low intermediates failed to make a distinction: the mean 249

ratings of the two are exactly the same. The low intermediates patterned together with the beginners in this regard. Nonetheless, there is one notable difference between the two groups. The low intermediates were more willing to accept the DO forms than the beginners: the mean ratings of the Physical transfer DOs with the low intermediates were higher than those with the beginners.

Figure 32: Individual analysis

(-Physical transfer DOs vs. *-Physical transfer PPs)
Mean Acceptance Rates
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 *Give an idea toGive someone an idea Give someone a headache *Give a headache to-

Begin

Low inter

High inter Control

5.4

Sequence of acquisition: evidence from group results Subjects performance on the four categories tested in experiment 2 is

summarized in Table 38. Statistically significant (S) and marginally significant (MS) results are shaded. The results of the controls are included for comparison as well.

250

Table 38. Summary of subjects performance on the four tested categories Tested categories Begin. Low inter. High inter. Control X MS S S Possessor constraint ( p = .088) ( p = .002) ( p < .0001) Goal ( Poss) X X S S Possessor constraint ( p = .032) ( p < .0001) Ben ( Poss) X S S S Animacy constraint Animate goal
(Inanimate DO vs. PPs) (Animate vs. Inanimate DOs)

Physical transfer constraint Physical transfer

(-Physical transfer DOs vs. PPs) (+Physical vs. Physical transfer PPs)

(p <.0001) (p = .013) X

(p < .0001) (p < .0001) S (p = .016) (p < .008)

(p < .0001) (p < .0001) S (p < .0001) (p < .0001)

The findings of the study clearly support the hypotheses in (16), which are repeated below.

19.

a.

If the learner has acquired the animacy constraint on the goal DO form, the learner begins to show sensitivity to the possessor constraint on the goal DO form (i.e., animacy before possession).

b.

If the learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on ben DOs, the learner necessarily shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on goal DOs (i.e., the possessor constraint on goal DOs is acquired before the corresponding constraint on ben DOs: goal before ben)

251

c.

If the learner has acquired the possessor constraint on the goal DO form and the physical transfer constraint on the goal PP form, the learner shows sensitivity to the possessor constraint on ben DO form.

The results support the hypothesis in (19a) although it is not the most direct evidence. The low intermediates performance is particularly relevant to this hypothesis. The low intermediates, who made the relevant distinction with regard to the animacy constraint, were also sensitive to the Poss distinction with goals. In contrast, the distinction that the low intermediates made for benefactives was minimal. The high intermediates, who showed sensitivity to the animacy constraint, also showed sensitivity to the Poss distinction with both types of DOs. The beginners, who did not show sensitivity to the animacy constraint, didnt show sensitivity to the Poss distinction with either type of DOs. These results suggest that as predicted, there is some correlation between awareness of the animacy constraint and awareness of the possessor constraint: a group which shows sensitivity to one shows sensitivity to the other. The findings are examined in terms of predicted learner patterns. The results are given in Table39. All possible patterns are largely attested. The beginners and the high intermediates are predicted learner patterns (1) and (2), respectively. The results of the low intermediates can be interpreted as either possible learner pattern (2) or (3), depending on which p-value is taken as the cut-off: if p < .05 is taken as the cutoff, this group comes to exemplify learner pattern (3). Crucially, the impossible 252

pattern was unattested. The low intermediates performance is suggestive: this group yielded significant results for the animacy constraint and marginally significant results for the possessor constraint, which suggests that animacy may be acquired before possession. Nonetheless, it cannot serve as conclusive evidence in resolving the ordering of the animacy vs. possessor constraints. Table 39. Subjects performances with respect to hypothesis in (19a) Learner patterns Predicted learning patterns Attested/ unattested Sensitivity Sensitivity to the animacy to the possessor constraint constraint
Possible pattern 1 Possible pattern 2 Possible pattern 3 Impossible pattern 1 X X X X Attested (beginner) Attested (high inter / ?low inter.) Attested (?low inter.) unattested

: the learners show sensitivity to the distinction X: the learners do not show sensitivity to the distinction

Supporting evidence for the hypothesis in (19b) is gleaned from the low intermediates as well as beginners performance. The low intermediates were sensitive to the Poss distinction only with goals. The group and individual analyses of the Poss distinction with benefactives for the low intermediates clearly showed that if any, the distinction made by this group is minimal (see Figures 20 and 22). The beginners failed to make a significant distinction with respect to the Poss distinction with either of the DO types. Nevertheless, it is not the case that this group treated the Poss distinction with both types of DOs the same (see the contrast 253

between Figures 19 & 20 for group analysis and the one between Figures 21 & 22 for individual analysis). In fact, although the result didnt reach significance, the beginners did make a distinction for the Poss contexts with goals. In contrast, the beginners didnt make any distinction with benefactives. This disparity between goals and benefactives is clearly in line with the hypothesis in (19b). Let us examine the findings against the possible and impossible learner patterns which are listed in Table 40. Possible patterns were attested and impossible patterns were not attested. More specifically, the beginners, the low intermediates, and the high intermediates attested possible learner pattern (1), (2) and (3), respectively.

Table 40. Subjects performances with respect to hypothesis in (19b) Learner patterns Predicted learning patterns Attested/ unattested Sensitivity Sensitivity to the to the possessor possessor constraint constraint with benefactives with goals Possible P 1 X X Attested (beginner) Possible P 2 X Attested (low inter.) Possible P 3 Attested (high inter) Impossible P 1 X unattested The hypothesis in (19c) is also clearly supported. In particular, the high intermediates performance provides strong supporting evidence for this hypothesis. The high intermediates, who showed sensitivity to both the animacy constraint and 254

the Physical transfer distinction, are in fact the ones that showed sensitivity to the possessor constraint with benefactives. This result suggests that this group (and only this group) has, to a large extent, overcome the effects of negative transfer, restructuring the form-to-meaning mapping for ben DOs. The beginners, who did not show sensitivity to either of the animacy constraint or the Physical transfer distinction also did not show sensitivity to the possessor constraint with ben DOs, which is in line with the hypothesis. The low intermediates, who showed sensitivity only to the animacy constraint, failed to make the relevant distinction between the +Poss context and the Poss context with benefactives, which is a predicted pattern as well. For the high intermediates, who made the right distinction between the Poss contexts with benefactives, it is worth noting that the mean ratings of the + Poss contexts with benefactives were above 3. This indicates that the high intermediates are indeed aware of the grammatical status of ben DOs in +Poss contexts. This, in turn, suggests that the acquisition of ben DOs is not permanently impaired but simply delayed. In other words, learners are able to acquire the target form-tomeaning mappings, even when the target mappings cannot be transferred from the L1 and cannot be directly deduced from L2 positive input alone. This implies that L2 learners can have access to UG: they are indeed capable of overcoming the poverty of the stimulus problem.

255

To summarize, the results of experiment 2 strongly supported the hypotheses. A close examination of the (im)possible learner patterns further reinforces the conclusions made based on the group and individual analyses.

5.5

Further evidence from individual subject analysis In order to provide additional evidence in favor of my account, in this section

I perform an individual subject analysis. In doing so, the discussion is inevitably restricted to the individual subject analysis of the hypothesis in (19b) (comparison between the acquisition of the possessor constraint on goal DOs with that of the corresponding constraint on ben DOs) due to the following reason. In order to run an individual subject analysis, we need an equal number of test items for compared categories for each subject. That condition is not met in performing an individual subject analysis for the hypothesis in (19a): there were 2 pairs of items testing animacy and 3 pairs of items testing the Poss distinction with goals. In order to run an individual analysis by subject, I examine the possible and impossible learner patterns of the hypothesis in (19b) for each proficiency level, and calculate for each learner pattern how many subjects at the given level belong to it. Then, the raw numbers are turned into percentages because, given the different numbers of subjects at different proficiency levels, the raw numbers can be misleading. In deciding on a subjects sensitivity to the constraint being tested, the following methodology was adopted. For a given test verb, if a subject gives a 256

response of 3 or 4 for a context satisfying the constraint and 1 or 2 for a corresponding context violating the constraint, I consider this subject to be sensitive to the constraint being tested. I didnt differentiate subjects who made the relevant distinction with all three test verbs for each DO type from the ones who made the distinction with one or two test verbs. They are all considered to show sensitivity. The individual subject analysis for the hypothesis in (19b) is summarized in Table 41. For purposes of exposition, percentages of 30% and up are in bold. The vast majority of the subjects belonged to the possible patterns. In the case of beginners, most subjects (75%) at this lowest level were split between P1 and P2. Low intermediates are equally split among the three possible patterns: P1, P2, and P3. In both groups, more than 60% of the subjects belonged to P1 or to P2, which is consistent with their low level of English proficiency. As predicted, the high intermediate subjects were split between P2 and P3. This accounts for 75% of the subjects. Notably, almost 50% of the subjects attested P3, showing sensitivity to both constraints being tested. We can observe a clear effect of proficiency in this individual analysis. Cases belonging to IP1, which constitute counterevidence to the claim, take up only 17% of the beginners and 8.3% of the high intermediates. I do not think that the cases belonging to IP1 undermine the claim put forth in that the percentage is low, less than 20%. Given the discussion so far, I can reasonably say that with respect to the hypothesis in (19b), the individual analysis by subject is fully consistent with the group analysis. Moreover, given the very low percentage of subjects exhibiting IP1, I 257

further argue that the results from the individual subject analysis reinforce those of the group analysis.

Table 41. Individual subject analysis of hypothesis in (19b) Learner Predicted learning patterns Number and % of patterns subjects belonging to each pattern Sensitivity Sensitivity to the to the possessor possessor constraint constraint with benefactives with goals P1 X X Beginner 3/12 (25%) Low inter 3 /9 (33%) High inter 2/12 (17%) P2 X Beginner 6/12 (50%) Low inter 3/9 (33%) High inter 4/12 (33%) P3 Beginner 1/12 (8.3%) Low inter 3/9 (33%) High inter 5/12 (42%) IP1 X Beginner 2/12 (17%) Low inter 0/9 (0%) High inter 1/12 (8.3%)
P: possible learner pattern; IP: impossible learner pattern

Conclusion In this chapter, I have investigated the acquisition of form-to-meaning

mappings in adult L2 acquisition. The main concern of this chapter was to examine whether L2 learners acquire form-to-meaning mappings in the L2 when the target mappings cannot be transferred from the L1 and are not directly deducible from L2 positive input alone. The acquisition of the form-to-meaning mapping of English ben DOs by adult L1-Korean learners of English is such a case. In order to examine this 258

issue, a grammaticality judgment task with contexts was used. The findings of the experiment suggested that L2 learners are indeed able to reanalyze and restructure the form-to-meaning mapping for English ben DOs. Furthermore, there was an indication that awareness of the subtle semantics associated with the goal DO and PP forms played an important role in the process of recovering from the negative transfer effects of the L1. Along with these findings, a particular sequence of acquisition of the constraints pertaining to the English dative alternation was established. The results suggested that sensitivity to the animacy constraint emerges before sensitivity to the possessor constraint. Most importantly, the results showed that sensitivity to the possessor constraint on goal DOs emerges before sensitivity to the corresponding constraint on ben DOs. Additionally, this chapter has taken up the issue of how argument structure alternations in general are acquired. I have proposed that the acquisition of the argument structure alternation is comparable to the acquisition of a paradigm. Given this, I have advanced the claim for the involvement of the Avoid Synonymy Principle in the process of acquiring the argument structure alternation and for the role of indirect negative evidence in this process. In future investigations on the acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings, it would be important to investigate the issue of entailment between awareness of the animacy constraint and that of the possessor constraint. This chapter suggested that the acquisition of the latter entails acquisition of the former, but not necessarily the other way round. The results of experiment 2 were suggestive but not conclusive on 259

this point. Although I have suggested that the route to the acquisition of the possessor constraint lies through the acquisition of the animacy constraint, there might be other routes that learners make use of. They might acquire the possessor constraint directly through Poss contexts. If that is indeed a valid route, it is quite remarkable: as was pointed out earlier, this distinction is context-dependent and is hard to detect (in contrast with the animacy constraint, which is context-independent). Another issue that deserves further investigation in relation to the entailment issue between the animacy constraint and the possessor constraint is to provide an articulated account for how learners go from positing an animacy constraint to positing a possessor constraint that is independent of animacy. Finally, the relation between animacy and possession in L1-acquisition deserves further investigation; it would be necessary to test these two constraints with L1-learners separately. Then we would learn about the routes that L1-learners take in acquiring the possessor constraint. This would provide further insights into the extent to which first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition converge (or diverge) in this domain.

260

Chapter 6 Conclusion: models of L1-transfer

Introduction In this chapter, I present a brief summary of the findings and conclusions of

this dissertation. I then consider the issue of how to best model the mental process of transfer. It is suggested that a model based on competing grammars (cf. Roeper 2000, Yang 2002) is better equipped to model the gradual process of L2-acquisition than a parameter-triggering model (Chomsky 1965, Wexler & Culicover 1980, Berwick 1985, Hyams 1986, Dresher & Kaye 1990, Gibson & Wexler 1994) that postulates an intermediate grammar for the L2 interlanguage.

Summary In this thesis, I have investigated two issues in adult L2 acquisition: (1) L1

transfer and (2) the acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings. I have examined these two issues using grammaticality judgment data from adult L1-Korean learners of English. The following points have been made.

1.

L1 transfer a. b. Structural properties of the L1 undergo transfer in L2 acquisition. Structural comparability vs. incomparability between the L1 and the 261

L2 is a key factor in determining the relative success of L2 acquisition of the relevant construction; where there is structural comparability between the corresponding L1 and L2 structures, the acquisition of the L2 structure is facilitated. On the other hand, where there is a structural incomparability between the corresponding L1 and L2 structures, the acquisition of the L2 structure is delayed. c. The acquisition of English goal DOs by Korean speakers, where the L1 and L2 structures are comparable, comes earlier than the acquisition of English ben DOs by Korean speakers, where the L1 and L2 structures are different. This holds at both the group level and the individual level, providing evidence in favor of the structural transfer hypothesis.

2.

Acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings a. A number of (mostly advanced) L2 learners are capable of acquiring subtle semantic properties of the target language (specifically, the distinct semantic properties associated with the DO and PP forms). The most advanced L1-Korean learners of English have acquired the subtle semantic properties of the DO and PP forms, showing sensitivity to the constraints pertaining to these two forms. b. There is an indication that awareness of the subtle semantics associated with the DO and PP forms helps learners to overcome 262

negative transfer effects of Korean ben DOs on the acquisition of English ben DOs. This, in turn, suggests that (mostly advanced) L2 learners are indeed able to reanalyze and restructure the form-to meaning mapping for English ben DOs, which is not easily deducible from L2 positive input, and which cannot be acquired via L1 transfer. c. A particular sequence of acquisition of the constraints pertaining to the English dative alternation was established. Sensitivity to the animacy constraint emerges before sensitivity to the possessor constraint. This means that acquisition of the possessor constraint entails acquisition of the animacy constraint, but not necessarily the other way round. Most importantly, sensitivity to the possessor constraint on goal DOs emerges before sensitivity to the corresponding constraint on ben DOs.

Models of L1 transfer The results of the group analysis reported in section 4.1 of Chapter 4 have

revealed a clear tendency toward asymmetric treatment of goal and ben DOs. Nevertheless, when we look at the individual analyses by verb and subject, presented in section 4.3 of Chapter 4, we see that there exists some variation. Despite a general tendency to reject ben DOs, not all DO forms with benefactive verbs were rejected to the same degree (this was especially true for licit verbs).

263

Where does this disparity come from? How can we best model both the general trend and the individual variation? How can such variation be interpreted in a principled way? In an attempt to answer these questions, I consider two models: a UG-based transformational approach (also known as the transformational learning model) and a UG-based competing grammar model. I suggest that the latter is better equipped than the former to model the gradual process and individual variation of L2-acquisition, as well as interaction between the L1 and L2 grammars.

3.1

The UG-based transformational learning model The UG-based transformational model, also known as the transformational

learning model, assumes a richly endowed initial state, which consists of a delimited hypotheses space as defined by UG (e.g., Chomsky 1965, Wexler & Culicover 1980, Berwick 1985, Hyams 1986, Dresher & Kaye 1990, Gibson & Wexler 1994). In this UG-based transformational model, the learners linguistic hypothesis undergoes direct changes (or transformations), by moving from one hypothesis to another, driven by linguistic evidence. When the learner is unable to analyze the incoming sentence with the present set of rules, a new hypothesis is formed, replacing the old one. The Principles and Parameters (P&P) approach (Chomsky 1981) provides an instantiation of the UG-based transformational model. In this approach, language acquisition is viewed as a process of acquiring the target parameter settings. The triggering model (Chomsky 1981, Gibson & Wexler 1994) is an influential 264

implementation of the parameter setting approach. In this model, the learner changes the value of a parameter in his or her current grammar when presented with a sentence which cannot be analyzed by that grammar; the parameter is literally triggered. Therefore, the old hypothesis is replaced by a new hypothesis. Crucially, this replacement is made in an all-or-nothing manner. Consequentially, in the triggering model (and in fact, in all transformational models), the learner entertains a single grammar at any one given time. The restrictive nature of this transformational model is supported by (1) the restrictiveness attested in child L1 acquisition (i.e., a child learners restricted hypothesis space) and (2) the cross-linguistic similarities in world languages. However, the transformational model also suffers from the following problems. First, variability and ambiguity in positive linguistic evidence are issues with respect to the transformational model in that although rare, they can lead the learner to wrongly alter his/her current hypothesis (Yang 2002:19). Second, the transformational model, which assumes a single grammar for the learner at any one time, makes the following predictions (Yang 2002: 20):

3.

a.

The learners linguistic production should be consistent with respect to the grammar that is currently assumed.

b.

As the learner moves from grammar to grammar, abrupt changes in linguistic expressions should be observed.

265

However, there is no evidence of a radical change in the childs grammar (cf. Valian 1990, 1991, Bloom 1990, 1993). On the contrary, a gradual course of language development has been observed in the childs grammar. This fact suggests that the child learner at any given time cannot be identified with any single grammar. While the transformational model successfully models how UG constrains the learners hypothesis space, it falls short of explaining the gradualness of language development.

3.2

The UG-Based competing grammar model (cf. Yang 2002) Among the UG-based competing grammar, in this section, I review Yangs

(2002) variational model. For purposes of presentation and consistency, I simply refer to his model as the competing grammar model. Building on ideas from Kroch on language change (Kroch 1989), Yang (2002) proposes a competing grammar model of L1 acquisition. In this model, language acquisition is viewed as grammar competition, where the competing grammars are constrained by UG. The competing grammar model adds a statistical learning component to the UG component; statistical learning was initially proposed under the generalized statistical learning (GSL) approach (cf. Bates & Elman 1996, Seidenberg 1997).75 Under Yangs competing grammar approach, an innately
75

Yang takes the statistical mechanism but crucially, he disagrees about innateness. In the GSL approach, the learners innate (UG-based) knowledge of language is not assumed. It is assumed that generalized statistical learning is applied to all cognitive domains. In this approach, language learning is viewed as the approximation of the terminal state of the grammar based on the statistical distribution of the input data (see Yang 2002 for a detailed review).

266

endowed UG constrains the learners hypothesis space and statistical learning provides the mechanism to model the gradualness and non-uniformity of language development. Yang argues that language acquisition should be viewed as a change in the distribution of grammars. Therefore, at any one point in time, the learner can entertain multiple competing grammars, where each grammar Gi in the learners language faculty is associated with a weight Pi. Language acquisition in this model is thus viewed as grammar competition. The Pi.of Gi is determined by Gis level of success in analyzing incoming sentences in the course of acquisition. The weight of a grammar that succeeds in analyzing an incoming sentence increases. On the other hand, the weight of a grammar that fails in analyzing an incoming sentence decreases. At any time, the total weight of two (or more) competing grammars is 1: P1 (of G1) + P2 (of G2) =1. Although initially, the two grammars have the same weights, as learning proceeds, the grammar that succeeds in analyzing the input is represented more dominantly in the learners language faculty. When the learning stops, the grammar which is the most compatible with the input data survives and the other competing grammars have been eliminated.76 It is worth noting that in this model, input factors such as frequency play a crucial role: changes to the weight of a given grammar are driven by an analysis of the input presented to the learner.
It is not the case that when learning stops, the learner only has access to a single grammar. Sometimes, the weights of two (or more) grammars reach a stable equilibrium when learning stops. In such a case, the learner has access to more than one grammar by the end of learning process and thus, variability in related linguistic data is expected.
76

267

This competition metaphor captures (1) the grammars coexistence and (2) their differential representation in the learners language faculty (Yang 2002: 28).77 In the competing grammar model, the variability observed in linguistic expressions can be easily captured. This variability can be interpreted as a probabilistic combination of multiple grammars. Errors in child language, for example, overgeneralization errors, are considered to be reflections of competing hypotheses. The competing grammar approach has also been proposed in earlier literature (cf. Clark 1992, Valian 1990, Weinberg 1990, Bloom 1993). Among them, Roeper (2000) in particular deserves attention. Roeper (2000) also argued for a competing grammar model in the context of child L1 acquisition. However, unlike Yang, Roeper suggests that the most optimal grammar is defined in terms of grammar internal considerations.78

3.3

The application of the competing grammar model to L2 acquisition I argue that the competing grammar model is better equipped to account for

L2 acquisition than the transformational model because in L2 acquisition, a general trend and individual variation coexist, and language development is gradual rather than abrupt.
77

Yang highlights the passiveness of the learner in the learning process. Unlike in the UG-based transformational model, the learner in his approach is assumed not to make any active changes to the selected grammar or reorganize his/her grammar space. Rather, the learners role is restricted to simply updating the weight of the selected grammar(s). 78 In Roepers model, the most optimal grammar is defined based on principles of economy in the sense of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995). In his model, a grammar with less complexity is a preferred as the more optimal one.

268

As mentioned earlier, in the competing grammar model, frequency in the input plays an important role in language development. Therefore, in order to propose a specific L2 model within the grammar competition approach, we need a detailed account of the L2 input. Unfortunately, such data are not readily available. In fact, it is virtually impossible to get precise information on frequency in L2 input. Unlike L1 acquisition, where input mainly comes from the naturalistic environment, in L2 acquisition, along with input from the naturalistic environment, there is also the more controlled and circumscribed input of classroom instruction. Given the lack of precise information on frequency in L2 input, I confine myself to suggesting how the competing grammar model can be implemented in the context of L2 acquisition. First, I propose the following:

4.

There are two competing grammars in L2 learners interlanguage: the target L2 grammar and the transferred L1 grammar.

Next, I propose that there is one important difference between L1 acquisition and L2 acquisition with respect to the initial state. As was stated earlier, in the case of L1 acquisition, competing grammars have comparable weights at the outset of acquisition. However, in the case of L2 acquisition, the two competing grammars do not have equal weights at the outset. This difference is directly tied to a fundamental difference between the two types of acquisition. Unlike L1 acquisition, L2 learners bring complete knowledge of their L1 grammar to the L2 acquisition task. Therefore, 269

it is reasonable to assume that at the outset of L2 acquisition, the L1 grammar is prominently represented in the learners language faculty. The competition between the L1 and L2 grammars is due to the positive L2 input, which is not compatible with the transferred L1-grammar. I hypothesize that the competition proceeds separately for each construction. However, it is not always the case that there must be competition between the L1 and L2 grammars. Suppose that there is parameter X, which has the same settings in the L1 and the L2. Then there is only one grammar with respect to parameter X that the learners ever entertain. They do not have two identical grammars - there is simply no need for them to reset any parameters. Given the discussion thus far, I propose the following grammar competition hypothesis for L2-acquisition:

5.

The L1 grammar (GL1) is more prominently represented than the L2 grammar (GL2) where the L1 and L2 grammars are not identical for the phenomenon under discussion. As a result, the weight of the L1 grammar (P1) is initially higher than the weight of the L2 grammar (P2) (P1 of GL1 > P2 of GL2).

270

3.4

Application of the grammar competition hypothesis to acquisition of English DOs by Korean speakers

3.4.1

Acquisition of English ben DOs by Korean speakers The acquisition of English ben DOs by Korean speakers is a good illustration

of how the hypothesis in (5) works. As shown in Chapter 2, ben DOs in Korean and English are syntactically and semantically distinct. Thus, competition between the two grammars is inevitable. The L1 grammar (ben DOs as high applicatives with a wider benefactive meaning) and the L2 grammar (ben DOs as low applicatives with a prospective possession reading) are in competition. Given the hypothesis in (5), the weight of the L1 grammar is initially higher than that of the L2 grammar. This difference in their relative weights results in L1-Korean learners of English showing a strong tendency to reject English ben DOs. Notice that the term tendency is used. This is because the grammar (or rule) application in the competing grammar model is not absolute.79 In other words, the grammar or rule applies with a certain probability (i.e., its weight). From this, it follows that language development is gradual. Unless the weight of a particular rule is 0, there is always a probability (although possibly a low one) that this rule is applied and that the rule with the greater weight is not applied. The next question that arises is how the learners move from rejection to acceptance of the L2 grammar for English ben DOs. Under the competing grammar model, there should not be abrupt parameter resetting: an abrupt switch from the
79

The competition is not restricted to grammars or parameters. Rules (e.g., phonological or morphological rules) are also in competition.

271

grammar of high applicative to the grammar of low applicative. In the competing grammar model, in order to acquire the low applicative status of English ben DOs, the learners must be able to extract the relevant grammatical information (i.e., possession construal) on a verb-by-verb basis. Then, each occurrence of a benefactive verb in the DO form should be associated with its class, benefactive DOs. At the stage where the learner extracts the relevant grammatical property of ben DOs on a verb-by-verb basis, the weight of the L2 grammar is assumed to increase very slowly, since a single piece of linguistic evidence cannot alter the grammar radically. But it is likely that this slow change starts with frequent verbs such as get. From accumulated occurrences of benefactive verbs in the DO form, the learners are then able to extract class membership and arrive at the appropriate form-meaning mapping. With this change, the weight of the L2 grammar increases more rapidly than before. But this newly-acquired preference is probabilistic. English ben DOs, especially infrequent ones, can still be rejected. However, ben DOs in general are accepted more strongly and more frequently than before; this will be particularly true for frequent benefactive verbs. As argued in Chapter 5, another boost to the weight of the L2 grammar of English ben DOs comes from learners emerging sensitivity to the subtle semantic distinctions associated with the DO and PP forms, in particular sensitivity to the possessor constraint on goal DOs. Once L1-Korean learners of English are sensitive to these properties associated with goal DOs, their acquisition of ben DOs is accelerated, with a concomitant increase of the weight of the L2 grammar for English ben DOs. 272

3.4.2

Acquisition of English goal DOs by Korean speakers In the grammar competition hypothesis presented in (5), the acquisition of

English goal DOs by Korean speakers can be captured in the following fashion. Given the fact that goal DOs in both languages are low applicatives, it can be argued that there will be no competition between the L1 and L2 grammars. However, I argue that there is still a competition between the two grammars. The competition is brought about by a difference between Korean and English: unlike in English, there is no DO-PP alternation in Korean. In this respect, the L1 and L2 grammars are not exactly identical, meeting the condition for grammar competition. Therefore, the first task for the learners to accomplish is to build up the connection between the two forms in English. As proposed in Chapter 5, the learners have to learn that the DO and PP forms constitute an argument structure paradigm, and then further acquire the semantic properties associated with the two forms. Once L1-Korean learners of English acquire these properties, they are able to notice that the goal DOs in their L1 and in English are very similar (albeit not identical), having the same status as low applicatives. This will increase the weight of the L1 grammar relatively rapidly (as compared to that of English ben DOs). The probability of accepting frequent goal verbs will be higher than of accepting less frequent goal verbs. However, as pointed out before, it should be noted that this preference is always probabilistic. Therefore, it is unlikely that all goal DOs will be accepted without exception. Given the fact that preference is governed by the frequency of the form, it is likely that frequent goal

273

DOs will be accepted more strongly (i.e., with a high probability) than less frequent goal DOs. Considering the fact that the difference between goal DOs in the two languages is relatively minor as compared to that between ben DOs in the two languages, it is predicted that the weight of English goal DOs will increase relatively faster than the weight of English ben DOs in L1-Korean speakers interlanguage. This results in a relatively early acquisition of English goal DOs as compared to English ben DOs.

3.4.3

Evidence from corpus data Supporting evidence for the proposals is gleaned from corpus data. The

corpus data reported in this section is from the Penn Treebank version of the Brown corpus (as known as Marcus, Santorini, and Marcinkie (1993)). From the proposals, it is predicted that for both goal and ben DOs, there should be some correlation between input frequency and acceptance rates for a particular form. This prediction can be checked with the Penn Treebank version of the Brown corpus. The frequency data should be interpreted with caution in that the verb frequencies provided in the following charts are frequencies of these verbs in any form (e.g., transitive, intransitive, ditransitive) and not necessarily their occurrences in the ditransitive (DO) form. Nevertheless, the frequency information is informative.

274

The frequencies of the 6 licit goal verbs and 6 licit benefactive verbs used in experiment 1 have been computed. The results are summarized in Table 42, in descending order by frequency. For the purpose of comparison, the individual verb analyses for licit goal and ben verbs are repeated in Figures 33 and 34 below (see Chapter 4 for more discussion).

Table 42. Input frequency of the 6 licit goal and 6 licit benefactive verbs used in experiment 1. Licit ben verbs Frequency counts Licit goal verb Frequency counts 1447 759 Get Tell 1030 629 Find Show 230 488 Build Bring 219 144 Draw Throw 156 50 Buy Hand 80 96 30 Fix (a sandwich) Kick

80

The input frequency information of fix (a sandwich) is particularly problematic. In this type of frequency check-up, the direct object argument cannot be specified. Therefore, the corpus result includes both fix (a sandwich) and fix (a car). However, I dont think that it undermines the result presented here in that fix is in fact the least frequent verb and therefore, it will be the case that the frequency of fix (a sandwich) is lower than the number presented in the table (i.e., 96).

275

Figure 33. Percentages of acceptance of licit goal verbs

Figure 34. Percentages of acceptance of licit ben verbs

With respect to the licit goal verbs, a clear relationship between the input frequency and acceptance rates of individual verbs is attested. The DO forms with relatively frequent verbs such as tell, show, and bring are accepted at higher rates 276

than those with less frequent verbs such as throw, hand, and kick. With respect to the licit ben verbs, a mixed picture is presented which is still interpretable under my proposal. The DO form with the most frequent verb, get, was accepted at high rates. But the verb buy, whose DO form was also accepted at high rates, turned out to be less frequent than most of the other verbs. The answer to this puzzle comes from the classroom instructions: the verb buy, along with make, is the most frequently used verb to illustrate the English ben DO construction in instructional settings. The relatively low acceptance rates with the verb find still remain as a bit of puzzle. The frequency data of the verbs presented in this section are by no means conclusive. Nevertheless, the results are suggestive.

Conclusion The group analysis clearly showed a general tendency of acceptance of goal

DOs and of rejection of ben DOs. The individual analysis by verb revealed that nevertheless, it is not the case that all tested goal verbs are accepted at the same rate and all tested benefactive verbs are rejected at the same rate. The transformational model is not sufficient to account for the general tendency and the variation at the same time. It has been suggested that the competing grammar model (i.e., the grammar competition hypothesis), which posits the coexistence of multiple grammars in the learners language faculty, is well suited for modeling these two contradictory facts. In this model, grammar change is driven by positive input, including frequency. Therefore, if variation in learners performance turns out to be 277

closely related to frequency of the relevant data, this provides evidence in favor of the competing grammar model. In fact, a relationship was attested between the acceptance rates of DO forms with the tested verbs and the input frequency of the corresponding verbs; this is particularly true for the goal DOs; the data from ben DOs are also largely consistent with the proposal. In future investigations on modeling L1-transfer, the following issue deserve further attention. It would be important to have a more precise formulation of transfer as competing grammars. Accurate frequency data regarding L2 input are absolutely necessary. There is no doubt that this line of research would sharpen and deepen our understanding of L1 transfer in general and the interaction between theL1 and L2 grammars in particular.

278

Bibliography

Alsina, Alex and Sam Mchombo. 1990. The Syntax of Applicatives in Chichea: Problems for a Theta Theoretic Asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 493-506. Anderson, R. 1983. Transfer to somewhere. In: S. Gass and L. Selinker (eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 177-201. Almor, A., Andersen, E.S., Kempler, D., MacDonald, M.C., Hayes, U.L., & Hintiryan, H. (2002). Verb bias and memory constraints in language production. Poster presented at the 2002 Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, San Francisco. Aoun, Joseph and Audrey Li. 1989. Scope and Constituency, Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 141-172. Baker, C.L. 1979. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 533-581. Barss, Andrew and Howard Lasnik. 1986. A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347-354. Bates, E. and Elman, J. 1996. Learning Rediscovered: A Perspective on Saffran, Alsin, and Newport. Science 274:1849-50. Beck, Sigrid and Kyle Johnson. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 199-248. Berwick, R. 1985. The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Bley-Vroman, R. 1989. What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schacter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bloom, P. 1990. Subjectless Sentences in Child Languages. Linguistic Inquiry 21:491-504. 279

Bloom, P. 1993. Grammatical Continuity in Language Development: The Case of Subjectless Sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 721-34. Bowerman, M. 1988. The no-negative evidence problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In J. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 73-101). Oxford: Blackwell. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Bresnan, Joan and Lioba Moshi. 1993. Object Asymmetries in Comparative Bantu Syntax. In Sam A. Mchombo, ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 50-93. Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and Harald Baayen. 2005. Predicting the Dative Alternation. To appear in Royal Netherlands Academy of Science Workshop on Foundations of International proceedings. Bruening, Bejamin. 2001. QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 275-343. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1998. Synonymy avoidance, phonology and the origin of syntax. In Hurford et al (eds.) pp279-296. Cho, J-H. 1994. Scrambling: Crossover, Reconstruction and Binding Theory. Ph D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Choe, H-S. 1988. Restructuring Parameters and Complex Predicates: A Transformational Approach. PhD. Dissertation, MIT. Choi, Ki-Yong. 1991. A Theory of Syntactic X0-Subcaterigation, PhD. Dissertation, University of Washington. Chomsky, Norm. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press. Chomsky, Norm. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Norm. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Clark, E.V. 1987. The Principle of Contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney, ed., Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. 280

Clark, R. 1992. The Selection of Syntactic Knowledge. Language Acquisition 2:83149. den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions . Oxford Studies in Generative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dechert, H., and M. Raupach 1989. Transfer in Language Production. Norwood, NJ:Ablex. Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R., and B. Anderson. 1997. The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition; The process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 6, 4, 297-332. Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R., and R. Thyre. 1999. The interpretation of quantification at a distinction in English-French interlanguage: domainspecificity and second-language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 8, 4, 265320. Dekydtspotter, L. and R. Sprouse. 2001. Mental design and (second) language epistemology: adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in EnglishFrench interlanguage. Second Language Research, 17, 1, 1-35. Dekydtspotter, L. 2001. The Universal Parser and interlanguage: domain-specific mental organization in the comprehension of combien interrogatives in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research, 17, 2, 91-143. Dresher, E. and Kaye, J. 1990. A Computational Learning Model for Metrical Phonology. Cognition 34: 137-95. Epstein, S., S. Flynn and G. Martohardjono. 1996. Second language acquisition: theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 19: 677-758. Eubank, L. 1996. Negation in early German-English Interlanguage: More Valueless Features in the L2 initial state. Second Language Research, 12. 73-106. Gass, S., and L. Selinker 1983. Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gibson, E. and Wexler, K. 1994. Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 355-407. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 281

Goldberg, A. E. Casenhiser, Devin M. & Sethuraman, Nitya (2003) A lexically based proposal of argument structure meaning. CLS. Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Grimshaw, Jane. 1985. Remark on dative verbs and universal grammar. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Oct. 25-27. Grimshaw, J., and Prince, A. 1986. A prosodic account of the to-dative alternation. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University. Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg, and Ronald Wilson. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203-257. Hakes, D. 1980. The development of metalinguistic abilities in children. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, Events, and Licensing, PhD dissertation, MIT Harley, Heidi 2002. Possession and the Double Object Construction, Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 29-68. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hawkins, R. 2001. Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Hoji, H. 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese, unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Washington. Hyams, N. 1986. Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Dordrecht:Reidel. Ionin, T., M.L. Zubizarreta and S. Bautista Maldonado. 2006. Sources of linguistic knowledge in the second language acquisition of English articles, USC ms. to appear in a special issue of Lingua. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Judy Yoo-Kyung Baek and Jung-Mo Lee 2004. Double Object Constructions in Korean: Asymmetry between Theme and Goal. Language Research 40 (3), pp.669-679. 282

Juffs, A. 1996. Learnability and the lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jung, Y-J. and Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2004. Decomposing Ditransitive verbs, Proceedings of SICGG. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kiparsky, P. 1973. Elsewhere in Phonology., In S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Pp. 93-106. Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntactic Edges and Linearization, PhD dissertation, MIT. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1993. Object Agreement Phrases and the Split VP Hypothesis, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 18. Kroch, A. 1989. Reflexes of Grammar in Patterns of Language Change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199-244. Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3): 335-391. Larson, Richard K. 1990. Double objects revisited: reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21 (4): 589-632. Lee, Sookhee. 1992. The syntax and Semantics of Serial Verb Constructions. Ph D dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle. Lee, Y-S. 1991. Scrambling and Pronoun Binding in Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics IV. S. Kuno et al. (eds.), 329-338, Harvard University. Lee, Y-S. 1993. Scrambling as Case-Driven Obligatory Movement, PhD dissertation. University of Pennsylvania Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. University of California Press. Li, Y.H.A. 1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese, Dordrecht: Kluwer. MacWhinney, B., and Snow, C. 1985. The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language, 12, 271-296. 283

Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Construction, in S. Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical Aspect of Bantu Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California, pp. 113-150. Marcus, G.F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T.J. and Xu, F. 1992. Overgeneralization in Language Acquisition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marcus, Mitchell P., Santorini, Beatrice, and Marcinkie, Mary Ann (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 313-330. Martin, Samuel. E. 1992. A Korean reference grammar. Rutland, VT/Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle. Mazurkewich, Irene. 1982. Second Language Acquisition of the Dative Alternation and Markedeness: The Best Theory. Ph.D dissertation. Universit de Montral Mazurkewich, Irene and Lydia White. 1984. The Acquisition of the Dative Alternation: Unlearning Overgeneralizations. Cognition 16, 261-283. Mazurkewich, Irene. 1984. The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language learning, 34, 91-109. McDaniel, D. and Cairns, H. 1990. Eliciting judgments of grammaticality and reference. In D. McDaniel, C. McKee and H. Cairns (eds.), Methods for assessing childrens syntax (pp. 233-254). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McGloin, Naomi Hanaoka. 1989. A Students Guide to Japanese Grammar. Taishukan Publishing Company. Miyagawa, Shigeru and Takae Tsukioka. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 1-38. Montrul, S. 1997. Transitivity alternations in second language acquisition: A crosslinguistic study of English, Spanish, and Turkish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal. Montrul, S. 2001. Agentive verbs of manner of motion in Spanish and English as second languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23: 171-206.

284

Montrul, S. and Slabakova, R. 2002. Acquiring Morphosyntactic and Semantic Properties of Aspectual Tenses in L2 Spanish. In A.-T. Perez-Leroux and J. Liceras (Eds.), The Acquisition of Spanish Morphosyntax: The L1-L2 Connection. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 113-149. Odlin, T. 1989. Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. PhD dissertation, MIT Oh, E-J and M. L. Zubizarreta. 2003. Does Morphology Affect Transfer? The Acquisition of English Double Objects by Korean Native Speakers. In A. Burgos, L. Micciulla, and C. Smith, eds., Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development., Cascadilla Press, 402-413. Oh, E-J and M. L. Zubizarreta. 2005. The Asymmetric Behavior of Goal and Benefactive Double Objects in the English Interlanguage of Adult L1 Korean and L1 Japanese Speakers In Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004), ed. Laurent Dekydtspotter et al., 193-204. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Oh, E-J and M. L. Zubizarreta. in pressa. Against Morphological Transfer, The Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition-North America. Honolulu, HI. University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 4, pp 261-272. Oh, E-J and M. L. Zubizarreta. in pressb. L2-Acquisition of English Double Object Constructions: What Individual Analysis Can Tell Us, Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Oshita, H. 1997. The unaccusative trap: L2 acquisition of English intransitive verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Oshita, H. 2001. The unaccusative trap in Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 279-304. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

285

Pinker, S. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: the Acquisition of Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge. Pylkknnen, L. 2002. Introducing arguments. PhD dissertation, MIT. Randall, J.H. 1980. ity: A study of word formation restrictions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 9: 523-534. Richards, Norvin. 2001. An Idiomatic Argument for Lexical Decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 183-192. Roeper, T. 2000. Universal Bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2:169-86. Saito, Mamoru. 1983. Case Marking in Japanese, unpublished ms. MIT. Sawyer, Mark. 1996. L1 and L2 sensitivity to semantic constraints on argument structure. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes & A. Zukowski (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 2 (pp. 646-657). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Schwartz, B.D. 1992. Testing between UG-based and problem-solving models of L2A: Developmental sequence data. Language Acquisition 2:1-19. Schwartz, B.D. 2003. Child L2 acquisition: Paving the way. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, B. Beachley, A. Brown and F. Conlin (ed.), 26-50. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Schwartz, B.D., & Sprouse, R.A. 1994. Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German Interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar; Papers in honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops (pp. 317-368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schwartz, B.D., & Sprouse, R.A. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40-72. Seidenberg, M. 1997. Language Acquisition and Use: Learning and Applying Probabilistic Constraints. Science 275: 1599-604. 286

Shibatani, M. 1990. The Language of Japan. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1994. Benefactive constructions: A Japanese-Korean comparative perspective. Japanese/ Korean linguistics proceeding, CSLI. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. Applicatives and benefactives: a cognitive account. In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, eds. Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Slabakova, R. 2003. Semantic Evidence for Functional Categories in Interlanguage Grammars. Second Language Research, 19(1):42-75. Slabakova, R. and Montrul, A. 2002. On the Semantics of Viewpoint Aspect and Its L2 Acquisition. In . Y. Shirai and R. Salaberry (Eds.), Tense-Aspect Morphology in L2 Acquisition, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 363-398. Stechow, Arnim von. 1995. Lexical decomposition in syntax. In The lexicon in the organization of language, ed. By Urs Egli, Peter E. Pause, Christoph Scwartze, Arnim von Stechow, and Gtx Wienold, 81-118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stechow, Armin von. 1996. The different readings of wieder again: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13:87-138. Suh, Y. 2000. A Study of the Auxiliary Verb Construction and Verb Serialization in Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Washington. Seattle. Takano, Y. 1998. Object shift and Scrambling. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:817-889 Tsujimura, N. 1996. An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge, Mass,: Blackwell Publishers. Tunmer, W.E., Pratt, C., & Herriman, M.L. 1984. Metalinguistic awareness in children. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Unsworth, Sharon, 2004, Child L1, child L2 and adult L2 acquisition: Differences and similarities. In Brugos A., Micciulla, L., & Smith C.E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. pp.633-644. Valian, V.1990. Null Subjects: A Problem for Parameter-Setting Models of Language Acquisition. Cognition 35:105-22. 287

Valian, V. 1991. Syntactic Subjects in the Early Speech of American and Italian Children. Cognition 40: 21-82. van Kleeck, A. 1982. The emergence of linguistic awareness: A cognitive framework. The Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 231-265. Vainikka, A and M. Young-Scholten. 1996. Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research 12: 7-39. Weinberg, A. 1990. Markedness vs. Maturation: The Case of Subject-Auxiliary Inversion. Language Acquisition 1: 169-94. Wexler, K., and Culicover, P. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. White, L. 1987. Markedness and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 261-286. White, L. 1991. Argument structure in second language acquisition. French Language Studies, 1, 189-207. Williams, E. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28:577-628. Wilson, Ronald, Steven Pinker, Annie Zaenen, and David S. Lebeaux. 1981. Productivity and the dative alternation. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. October 9-11. Whong-Barr, Melinda & Schwartz, Bonnie D. 2002. Morphological and Syntactic Transfer in Child L2 Acquisition of the English Dative Alternation, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 579-616. Wolfe-Quintero, K. 1992. The representation and acquisition of the lexical structure of English dative verbs: Experimental studies of native English speakers and Japanese and Chinese adult learners of English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Yang, Charles. 2002. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford University Press. Yatsushiro, Kazuko 1998. Structure within VP in Japanese. In David Silva (ed.), Proceedings of Japanese-Korean Linguistics 8, CSLI, Stanford, 501-514. Yatsushiro, Kazuko 2003. VP Internal Scrambling, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12, 141-170. 288

Yoshinaga, N. 1991. Acquisition of the English dative construction by the Japanese: A learnability approach to second language acquisition. Unpublished M.A thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Zubizarreta, M. L. 1992. The Lexical Encoding of Scope Relations among Arguments, in T. Stowell & E. Wehrli, eds., Syntax and the Lexicon, in Syntax and Semantics 26, Academic Press, Inc., pp. 211-258. Zubizarreta, M.L. and Oh, E-J. in press. On the Syntactic Composition of Manner and Motion, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

289

Appendix A Cloze Test (Experiments 1 and 2)

Directions: Read the following three stories carefully and fill in each blank with a contextually and grammatically appropriate word. To get an idea about each story, first you can read it once or twice and then try to fill in the blanks. Do not worry too much about difficult blanks. Just try to fill in as many as you can, by guessing if necessary. You have approximately 25 minutes. Remember that you can write only one word in each blank. Story A Some people do not seem to have a mind of their own. They seldom make their 1)_________ decisions and never express 2)_________ own opinions. My brother 3)_________ one of these people. 4)_________ night, for example, he 5)_________ planning to spend a 6)_________ evening at home reading 7)__________ book. At about seven-thirty, 8)__________, his friend Tom dropped 9)__________ and said, Lets watch 10)________ tonight, Okay, my brother 11)_________. By ten oclock my 12)__________ was tired and sleepy, 13)_________ I am sure he 14)__________ to go to bed. 15)_________ Tom was not tired. 16)_________ go out and get 17)________ hamburger, Tom said. Good 18)_________, my brother replied. Like 19)_________, he very often says 20)_________ he does not mean 21)__________ order to please others. 22)_________ than that, he does 23)__________ tell others what he 24)__________ wants to do, thinking 25)__________ might offend them. In any case, my brother did not come home until midnight and woke up very late this morning. Story B We were about to gather up our picnic things and return to our car when a man showed up. He looked very annoyed 1)_________ asked us angrily if 2)_________ realized that we were 3)__________ private property. My father, 4)___________ looked very confused at 5)__________ mans statement, said that 6)_________ did not. The man 7)_________ pointed to a sign 8)__________ said that camping and 9)__________ were strictly forbidden in 10)__________ area where we were 11)__________. Poor father explained that 12)_________ had not seen the 13)__________ until then and had 14)_________ realized that it was 15)___________ property. Despite my fathers 16)__________, the man did not 290

17)__________ satisfied at all and 18)___________ him for his name 19)___________ address. All the way 20)___________, we were so upset 21)_________ hardly anyone said a 22)___________. Everyone in the car 23)__________ wondering if the angry 24)__________ would report us to 25)__________ police. Although he didnt after all, this unpleasant incident completely ruined the wonderful time we had had in the country that day. Story C Hunting was originally a means of providing food, but it has now become a sport or a cultural tradition. Although even today in 1)__________ parts of the world 2)___________ are still people who 3)___________ wild fish, birds, and 4)___________ to provide themselves with 5)__________, in many countries hunting 6)__________ now as much a 7)___________ activity as anything else. 8)__________ great many years ago, 9)___________ in a small African 10)___________ used birds to catch 11)__________. The birds were trained 12)____________ that they would dive 13)___________ the water and come 14)___________ to the fisherman after 15)___________ a few fish. This 16)__________ of fishing is said 17)___________ be at least a 18)____________ years old and is 19)____________ in the countrys mythological 20)___________. Today, however, fishing in 21)___________ way has simply become 22)___________ tradition, since those who 23)___________ in this manner are 24)___________ longer seriously interested in 25)_____________ fish for food. Their real concern is simply to maintain this old cultural tradition.

291

Appendix B Test items in experiment 1

1. Licit goal dative verbs Test verbs Test sentences (PP and DO) Kick Billy Bob kicked a ball to Mary Jane. Billy Bob kicked Mary Jane a ball. Throw Mary Jane threw a baseball to Billy Bob. Mary Jane threw Billy Bob a baseball. Tell Billy Bob told a story to Mary Jane. Billy Bob told Mary Jane a story. Show Billy Bob showed a book to Mary Jane. Billy Bob showed Mary Jane a book. Bring Mary Jane brought a glass of milk to Billy Bob. Mary Jane brought Billy Bob a glass of milk. Hand Billy Bob handed a crayon to Mary Jane Billy Bob handed Mary Jane a crayon. 2. Licit benefactive dative verb Test verbs Test sentences (PP and DO) Build Billy Bob built a house for Mary Jane. Billy Bob built Mary Jane a house. Draw Mary Jane drew a picture for Billy Bob. Mary Jane drew Billy Bob a picture. Get Billy Bob got a flower for Mary Jane. Billy Bob got Mary Jane a flower. Fix (a sandwich) Mary Jane fixed a sandwich for Billy Bob. Mary Jane fixed Billy Bob a sandwich. Buy Billy Bob bought a cookie for Mary Jane. Billy Bob bought Mary Jane a cookie. Find Mary Jane found a cookie for Billy Bob. Mary Jane found Billy Bob a cookie.

292

3. Latinate goal dative verbs Test verbs Test sentences (PP and *DO) Suggest Mary Jane suggested a movie to Billy Bob. *Mary suggested Fred a movie. Return Billy Bob returned a toy to Mary Jane. *Billy Bob returned Mary Jane a toy. Explain Mary Jane explained a math problem to Billy Bob. *Mary Jane explained Billy Bob a math problem. Repeat The teacher repeated an instruction to the students. *The teacher repeated the students an instruction. Describe Billy Bob described a new game to Mary Jane. *Billy Bob described Mary Jane a new game. Recite Mary Jane recited a poem to Billy Bob *Mary Jane recited Billy Bob a poem. 4. Latinate benefactive dative verbs Test verbs Test sentences (PP and *DO) Construct Billy Bob constructed a dollhouse for Mary Jane. *Billy Bob constructed Mary Jane a dollhouse. Collect Billy Bob collected some stamps for Mary Jane. *Billy Bob collected Mary Jane some stamps. Obtain Billy Bob obtained some candy for his school friends. *Billy Bob obtained his school friends some candy. Create Mary Jane created a drawing for Billy Bob. *Mary Jane created Billy Bob a drawing Select Mary Jane selected a book for Billy Bob. *Mary Jane selected Billy Bob a book. Design Mary Jane designed a house for Billy Bob. *Mary Jane designed Billy Bob a house.

293

5. Exceptional goal dative verbs Test verbs Test sentences (PP and ?/??DO) Push Mary Jane pushed a box of toys to Billy Bob. *Mary Jane pushed Billy Bob a box of toys. Pull Billy Bob pulled a heavy trunk to Mary Jane. *Billy Bob pulled Mary Jane a heavy trunk. Drag Fido dragged an old blanket to Mary Jane. *Fido dragged Mary Jane an old blanket. Whisper Billy Bob whispered a secret to Mary Jane. *Billy Bob whispered Mary Jane a secret. Shout Mary Jane shouted the time to Billy Bob. *Mary Jane shouted Billy Bob the time. Yell Mary Jane yelled Hello to Billy Bob. *Mary yelled Fred Hello. 6. Illicit benefactive dative verbs Test verbs Test sentences (PP and *DO) Solve Mary Jane solved a puzzle for Billy Bob. *Mary Jane solved Billy Bob a puzzle. Keep Mary Jane kept a cookie for Billy Bob. *Mary Jane kept Billy Bob a cookie. Fix (a toy) Billy Bob fixed a toy for Mary Jane. *Billy Bob fixed Mary Jane a toy. Open Billy Bob opened the door for Mary Jane. *Billy Bob opened Mary Jane the door. Finish Billy Bob finished the picture for Mary Jane. *Billy Bob finished Mary Jane the picture. Wash Billy Bob washed the dishes for Mary Jane. *Billy Bob washed Mary Jane the dishes.

294

Appendix C Test contexts in experiment 2

For the purpose of presentation, target responses are put in the parenthesis. In the case of grammatical items, 4 is circled and in the case of ungrammatical items, 1 is circled. Yet, in the data analysis, 3 for grammatical items and 2 for ungrammatical items were also considered as correct answers. 1. Poss distinction 1.1. Goal DOs ( Poss) 1. Poss contexts with send a. +Poss context with send Dr. Jacobson is a really busy professor she has a lot of students to supervise. One of her colleagues, Dr. Roberts is young and just starting out, and he doesnt have many students. So Dr. Jacobson convinced one of her new students to switch advisors to Dr. Roberts. A. Dr. Jacobson sent Dr. Roberts a new student. 1 B. Dr. Jacobson sent a new student to Dr. Roberts. 1 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure

b. Poss context with send One of the students in Lindas class had a toothache. Linda told the student, go see the dentist immediately, The student went to the dentists office just around the corner. A. Linda sent the dentist a student. B. Linda sent a student to the dentist. 2. Poss contexts with bring a. +Poss context with bring Danielle was just starting out as an accountant, and needed new clients. Her friend Alex was an accountant across town, and he was thinking of leaving the company he was in. He decided to join Danielles new company, and many of his clients followed him to Danielles company. Now Alexs clients became the clients of Alex and Danielle. 295 (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

A. Alex brought Danielle some clients. B. Alex brought some clients to Danielle.

1 1

2 2

3 3

(4) (4)

Not sure Not sure

b. Poss context with bring Olive went to the doctors office yesterday. She wasnt sick herself: she came because one of the children that she was baby-sitting got sick. He had a really bad tummy-ache! A. Olive brought the doctor a child. B. Olive brought a child to the doctor. 3. Poss contexts with take a. +Poss context with take Jane is a lonely lady. Recently her old cat died. Thus, she got lonelier. Her son James thought about a way to cheer her up. He concluded that a new kitten would brighten her spirit. So, he went to a pet shop and got a cute kitten. He then went over to his mothers. A. James took Jane a kitten. B. James took a kitten to Jane. 1 1 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

b. Poss context with take Mary has three cats. Yesterday, one of the cats didnt seem to be OK. He couldnt walk straight. Mary thought that her cat would need medical attention. She put the cat in her car and drove to the veterinarians office. A. Mary took the veterinarian a cat. B. Mary took a cat to the veterinarian. 1.2. Ben DOs ( Poss) 1. Poss contexts with find a. +Poss context with find Rodney was looking for an apartment, but he didn't know the area well, so even after weeks of looking, he didn't see any that he wanted to live in. Finally, he asked his friend Heather to help him look, because he knew she used to be a realtor. Within the week, Heather had one that Rodney liked. A. Heather found Rodney an apartment. 1 b. Heather found an apartment for Rodney. 1 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

296

b. Poss context with find Bettys company hired a consultant for a month, and Betty needed to find somewhere for the consultant to stay, but after looking in all the papers, she couldnt find anything. Finally, she asked Peter to help her since she knew Peter knew a lot of the landlords. Within the week, Peter had one that Betty liked. Now the consultant has a place to stay! A. Peter found Betty an apartment. B. Peter found an apartment for Betty. 2. Poss contexts with pour a. +Poss context with pour Wendy had had an important meeting very early one morning, but she had been up late the night before, so she was really sleepy. Gary realized that she needed coffee, so he took her cup over to the coffeemaker and made sure her cup was full before she went into the meeting. A. Gary poured Wendy a cup of coffee. 1 B. Gary poured a cup of coffee for Wendy. 1 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

b. Poss context with pour Mark was re-doing his driveway, and needed to put cement down for the sidewalk, but he needed to smooth the cement as it was put down. He couldnt do both at once, so he asked Esther to help. He would do the smoothing, if she would put the cement down on the ground. A. Esther poured Mark some cement. B. Esther poured some cement for Mark. 3. Poss contexts with make a. +Poss context with make Jack has had a bad day; nothing has gone right. His friend Emily thought that he would feel better if she surprised him with something nice, and so she surprised him with a homemade cheesecake. A. Emily made Jack a cheesecake. B. Emily made a cheesecake for Jack. 1 1 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

b. Poss context with make Sam is a chef, and last year, his restaurant competed against all the other restaurants in the city. Sam took care of most of the menu for the competition: he was really 297

confident about his appetizer and the entre. However, he had always been bad at baking, so he asked Anna to take care of the dessert. A. Anna made Sam some dessert. B. Anna made some dessert for Sam. 2. Animate goal distinction 1. Animate goal contexts with send a. + Animate goal context with send Harry was on a trip to Europe, and he saw something that he knew that his friend Jane would think was funny. Harry didnt have access to e-mail, so he described what he saw in a letter, and put it in the mail with Janes address on the envelope. A. Harry sent Jane a letter. B. Harry sent a letter to Jane. 1 1 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

b. Animate goal context with send John is crazy. One day decided he didnt like the city of Chicago, so he addressed an envelope that said WARNING: Anthrax Samples to Chicago, IL. Hes in jail now. A. John sent Chicago an envelope. B. John sent an envelope to Chicago. 2. Animate goal contexts with mail a. + Animate goal context with mail Lawrence and his fiance, Irene lived in different cities for a while. Every day, Lawrence wrote a letter telling Irene what his day was like. On Valentines day, Lawrence decided to write a special letter. We went to the post office and dropped off his special letter. A. Lawrence mailed Irene a letter. B. Lawrence mailed a letter to Irene. 1 1 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

b. Animate goal context with mail Tims house had a ghost. He didnt like living with the ghost, so he tricked it into getting into a box, then he sealed the box up, and told the mailman it needed to be in Paris. A. Tim mailed Paris a box. B. Tim mailed a box to Paris. (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

298

3. Physical transfer distinction 1. Physical transfer distinction with give 1 a. +Physical transfer distinction Eddie had a headache, but he didnt have any medicine for it. He went to his neighbor, Hannah, to see if she had some. She let him have some of hers. A. Hannah gave Eddie some medicine. B. Hannah gave some medicine to Eddie. 1 1 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure

b. Physical transfer distinction Jerry used to live next door to Margaret. Jerry was really boring, and he would talk to Margaret for hours. She always got a headache when he came over. She was glad when he moved out. A. Jerry gave Margaret a headache. B. Jerry gave a headache to Margaret. 2. Physical transfer distinction with give 2 a. +Physical transfer distinction William always wanted a pet cat, but he never had one before. Irene decided that a cat would be a good birthday present for William. She went to the pet shop and found a cat that she thought William would like, and on his birthday, William was happy to meet his first cat. A. Irene gave William a cat. B. Irene gave a cat to William. 1 1 2 2 3 3 (4) (4) Not sure Not sure 1 (1) 2 2 3 3 (4) 4 Not sure Not sure

b. Physical transfer distinction Patty has an assignment from science class. She has to write about effects of air pollution. To get an idea about the topic, she went to the school library. She read one book. She then found one very interesting point in this book. She developed this point and she was able to submit a wonderful essay about the effects of air pollution. A. The book gave Patty an idea. B. The book gave an idea to Patty. 1 (1) 2 2 3 3 (4) 4 Not sure Not sure

299

Appendix D Test contexts for exceptional goal and illicit ben DOs in experiment 2

For the purposes of presentation, target responses are put in parentheses. In the case of grammatical items, 4 is circled and in the case of ungrammatical items, 1 is circled. Yet, in the data analysis, 3 for grammatical items and 2 for ungrammatical items were also considered as correct answers.

1. Exceptional goal DOs (exclusion of context # 2 with the verb drive) 1. Yesterday Mary had to move into her new house. Mary hired Paul to help her move her heavy stuff. She decided to use the biggest room in her new house as a reading room. She went into this room, holding a vase of flowers in her arms and then told Paul Can you please come here? Put the box of books right next to where I am standing. Paul picked up the box of books and did what Mary asked. A. Paul carried Mary a box. B. Paul carried a box to Mary. (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

2. Erin is a counselor in a summer camp. One day, Erin noticed that one boy in the camp had extremely a long hair. Erin decided that this boy needed a haircut. Erin asked the boy to hop into her car and they went to the hairdresser in a nearby town. Now Erin is smiling, looking at the boys trimmed hair. A. Erin drove a boy to the hairdresser. (1) B. Erin drove the hairdresser a boy. 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

3. Rosie and Mark own a junkyard. They get a lot of broken old cars. One day, they needed to move some cars around. One of the cars wouldnt start, so Rosie put it into neutral in order to move it. Then she chose a place for the car. She stood there, and, waving her hands, told Mark, Honey, please slide the car over here. I want it to be where I am standing now. So, Mark did what Rosie asked.

300

A. Mark pushed Rosie a car. B. Mark pushed a car to Rosie.

(1) 1

2 2

3 3

4 (4)

Not sure Not sure

4. Sammy is a baby who loves to climb! For instance, heres what happened yesterday. Sammys mommy was sitting in an armchair and reading a book. Sammy wanted to be next to his mommy, but he didnt want to bother her. So, can you guess what he did? He pulled a chair across the living room, so that it was right next to his mommy! Then he climbed on the chair. That way, he was right next to his mommy! A. Sammy dragged mommy a chair. (1) B. Sammy dragged a chair to mommy. 1 2. Illicit benefactive DOs 1. Dan runs a used furniture store. He has a lot of broken chairs. Among them, 5 broken chairs should be repaired today. Jane, who is good at repairing broken chairs, was supposed to come to the store and repair the 5 broken chairs. However, Jane repaired one broken chair and went off. Dan is mad at Jane. A. Jane fixed Dan a chair. B. Jane fixed a chair for Dan. (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

2. Laura was going away on vacation to Australia, so she left a key to her apartment with Jerry so that Jerry could collect the mail while Laura was gone. A. Jerry kept Laura a key. B. Jerry kept a key for Laura. (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

3. Nick and his sister Debbie were over at their grandmothers house. They were having broccoli for dinner, and Nick couldnt stand broccoli. Nick knew that if he didnt eat any broccoli, hed be in trouble, but he just hates it. Debbie, on the other hand, really likes broccoli, so she ate some broccoli, and said Nick ate it. A. Debbie finished Nick some broccoli. B. Debbie finished some broccoli for Nick. (1) 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

301

4. Stephen and Peggy were at the library. Peggy needed to check some books out, but her hands were full with books. Peggy asked Stephen to help her with the books, so he added some of hers to his pile of books. A. Stephen held Peggy some books. (1) B. Stephen held some books for Peggy. 1 2 2 3 3 4 (4) Not sure Not sure

3. Group analysis The comparison between subjects performance on exceptional goal DOs and illicit ben DOs is shown in Figure 35. A caveat is in order with respect to the category of exceptional goal DO. This category consists of three exceptional goal verbs (see section 2.3.2.2 of Chapter 4 for a discussion on this category) and drive. In the data analysis, I will exclude drive and use it for purposes of comparison. As pointed out in Chapter 4, exceptional goal verbs are not ruled out by the possessor constraint while illicit ben DOs are ruled out by the possessor constraint (note that DO form with drive is ruled out by the possessor constraint). Therefore, this comparison should be interpreted with caution. It should be noted that there is an important difference in terms of test format between experiment 1 and experiment 2: unlike experiment 1, all test items in experiment 2 were presented with contexts. Therefore, we can reasonably expect that the acceptance rates of exceptional goal DOs in experiment 2 will be relatively lower than their counterparts in experiment 1. The provided contexts for the exceptional goal DOs in experiment 2 are contexts in which the possession construal cannot be obtained and therefore, the fact that this category respects the possessor constraint will not be an influential factor on the acceptance rates. This leads to the relatively 302

lower acceptance rates of exceptional goal DOs in experiment 2 than of the corresponding items in experiment 1. Given this discussion, the following prediction is put forth.

1.

L1-Korean learners of English will accept exceptional goal DOs in experiment 2 less strongly and frequently than the exceptional goal DOs in experiment 1 (due to the effects of contexts).

From the structural transfer hypothesis, the next prediction follows.

2.

L1-Korean learners of English will reject illicit ben DOs more strongly and frequently than exceptional goal DOs.

The comparison between the mean acceptance rates of exceptional goal DOs in experiments 1 and 2 shows that the first prediction is largely borne out. The comparison between the two experiments is possible given the fact that the same cloze test was used and the same cut-off points were used. The results are summarized in Table 43. The results are interesting. Except for beginners, the other groups rated exceptional goal DOs in experiment 2 lower than the corresponding items in experiment 1. The results from the beginners are not surprising given that it is likely that they are not sensitive to context-dependent distinctions such as the possessor 303

constraint. Therefore, presence or absence of contexts doesnt make a difference to this group. However, from the low intermediates on, this factor influences results. And indeed on this group, we can see the difference. The mean ratings of the exceptional goal DOs in experiment 2 are lower than the corresponding items in experiment 1. This tendency is clearer with high intermediates and the controls. In particular, the difference between the two is quite big in the case of the high intermediates. This in turn suggests that this group is indeed sensitive to the possessor constraint and to contexts. Their awareness of the possessor constraint on exceptional goal DOs made the high intermediates accept them in experiment 1 without context. Again, their awareness of the possessor constraint on exceptional goal DOs made the high intermediates reject them in experiment 2 with contexts. In this regard, the high intermediates pattern together with the controls.

Table 43. Comparison of mean ratings of exceptional goal DOs in experiments 1 and 2 Group Exceptional goal DOs Exceptional goal DOs in experiment 1 in experiment 2 Beginner 2.2879 2.4167 Low inter 2.333 2.0370 High inter 2.5303 1.5278 Control 2.0104 1.3056
: the prediction is borne out; X: the prediction is not borne out

Prediction 1 X

As Figure 35 shows, the second prediction was also largely borne out. The results of the paired sample t-tests are presented in Table 44, providing additional support to the claim. These show that the difference in the mean ratings of exceptional goal DOs and illicit ben DOs reached significance for the beginners and 304

low intermediates. The results from these two groups support the second prediction. However, crucially and interestingly, this difference did not reach significance for high intermediates. It should be noted that this group made the relevant distinction between ben DOs in the +Poss contexts and ben DOs in Poss contexts, suggesting that they had overcome the negative transfer effects. This in turn means that this group (and only this group) has fully acquired the possessor constraint of English DO constructions and therefore, we can infer that they are also aware that illicit ben DOs are ungrammatical and exceptional goal DOs in the contexts provided are ungrammatical. This might lead them to equally reject the two: exceptional goal DOs and illicit ben DOs. They are in line with the controls in this respect.

Figure 35. Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs

Mean Acceptance Rates

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Except. goal Illicit ben

Begin

Low inter

High inter Control

305

Table 44. Paired sample t-tests: Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs Group Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs ( p < .05)a Beginners p = .014 Low intermediates p = .026 High intermediates p = .504 Control p = .658
a

: significantly higher acceptance rate of exceptional goal DOs than of illicit ben DOs

Next, I will briefly report individual analysis by verb. Individual analysis by (exceptional) goal verb (along with drive) is presented in Figure 36. As predicted, the mean rating of drive is the lowest one, which clearly violates the possessor constraint irrespective of context. Individual analysis by illicit ben verb is presented in Figure 37. As predicted, the mean ratings of all the test items are very low throughout, clearly suggesting that L1-Korean learners tendency is to reject ben DOs in general regardless of (il)licitness.

Figure 36. Individual analysis of goal verb

Mean Acceptance Rates

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Goal

Carry

Drive

Push

Drag

306

Figure 37. Individual analysis of illicit ben verb

Mean Acceptance Rates

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Illicit ben

Fix

Keep

Finish

Hold

In sum, the results from exceptional goal DOs and illicit ben DOs are consistent with the findings of experiment 1, showing the effects of structural transfer and are also consistent with the findings of experiment 2, showing high intermediates capability of overcoming the negative transfer effects.

307