Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Studies
Vol. 5:1 (2022) ► pp.144–169

Acquiring the core-peripheral distinction in split intransitivity

Evidence from L2 English

| Huaiyin Normal University
| Tohoku University
This study presents the results of an experimental investigation into the L2 acquisition of the core-peripheral distinction in the syntax of split intransitivity by L1 Mandarin EFL learners to verify whether or not their L2 acquisition is lexically constrained by the Split Intransitivity Hierarchy, which predicts that core verbs have primacy in both L1 and L2 acquisition over peripheral ones (Sorace, 2000, 2004, 2011). Two diagnostics of English split intransitivity, the prenominal past participles (PPPs) and the for hours constructions, were used to test native English speakers and Mandarin EFL learners’ gradient acceptability with respect to core-peripheral verb classes. The results of an acceptability judgment test show that both native speakers and nonnative speakers are sensitive to the core-peripheral distinction in the two diagnostics, and EFL learners exhibit a native-like sensitivity to core unaccusatives in PPPs but not in the for hours constructions. The results confirm that the core-peripheral distinction can be accounted for neither by L1 transfer nor L2 input, which suggests for the behavior is due to direct access to semantic universals in the L2 acquisition of split intransitivity syntax.
Keywords: the core-peripheral distinction, split intransitivity, prenominal past participles, the for hours constructions, primacy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1The split intransitivity hierarchy
    • 2.2Diagnostics of split intransitivity in English and Mandarin
      • 2.2.1Prenominal past participles
      • 2.2.2The for hours constructions
    • 2.3Research questions
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Task and materials
    • 3.3Procedure
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Results of PPPs
    • 4.2Results of the for hours constructions
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1L2 sensitivity to the core-peripheral distinction
    • 5.2Primacy of core verbs in L2 acquisition
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 6 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19043.wu
References (38)
References
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Everaert, M. (Eds.). (2004). The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bard, E. G., Frenck-Mestre, C., & Sorace, A. (2010). Processing auxiliary selection with Italian intransitive verbs. Linguistics, 48(2), 325–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, J. (2018). Split intransitivity in English. English Language & Linguistics, 23 (3), 557–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balcom, P. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research, 13 (1), 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (2005). The normal course of events (Vol. 21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax: A Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, T. (2014). Multiple factors in the L2 acquisition of English unaccusative verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52 (1), 59–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 671, 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feng, S. (2019). The acquisition of English definite noun phrases by Mandarin Chinese speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41 (4), 881–896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1984). Transitivity. Grammatical Relations in Government-Binding Theory. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., & Montrul, S. (2010). The role of L1 transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite plurals in L2 English. Language learning, 60(4), 877–925. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ju, M. K. 2000. Overpassivization errors by second language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 221, 85–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, F., & Sorace, A. (2003). Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: an experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics, 391, 57–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport. (1986). The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry, 17 (4), 623–61.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2001). Agentive verbs of manner of motion in Spanish and English as second languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23 (2), 171–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Psycholinguistic evidence for split intransitivity in Spanish second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 251, 239–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oshita, H. (1997). The unaccusative trap: L2 acquisition of English intransitive verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 41, 157–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2008). Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 121, 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoorlemmer, M. (2004). Syntactic unaccusativity in Russian. In Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Everaert, M. (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 207–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2000). L1 transfer revisited: the L2 acquisition of telicity marking in English by Spanish and Bulgarian native speakers. Linguistics, 38(4), 739–770. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect (2nd Ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 91, 22–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language: The unaccusative/unergative distinction. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage (pp. 153–175). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 761, 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface: evidence from auxiliary selection. In A. Alexiadou, M. Everaert, & E. Anagnostopoulou (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle (pp. 243–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Gradience in split intransitivity: the end of the unaccusative hyposthesis. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 961, 67–86.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Shomura, Y. (2001). Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity: Evidence from L2 Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23 (2), 247–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenny, C. L. (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Van Hout, A. (2004). Telicity Checking. In Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Everaert, M. (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 60–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language, 661, 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yip, V. (1995). Interlanguage and learnability: From Mandarin to English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, B. (1999). Acquiring the unaccusative/unergative distinction in a second language: evidence from English-speaking learners of L2 Mandarin. Linguistics, 371, 275–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, A. (1993). Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In Semantics and the Lexicon (pp. 129–161). Springer, Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar