Chapter published in:
Studies in Chinese and Japanese Language Acquisition: In honor of Stephen Crain
Edited by Mineharu Nakayama, Yi-ching Su and Aijun Huang
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 60] 2017
► pp. 85–106

Kare and the acquisition of bound variable interpretations by Korean speaking learners of Japanese

| Chungnam National University
| The Ohio State University
This paper reports on pronominal interpretations by Korean speaking learners of Japanese. Korean, like Japanese, has both null and overt pronouns and null pronouns can take quantifier antecedents while overt pronouns cannot. Most of the learners at the lowest proficiency level erroneously accepted overt pronouns with the quantifier antecedents in a truth value judgment experiment. This suggests that L1 transfer was not a general trend among the participants of the present study. The finding is similar to that in recent studies on English and Turkish speaking learners of Japanese. Taken together, they suggest that some L2 learners appear to follow a default strategy that accepts all pronouns with a bound variable reading.
Published online: 24 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.60.05hon
References

References

Barr, D.J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H.J.
2013 Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68: 255–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & McKee, C.
1985 The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. NELS 15: 94–110. Amherst MA: GSLA.Google Scholar
Gürel, A.
2003 Is the Overt Pronoun Constraint universal? Evidence from L2 Turkish. In Proceedings of the 6th GASLA, J.M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (eds), 130–139. Somerville MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
2006 L2 Turkish acquisition of pragmatic and syntactic constraints in the use of overt and null subject pronouns. In Inquires in Linguistic Development: In Honor of Lydia White, R. Slabakova, S. A. Montrul & P. Prévost (eds), 259–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J.
1983 Logical Form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14(3): 395–420Google Scholar
Hoji, H.
1991 Kare. In Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, C. Georgopoulos & R. Ishihara (eds), 287–304. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hong, S.
1985 A and A’ Binding in Korean and English: Government – Binding Parameter. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Kahraman, B. & Nakayama, M.
2015 Interpretations of kare/kanojo by Turkish speaking learners of Japanese. Ars Linguistica 21: 18–38.Google Scholar
Kahraman, B., Ozbek, A. & Nakayama, M.
2014 Interpretations of KARE with the quantifier antecedents by Turkish speaking learners of Japanese. Poster presented at the Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics, International Christian University, June.Google Scholar
Kang, N.-K.
2000 Reflexives and the Linking Theory in Universal Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Kanno, K. 1997 The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Acquisition 5: 317–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 The stability of UG principles in second language acquisition: Evidence from Japanese. Linguistics 36: 1125–1146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kano, A. & Nakayama, M.
2004 Variable binding and zibun in L2 Japanese. Arts Linguistica 11: 41–67.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D.
2008 Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In The Role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition, J. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (eds), 106–140. New York NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M.C., Schwartz, M.F. & Saffran, E. M.
1983 Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so-called agrammatic aphasics. Cognition 13: 361–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masumoto, A.
2008 Overt Pronouns and Bound Variable Reading in L2 Japanese. MA thesis, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Masumoto, A. & Nakayama, M.
2014 Interpretations of the overt pronouns in L2 Japanese. Studies in Language Sciences 13: 146–165.Google Scholar
Montalbetti, M.
1984 After Binding: On the Interpretation of Pronouns. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Okumura, T.
1954 Daimeishi ‘kare, kanojo, karera’ no koosatsu (On pronouns kare, kanojo, and karera). Kokugo Kokubun 23(11): 63–78.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A.T. & Glass. W.R.
1999 Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: Probabilistic versus generative approaches. Second Language Research 15: 220–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, C.
2014 Pronominal Interpretations in L2 Japanese. PhD Dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Pimentel, C. & Nakayama, M.
2012a Pronominal interpretations in L2 Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 28: 111–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012b L2 pronominal interpretations revisited. The 14th Annual Meeting of the Japan Society of Language Sciences Handbook, 155–156.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T.
1976 The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Saito, M. & Hoji, H.
1983 Weak crossover and move alpha in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 245–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, R.
2000 A response to Kanno’s ‘The stability of UG principles in second-language acquisition: Evidence from Japanese’. Linguistics 38: 799–816. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsuchiya, S., Yoshimura, N. & Nakayama, M.
2015 Subject nouns in L2 Japanese storytelling: A preliminary study. Ars Linguistica 21: 89–102.Google Scholar
Yamada, K.
2005 The Overt Pronoun Constraint and Null Objects in Second Language Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Yamada, T.
2004 Kokugo kyoshi-ga yoshi-ga shitte okitai Nihongo　(Japanese, that Japanese language teachers want to know). Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Yoshimura, N., Nakayama, M., Fujimori, A. & Sawasaki, K.
2012 L3 acquisition of zibun by Chinese learners of Japanese. Ars Linguistica 19: 133–144.Google Scholar