transfer and transition in the sla of aspect

SSLA , 31 , 371– 402 . Printed in the United States of America.doi:10.1017/S0272263109090342

© 2009 Cambridge University Press 0272-2631/09 $15.00 371

TRANSFER AND TRANSITION IN THE SLA OF ASPECT

A Bidirectional Study of Learners of English and Japanese

Alison Gabriele University of Kansas

Previous studies have shown that it is particularly diffi cult for second language (L2) learners to overcome the effects of transfer when they need to unlearn specifi c aspects of the native language in the absence of explicit input that indicates which properties of the fi rst language (L1) are ruled out by the L2 grammar (Inagaki, 2001 ; Westergaard, 2003 ; White, 1991a , 1991b ). The present study focuses on the effects of transfer in the domain of aspectual semantics through an investigation of the interpretation of the present progressive in L2 English and the imperfective marker te-iru in L2 Japanese and exam-ines whether L2 learners can rule out interpretations available in the

The research reported here is part of my dissertation work completed at the City Univer-sity of New York Graduate Center in 2005. I am grateful to Gita Martohardjono and William McClure for their guidance at both early and later stages of this project as well as for many helpful discussions of the issues presented here. I thank Noriaki Yusa for hosting me at Miyagi Gakuin Women’s University in the fall of 2004 and for providing invaluable as-sistance and support in recruiting participants for this study. I also thank Chie Helinksi, Yukiko Katagiri, Naomi Nakada Larson, William McClure, Kyoko Selden, Robert Sukle, and John Whitman for their help in recruiting the L2 learners of Japanese. The Japanese ex-periment was developed in cooperation with Mamori Sugita. I thank Leigh Garrison for her help in data collection and analysis as well as Hia Datta for her artistic expertise. Various people have provided feedback at different stages of this work. I am grateful to José Alemán-Bañón, Marcel den Dikken, Erika Troseth, Virginia Valian, Maria Luisa Zubizaretta, and the six anonymous SSLA reviewers for their helpful suggestions, which greatly improved the article. All remaining errors are my own. This research was supported by a dissertation improvement grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS-0345697).

Address correspondence to: Alison Gabriele, Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas, 1541 Lilac Lane, Blake Hall 427, Lawrence, KS 66044-3177; e-mail: [email protected] .

Alison Gabriele372

L1 but not in the L2. Japanese learners of English ( n = 101), English native-speaker controls ( n = 23), English learners of Japanese ( n = 31), and Japanese native-speaker controls ( n = 33) completed an inter-pretation task in English or Japanese. The results show that the L2 Japanese learners were more successful than the L2 English learners in both acquiring the semantics of the imperfective in the L2 and rul-ing out interpretations available only in the L1. It is proposed that successful unlearning depends on both the grammatical complexity of the semantic target in the L2 and the transparency of the input cues available to the learner.

Although the role of the native language has been controversial in the history of SLA, every theory of SLA must include an explanatory ac-count of transfer. Current generative theories of SLA are explicit with respect to the role of the fi rst language (L1) at the initial state (Epstein, Flynn, & Martohardjono, 1996 ; Hawkins, 2001 ; Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996 ), but there is still little understanding of how transfer infl uences subsequent development and ultimate attainment (Carroll, 2001 ; Gregg, 1996 ; Hawkins; Klein & Martohardjono, 1999 ; Whong-Barr, 2006 ). For example, many second language (L2) studies have argued in support of the full transfer/full access theory (Schwartz & Sprouse; see also White, 2003 ), which proposes that the entire L1 grammar defi nes the initial state of SLA. According to this model, the learner’s hypotheses are con-strained by Universal Grammar, and acquisition is conceptualized as a process of grammar restructuring, driven by input or positive evidence. Restructuring is failure driven: The grammar is only restructured if the input cannot be processed given the learner’s current grammar (Klein & Martohardjono; White). However, as White pointed out, it is diffi cult to reconcile why some effects of transfer are easily overcome, whereas others remain evident even at advanced levels of profi ciency. A better understanding of the circumstances in which restructuring will and will not occur is thus needed. The present study considers this question in the domain of aspectual semantics, an area in which the effects of re-structuring have not yet been investigated.

There is evidence that restructuring is particularly diffi cult when learners need to unlearn certain aspects of their L1 in the absence of explicit input that indicates which properties of the L1 are ruled out by the L2. Several studies have shown that learners can show evidence of a L2 parameter setting while continuing to allow the L1 option, in some cases even at advanced profi ciency levels (Robertson & Sorace, 1999 ; Westergaard, 2003 ; see also Truscott, 2006 ). This will be referred to as a problem with the preemption of a L1 option (Trahey & White, 1993 ). In a series of studies on the verb-raising parameter (i.e., a parameter

Aspect in L2 English and L2 Japanese 373

that distinguishes between languages with a strong infl ection feature [e.g., French] and languages with a weak infl ection feature [e.g., English] and that has consequences for verb placement), White ( 1991a , 1991b) demonstrated that French learners of English successfully identifi ed strings such as John always kisses Mary as grammatical although this word order is not permissible in French. Nevertheless, these learners also allowed ungrammatical strings such as * John kisses always Mary , which are permissible only in the L1. These fi ndings, in addition to the results of several subsequent studies in the domains of L2 argument structure and syntax (e.g., Inagaki, 2001 ; Juffs, 1996 ; Mazurkewich, 1984 ; Sorace, 1993 ; Trahey & White; White, 1987 ), suggest that it cannot be assumed that positive evidence for a target form in the L2 is also to be understood as implicit negative evidence for the options available in the L1.

Despite this evidence, which suggests that the preemption of L1 op-tions is problematic, successful cases of unlearning have, nevertheless, been observed (Slabakova, 2002a , 2006 ; Yuan, 2001 , 2004 ). Yuan exam-ined both French- and English-speaking learners of Chinese with respect to the verb-raising parameter. Chinese is similar to English—and unlike French—in prohibiting verb-raising in that the word order subject-verb-adverb-object (e.g., * John kisses always Mary ) is ruled out. In contrast to the learners in White’s studies (Trahey & White, 1993 ; White, 1991a , 1991b ), the French learners of Chinese showed targetlike performance after only 6 months of Chinese instruction.

Slabakova ( 2006) investigated English native speakers’ (NSs’) acquisi-tion of the bare noun–proper name parameter in L2 Italian and also pro-vided evidence of successful preemption. This parameter, proposed by Longobardi ( 2001) , provides a unifi ed account for a syntactic word or-der contrast relevant to proper names and a semantic contrast relevant to bare nouns. The syntactic component of this parameter determines the word order of adjectives that modify proper names—for example, in English, the adjective precedes the proper name (e.g., Ancient Rome ), whereas in Italian, the adjective follows the proper name (e.g., Roma antica “ancient Rome”). The semantic component of this parameter ac-counts for the interpretation of bare plural noun phrases (NPs) in sub-ject position—for example, in English, bare plural NPs such as white elephants allow both a generic (i.e., the species of white elephants) and an existential (i.e., some white elephants) reading, whereas in Italian, only the existential reading is allowed. 1 The task of the English-speaking learner of Italian is to rule out the generic interpretation. Results indi-cate that learners are successful with both the syntactic and semantic components of this parameter. Slabakova argued that learners are able to acquire this semantic contrast and to rule out the L1 interpretation on the basis of positive evidence for the syntactic component of the parameter.

Alison Gabriele374

The question that remains is what separates the cases of successful acquisition and preemption from the cases of persistent L1 infl uence. The study by Slabakova ( 2006) was the fi rst to address this issue in the domain of semantics but argued ultimately that the learners’ success was tied to a syntactic property. The present study continues this line of investigation through the examination of the acquisition of a seman-tic property in the domain of aspect. Specifi cally, the acquisition of the present progressive in L2 English and of the imperfective marker te-iru in L2 Japanese is examined. The task of the learners of both L2 English and L2 Japanese is similar: Learners must acquire the semantic repre-sentation for the target form in the L2 and preempt the L1 semantic representation. Nevertheless, the results show that the L2 Japanese learners are generally more successful than the L2 English learners, par-ticularly with respect to preemption. It is proposed that two factors play a signifi cant role in determining whether preemption remains a problem: (a) the complexity of the semantic computation and (b) the transparency of the input cues available to the learner.

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN LEXICAL AND GRAMMATICAL ASPECT

Tense places an event on a time line, relevant to the time of speech (Rei-chenbach, 1947 ). Aspect, on the other hand, expresses how an event unfolds in time, focusing on the internal properties of an event, such as whether an event is ongoing or whether an event has already been com-pleted (Comrie, 1976 ; Smith, 1991/ 1997 ). Aspectual interpretation is compositional and is determined by various grammatical sources in a sentence, including lexical aspect, grammatical aspect, and temporal adverbials. Lexical aspect usually refers to the four-way classifi cation system proposed by Vendler ( 1967) and Dowty ( 1979) , which distin-guishes statives (e.g., know ), activities (e.g., run ), accomplishments (e.g., run a mile ), and achievements (e.g., die ). Lexical aspect is not a property of verbs per se but rather is determined compositionally by properties of the verb in conjunction with the verb’s arguments and adjuncts (Smith; Verkuyl, 1972 ). Grammatical aspect, in many languages, is encoded by infl ectional morphology, such as the progressive be –ing in English. Here, the focus is on the interaction between accomplish-ments and achievements and the grammatical morphemes that encode the progressive in English and Japanese.

Central to how Vendler ( 1967) and Dowty ( 1979) distinguished the lexical aspectual classes is the compatibility of a verb phrase (VP) with the progressive. As illustrated in (1), activities and accomplishments occur naturally in the progressive, whereas statives and achievements generally do not.


(1) a. Stative * Sophia is knowing French . b. Activity Sophia is running . c. Accomplishment Sophia is running a mile . d. Achievement * Sophia is recognizing her friend . According to Dowty, this pattern is the result of the lexical semantic representation of these verb classes. Traditional accounts of the pro-gressive in English require that the VP, under the scope of the progres-sive, entails a process (Dowty; Landman, 1992 ). The lexical semantics of activities and accomplishments meets this requirement; therefore, these VPs are compatible with the progressive. In contrast, statives and achievements do not entail processes: Statives are not dynamic and therefore do not progress, whereas achievements consist only of a change of state and are said to happen instantaneously.

Many exceptions to this pattern have, nonetheless, been documented (Dowty, 1979 ; Rothstein, 2004 ; Smith, 1991/ 1997 ; Verkuyl, 1989 ). Achieve-ments such as arrive are quite natural in the progressive. Although the details vary, several proposals (Michaelis, 2006 ; Moens & Steedman, 1988 ; Rothstein) have argued that achievements need to undergo a type-shifting or coercion operation in order to be compatible with the se-mantics of the progressive. According to Rothstein, for an achievement to be acceptable in the progressive, it must fi rst be converted to an (abstract) accomplishment; that is, the type-shifting operation adds a process component to the achievement, which allows the progressive to focus on the point in the event just before culmination. Similarly, certain statives may also be used in the progressive (e.g., John is being a jerk ). De Swart (1998) proposed that stative progressives are also the result of coercion: The state is converted into an activity or process in order to resolve the mismatch with the progressive. For both de Swart and Rothstein, constraints on coercion rely on pragmatics; that is, not all achievements can be coerced to combine with the progressive. For de Swart, whether a verb can be coerced depends on both the context and world knowledge—for example, arrive is compatible with the pro-gressive because there are preparatory stages of arrival that can easily be identifi ed as events leading up to the point of culmination. For a verb such as notice , however, it is much more diffi cult to identify what those preparatory stages could involve (Rothstein).

On the other hand, in Japanese, the interpretation of the grammatical form that denotes the progressive, te-iru , differs depending on the lexi-cal aspect of the VP. 2 With activities and accomplishments, as illustrated in (2) and (3), the preferred reading is progressive (Jacobsen, 1992 ;

Alison Gabriele376

Kindaichi, 1950 ; Ogihara, 1998 ), 3 but with achievements, the imperfec-tive marker te-iru always denotes a resultative interpretation. A progres-sive reading is thus ruled out, as shown in (4), and coercion is not possible. The sentence in (4) literally means The plane has arrived and crucially cannot mean The plane is arriving at the airport . 4 (2) Activity Taroo-ga hashit te-iru . Taroo- NOM run te-iru PRESENT “Taroo is running.”

(3) Accomplishment Taroo-ga hon-o yon de-iru Taroo- NOM book- ACC read te-iru PRESENT “Taroo is reading a book.”

(4) Achievement Hikoki-ga kuko-ni tui te-iru . plane- NOM airport at arrive te-iru PRESENT “The plane (arrived and) is at the airport.” (Hirakawa, 2001 , p. 226)

The present study focuses on the differences in the interaction between achievements and the aspectual morphemes in English and Japanese: With the imperfective marker te-iru , achievements encode a resultative reading, which indicates that the event has already been completed, whereas with the progressive be –ing , achievements encode a progres-sive reading, which indicates that the event is about to happen.

Although details vary, in almost all formal semantic accounts (Dowty, 1979 ; Landman, 1992 ; Verkuyl, 1993 ), the progressive is treated as an aspectual operator (PROG). Researchers have proposed truth condi-tions for the PROG operator that can account for its interaction with specifi c VPs (e.g., de Swart, 1998 ; Dowty; Landman; Parsons, 1990 ; Verkuyl). Expanding on previous work in English (e.g., Dowty; Landman; Verkuyl), McClure ( 1995) proposed a crosslinguistic account in which the difference in the behavior of the progressive be –ing in English and the imperfective marker te-iru in Japanese was argued to lie in the se-mantics of the aspectual operator PROG. 5 McClure proposed one set of truth conditions for the progressive be –ing and a separate, but related, set for the imperfective marker te-iru . The differences between the truth conditions for the two forms are responsible for the differing interac-tions with the aspectual classes—achievements in particular.

McClure adopted, with some modifi cation, Dowty’s analysis of the aspectual classes: Accomplishments entail both a process and a change of state, whereas achievements entail only a change of state. Informally, the truth conditions for the progressive be –ing in English specify that a VP in the progressive is true during an interval when the event under the scope of the progressive has begun but has not yet been completed


during that same interval. In English, both accomplishments and achievements plus the progressive be –ing will thus be interpreted as events in progress. It is important to note that McClure did not discuss achievements in the progressive as instances of coercion, as does, for example, Rothstein ( 2004) .

In contrast, the semantics for the imperfective marker te-iru require that at least one event entailed by the VP has been realized before the specifi ed interval of time, which, for the present tense, is the time at which the sentence is uttered. Accomplishments entail both a process and a change of state. The truth conditions for the imperfective marker te-iru are satisfi ed even if only the process has been realized; thus, the resulting reading is progressive. 6 In contrast, achievements entail only a change of state. Therefore, the truth conditions for the imperfective marker te-iru can only be satisfi ed when the change of state has been realized before the sentence has been uttered. Thus, achievements with the imperfective marker te-iru in Japanese will always be interpreted as resultative.

GOALS OF THE L2 LEARNER AND HYPOTHESES

Under McClure’s ( 1995) analysis, the task of the learner is to acquire the truth conditions for the aspectual operators that underlie the progres-sive be –ing and the imperfective marker te-iru . In accordance with full transfer/full access (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996 ), it is assumed that the learner’s initial hypothesis is that the truth conditions for the aspectual operator in the L2 will match those of the L1. Diffi culty with accomplish-ments was not predicted for either the L2 English or the L2 Japanese learners because these learners should be able to rely on the truth con-ditions of their L1 to successfully interpret the L2 form.

With respect to achievements, the learner has two different goals. First, the learner must acquire the truth conditions for the aspectual operator in the L2. The truth conditions for the progressive be –ing are only satisfi ed in contexts in which the end point of the event has not been reached. The opposite is true for Japanese. If the learner maps the truth conditions for the L1 aspectual operator onto the L2 operator, achievements will be interpreted incorrectly: Japanese learners of Eng-lish will interpret an achievement with the progressive be – ing as resul-tative, and English-speaking learners of Japanese will interpret an achievement with the imperfective marker te-iru as progressive. This will be referred to as the addition task because the learner must acquire a new semantic representation; it is predicted that its acquisition can be facilitated by positive evidence. Second, both groups of learners also need to preempt the L1 semantic representation and rule out the read-ings available in the L1; that is, Japanese learners of English need to rule

Alison Gabriele378

out a resultative interpretation for achievements with the progressive be –ing , whereas the English-speaking learners of Japanese need to rule out a progressive interpretation for achievements with the imperfective marker te-iru .

The present study was designed to examine the acquisition of the truth conditions for the aspectual operator in the L2 as well as the pre-emption of the semantic representation in the L1 in order to evaluate whether the ability to overcome L1 infl uence depends on the type of evidence available to the learner. Based on the results of earlier studies in the domain of syntax (e.g., Trahey & White, 1993 ), it is predicted that the acquisition of a new semantic representation is easier than the pre-emption of the existing L1 representation. The addition task can be fa-cilitated by positive evidence, whereas the preemption task should be more diffi cult, given that there is usually no input that addresses what interpretations are not possible in the L2. These issues are investigated with respect to both development and ultimate attainment through an examination of learners at a range of profi ciency levels, including a group of highly advanced learners of L2 English. Given its bidirectional design, this study examines whether the ability to overcome L1 infl u-ence is affected by the nature of the target form in the L2 or whether the learning task is similar from English to Japanese and from Japanese to English.

SLA OF ASPECT

A large body of research has investigated the aspect hypothesis (AH), which proposes that learners follow a universal path of development in the acquisition of aspectual morphology (see Bardovi-Harlig, 2000 , Li & Shirai, 2000 , and Slabakova, 2001 , for reviews). Specifi cally, proponents of the AH argue that lexical aspectual classes guide early language learn-ers in their acquisition of tense-aspect markers. For example, in English, learners fi rst use progressive morphology with activities and use past morphology with telic VPs such as accomplishments and achievements. Several studies have reported the predicted association between pro-gressive marking and activities in oral production data (Robison, 1995 ), in cloze passages (Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds, 1995 ), and in oral and written narratives (Bardovi-Harlig, 1998 ). Bardovi-Harlig’s ( 1998) results show very little use of the progressive with either accomplishments or achievements. However, several issues still remain. First, due in part to a reliance on production data, L2 research has not extended beyond the initial association between activities and the progressive: It is unclear how learners would perform with accomplishments or achievements in the progressive if tested on comprehension or interpretation tasks. Sec-ond, as discussed by Salaberry and Shirai ( 2002) and Slabakova ( 2002b) ,


the properties of the L1 and L2 have not been systematically compared, although it is likely that transfer plays an important role. For example, Rocca ( 2002) showed that Italian learners of English overextended the use of the progressive to stative verbs, a fi nding that Rocca attributed to the fact that the imperfective marker in Italian is compatible with statives (see also Collins, 2004 ).

In Japanese much of the research has focused on the imperfective marker te-iru . Although this form allows both progressive and resulta-tive interpretations, the AH predicts that learners will acquire the pro-gressive interpretation fi rst and associate the imperfective marker te-iru strongly with activities—a pattern that has been observed among learn-ers of various L1 backgrounds (Shirai & Kurono, 1998 ). The resultative interpretation has generally been shown to be more diffi cult for learn-ers (cf. Ishida, 2004 ). Despite these results, which suggest a universal pattern of development, recent studies (e.g., Nishi & Shirai, 2007 ; Sugaya & Shirai, 2007 ) have shown that the properties of the native language may play a role as well. Sugaya and Shirai investigated the acquisition of the imperfective marker te-iru by NSs of English, German, and Slavic languages. Unlike English, German and the Slavic languages do not have overt progressive morphology. Specifi cally, Sugaya and Shirai questioned whether the predicted association between the imperfec-tive marker te-iru and the progressive interpretation would emerge even for learners whose L1 does not have a progressive form. The results of an acceptability judgment task showed the predicted association for low-profi ciency learners in both L1 groups, thus supporting the AH. However, on an oral picture description task, these low-profi ciency learners performed equally well with both the progressive and resulta-tive uses of the imperfective marker te-iru . These results suggest that the relative diffi culty with the resultative interpretation may be infl u-enced by both properties of the native language and task type.

Nishi and Shirai’s ( 2007) study suggests that crosslinguistic differ-ences at the level of lexical aspect might contribute to the diffi culty with the resultative interpretation. Their study compared performance on verbs that differ at the level of lexical aspect in English and Japanese, such as know —which is a stative verb in English, but its translational equivalent in Japanese siru is an achievement—with performance on verbs that are achievements in both languages. Beginning learners had considerably more diffi culty with verbs such as know , which suggests that L1-L2 differences also play a signifi cant role at the level of lexical aspect.

Although the results of Sugaya and Shirai ( 2007) and Nishi and Shirai ( 2007) suggest a role for L1 transfer, they do not explicitly address preemption. However, other studies (e.g., Hirakawa, 2001 ; Shibata, 1999 ) that examined the acquisition of the imperfective marker te-iru have implicitly shown that the preemption of L1 options presents a challenge.

Alison Gabriele380

Shibata ( 1999) found that English-speaking learners of Japanese actu-ally used the imperfective marker te-iru more with achievements on a picture description task. Some of these achievements were used incor-rectly to encode a progressive interpretation. Similarly, in a study that used the imperfective marker te-iru as a diagnostic of unaccusativity, Hirakawa found that several learners had diffi culty assigning a resulta-tive interpretation to achievements with the imperfective marker te-iru , particularly with the Japanese equivalents of burn , fall , and arrive . In other words, these learners incorrectly assigned these verbs a progres-sive interpretation, likely due to transfer from English. The present study aims to target this type of error in more detail.

Transfer has also been directly investigated in a body of recent work that has specifi cally examined learners’ interpretations of aspectual forms (Gabriele, Martohardjono, & McClure, 2003 ; Montrul & Slabakova, 2002 , 2003 ; Slabakova, 2003 ). In a series of studies, Montrul and Slabakova ( 2002 , 2003) investigated the acquisition of the preterite-imperfect contrast in English-speaking learners of Spanish. In spite of the general success of these learners, one context remained diffi cult even for ad-vanced learners, despite aspectual similarities in the L1 and the L2: Learners had diffi culty with achievements such as sell in the Spanish imperfect. According to de Swart ( 1998) , achievements in the imperfect induce coercion because there is a clash between the semantics of the achievements and the unbounded imperfect. The coercion operator shifts the achievement from a telic event to an atelic process to repair the aspectual mismatch. Montrul and Slabakova ( 2002 , 2003) argued that coercion may be diffi cult, even if the process is available in the L1, because coercion requires recourse to pragmatics and, thus, lies out-side the realm of Universal Grammar.

In sum, previous studies (Bardovi-Harlig, 1998 ; Robison, 1995 ; Shirai & Kurono, 1998 ; Sugaya & Shirai, 2007 ) have shown that the forms focused on here are diffi cult to acquire. In L2 English, learners rarely use the pro-gressive with accomplishments and achievements. However, the source of this diffi culty has not been fully investigated, taking properties of the L1 into account and probing learners’ interpretations of these forms. In L2 Japanese, several studies (e.g., Shirai & Kurono; Sugaya & Shirai) have shown that the resultative interpretation of the imperfective marker te-iru is more diffi cult than the progressive interpretation. Nevertheless, these studies have not addressed whether L2 learners transfer the se-mantic representation of the progressive from the L1. The present study considers not only whether the semantics of the progressive be –ing and the imperfective marker te-iru can eventually be acquired (i.e., addition) but also whether L1 interpretations can also be ruled out (i.e., preemp-tion), thus contributing to our understanding of the transfer of aspectual semantics through the evaluation of whether the ability to overcome L1 infl uence depends on the type of evidence available to the learner.


LEARNERS OF L2 ENGLISH

Participants

The main participant group consisted of 101 Japanese NSs (mean age = 20, SD = 1.5) who were initially exposed to English at the ages of 12–13 years and who, at the time of testing, were studying at universi-ties in Japan. The University of Michigan English Language Institute Lis-tening Comprehension Test was used as a profi ciency measure. Raw scores on this 45-question test ranged from 19 to 42 ( M = 29, SD = 5.47). Test scores were used to divide learners into three levels: low profi -ciency (score of 19–28, n = 46), intermediate profi ciency (score of 29–35, n = 39), and high profi ciency (score of 36–45, n = 16). All students were studying English in classes taught by English NSs who generally did not use Japanese in the classroom.

A second group consisted of nine Japanese NSs who were living in New York City. Their average length of residence in New York was 7 years. To be included in the analyses, participants had to score at least 40 (of 45) on the University of Michigan English Language Institute Listening Comprehension Test and also be evaluated as near native in an interview. Near-native candidates were asked to answer three interview questions and their answers were tape-recorded. Both the interview questions and the scoring guidelines were based on the University of Cambridge Certifi cate of Profi ciency in English exam. Two English NS judges individually scored each interview on a scale of 1 to 5 in four areas: grammatical resource, lexical resource, discourse management, and global achievement. The judges’ scores were then averaged to pro-duce one composite score for each participant. The 9 participants (of 13) who were selected received composite scores of 4 or above. Finally, 23 English NSs made up the control group.

Story Compatibility Task

An interpretation task was designed to tap learners’ interpretations of aspectual morphology in English. The story compatibility task pre-sented learners with stories that depicted events that were either com-plete or incomplete (i.e., ongoing). These short stories, narrated in English, were illustrated with two pictures presented in a PowerPoint presentation. The narration of the story (one or two sentences per pic-ture) was digitally recorded and incorporated into the presentation. Fol-lowing each story, a test sentence appeared on the projection screen for 10 s; this sentence was also played over a speaker. Participants were asked to judge the test sentence on a scale of 1 to 5 and to evaluate

Alison Gabriele382

whether the sentence was compatible with the story. All of the numbers on the scale were defi ned qualitatively; for example, 1 corresponded to the statement I defi nitely cannot say this sentence in the context of the story , 3 corresponded to I might be able to say this sentence in the context of the story , and 5 corresponded to I defi nitely can say this sentence in the context of the story . Learners were told to leave blank any questions for which they were not sure of the answer.

The story compatibility task targeted the interpretation of accom-plishments and achievements with simple past, present progressive, and past progressive morphology. Sentences that targeted the simple past were included as a control. The forms that mark the past, – ed in English and – ta in Japanese, encode basically equivalent semantics re-gardless of the VP (Ogihara, 1998 ). Results for the past progressive will not be discussed here (see Gabriele, 2005 ). The story narrations were presented in the simple present so that the narrations did not use any of the aspectual forms targeted in the test sentences.

Eight accomplishments and eight achievements were tested. The VPs that were selected have the same lexical aspectual classifi cation in both languages. For the accomplishments, it was necessary that the verbs encode an ongoing, action-in-progress interpretation with the English progressive be –ing and that the Japanese equivalent of those verbs also encode a progressive interpretation with the Japanese imperfective marker te-iru . 7 For the achievements, it was necessary that the verbs selected denote a progressive interpretation with the progressive be –ing but that the Japanese equivalents of those verbs unambiguously denote a resultative interpretation with the imperfective marker te-iru . 8 The English verbs are listed in (5). (5) Accomplishments: make a cake , build a sandcastle , drink a glass of coke ,

eat a bowl of ramen , write a book , paint a portrait , read a pile of books, wash a pile of dishes

Achievements: arrive , die , come , return , open INTRANSITIVE , close INTRANSITIVE , leave, go ( to the store )

For each verb, a complete story context as well as an incomplete (i.e.,

ongoing) story context were developed. The goal was to elicit learners’ judgments as to the compatibility of sentences in the simple past and present progressive with stories in each context. Filler sentences were also included to test whether the learners understood the aspectual theme of the stories (i.e., event in progress or event completed). Each participant heard 32 test stories (16 verbs each in a complete and an incomplete context) only once and provided a judgment on only one test sentence per story. 9 For example, if a participant judged a simple past sentence such as The plane arrived at the airport with the com-plete story context, then that same participant would judge a different


sentence type (e.g., present progressive, past progressive, or fi ller) with the incomplete version of the story. Thus, each participant responded to only half of the target test categories. Roughly equal numbers of par-ticipants from each profi ciency level were randomly assigned to one of two groups. 10 Items were counterbalanced across four lists, which were randomized and controlled for ordering effects.

The stories and test sentences for the accomplishment VP paint a portrait are presented in (6). 11 In (6a), with the complete context, Eng-lish NSs were predicted to accept the simple past sentence (with a score of 4 or 5) but to reject the present progressive sentence (with a score of 1 or 2). Predicted ratings of the NSs and learners are provided following each test sentence. No diffi culty was predicted for the L2 learners with accomplishments in the progressive or with the simple past in general. The reverse judgments are predicted for the incomplete context in (6b), in which the simple past should be rejected and the present progressive should be accepted. (6) Paint a portrait (accomplishment) Picture 1: Ken is an artist . At 12:00 he begins to paint a portrait of his family .

a. Complete story context Picture 2a: At 8:00 he gives the portrait to his mother for her birthday . i. Past: Ken painted a portrait of his family . (Expected rating of NSs: 5; L2 English learners: 5) ii. Present progressive: Ken is painting a portrait of his family . (Expected rating of NSs: 1; L2 English learners: 1)

b. Incomplete story context Picture 2b: At 12:30 he paints his mother and father . i. Past: Ken painted a portrait of his family . (Expected rating of NSs: 1; L2 English learners: 1) ii. Present progressive: Ken is painting a portrait of his family . (Expected rating of NSs: 5; L2 English learners: 5) The paradigm for the achievement verb arrive is presented in (7). The predicted judgments for the English NSs with achievements are the same as the judgments predicted for the accomplishments: The simple past should be accepted with the complete story context and rejected with the incomplete story context. The progressive, in contrast, should be accepted with the incomplete story context and rejected with the complete story context. The predictions for the progressive differ for the learners. If the learners map the truth conditions for the imperfec-tive marker te-iru onto the progressive be – ing , they are expected to in-terpret the present progressive sentence The plane is arriving at the airport incorrectly to mean The plane has arrived at the airport . This is the preemption context, and it is predicted that even learners at advanced levels of profi ciency may have diffi culty with this condition.

Alison Gabriele384

Furthermore, if learners incorrectly interpret The plane is arriving at the airport to mean The plane has arrived at the airport , they will incorrectly reject the present progressive with the incomplete context, as is illus-trated in (7b). This is the addition context, and it is predicted that learn-ers will have less diffi culty overcoming transfer here due to the availability of positive evidence. (7) Arrive (achievement) Picture 1: This is the plane to Tokyo . At 4:00 the plane is near the airport .

a. Complete story context (preemption) Picture 2a: At 5:00 the passengers are at the airport . i. Past: The plane arrived at the airport . (Expected rating of NSs: 5; L2 English learners: 5) ii. Present progressive: The plane is arriving at the airport . (Expected rating of NSs: 1; L2 English learners: 5)

b. Incomplete story context (addition) Picture 2b: There is a lot of wind . At 4:30 the plane is still in the air . i. Past: The plane arrived at the airport . (Expected rating of NSs: 1; L2 English learners: 1) ii. Present progressive: The plane is arriving at the airport . (Expected rating of NSs: 5; L2 English learners: 1) Finally, 16 distracter stories were included to balance the number of items expected to be acceptable and unacceptable.

A week before testing, participants were provided with a comprehensive Japanese-English word list that defi ned the words and phrases that would be included in the stories. On the day of testing, a brief vocabulary quiz was given to review any potentially diffi cult items. Participants were tested in small groups. The profi ciency test and interpretation task took about 1 h total to complete. All participants were compensated for their time.

Results

Analyses. The main goal of the analyses was to determine if the re-sponses to a given sentence type (e.g., simple past accomplishment) differed depending on the context provided (i.e., complete or incom-plete). Because each participant did not respond to all sentence types in both the complete and incomplete contexts, factorial univariate ANOVAs were performed separately for each sentence type with context (i.e., complete vs. incomplete) and profi ciency level (i.e., low, intermedi-ate, high, near-native, and NS) as between-subjects factors.

Present Progressive. Results for the present progressive are presented in Figure 1 . 12 Recall that for achievements (e.g., The plane is arriving at


the airport ), the incomplete story represents the addition context and the complete story represents the preemption context.

The results of the ANOVA for the achievements revealed a signifi cant effect for context, F (1, 123) = 28.606, p < .001, a signifi cant effect for profi -ciency level, F (1, 123) = 3.816, p < .01, and a signifi cant interaction between context and profi ciency level, F (4, 123) = 26.098, p < .001. NSs behaved as predicted, assigning high scores on the incomplete context (i.e., plane still in the air) and low scores on the complete context (i.e., plane has landed).

The results for the low- and intermediate-profi ciency groups gener-ally followed the pattern predicted by transfer: These learners assigned higher scores to the present progressive with the complete context as opposed to the incomplete context—the opposite of the NSs. The inter-action was further examined with a series of t tests for each profi ciency level. The t tests confi rmed that both the low- and intermediate-profi ciency groups assigned signifi cantly higher scores to the present progressive with complete contexts (low: t (44) = 2.723, p < .01; interme-diate: t (37) = 2.212, p < .05). The results for the advanced groups are somewhat more complicated. Similar to the NSs, the learners in the high-profi ciency group distinguished between the incomplete and com-plete contexts; they correctly assigned higher scores to the present progressive with the incomplete contexts (high: t (14) = –3.859, p < .01; NS: t (21) = –12.203, p < .001). However, the near-native speakers did not make this distinction. Although their scores were numerically higher on the incomplete context, the t test revealed that the difference between the near-native speakers’ responses in the two contexts was not signifi cant. However, it is possible that the low number of near-native speakers is responsible for this result.

The acceptance and rejection rates for achievement verbs are pre-sented in Table 1 . Participants are categorized according to whether they accepted at least 75% of the items (i.e., three of the four items) with a score of 4 or 5, rejected at least 75% of the items with a score of 1 or 2, or performed at chance. Recall that each participant responded to a given sentence type with only one context: complete or incomplete.

1

2

3

4

5

Low Int. High Near-natives

NSs Low Int. High Near-natives

NSs

Achievements Accomplishments

Meanresponse

Incomplete

Complete

Figure 1. L2 English present progressive: Mean responses to achieve-ments and accomplishments. Int. = intermediate.

Alison Gabriele386

For the incomplete (i.e., addition) context, it was predicted—on the basis of transfer—that the learners at lower levels of profi ciency would assign low scores to the present progressive. This is generally the pat-tern observed. However, the results are also consistent with the predic-tion that transfer can be overcome at higher profi ciency levels, because nearly all of the participants at the advanced profi ciency levels cor-rectly accepted 75% of the present progressive sentences with the in-complete context, similar to the NSs.

Although there is evidence of diffi culty in the low- and intermediate-profi ciency groups, it is not clear whether this diffi culty was caused by transfer. Many learners performed at chance, and performance on this context appeared to depend on the particular verb. Thus the overall mean response for each verb was calculated: Learners performed most accurately with the verbs go ( M = 4.8), leave ( M = 4.4), die ( M = 3.7), and close ( M = 3.3) but demonstrated diffi culty with the verbs return ( M = 2.8), come ( M = 2.5), arrive ( M = 2.1), and open ( M = 1.8). 13 No simple explana-tion can be found for the reason why some verbs are less problematic than others. These results suggest that deciphering the interaction between the progressive operator and the VP seems to proceed at a dif-ferent pace for different verbs.

With respect to the preemption task, it was predicted—on the basis of transfer—that learners would incorrectly give high scores in the com-plete context; that is, they would incorrectly allow the progressive to refer to a complete event. The results in Table 1 show this general pat-tern: In the low- and intermediate-profi ciency groups, about half of the participants accepted 75% of the items. Many of the other learners in the low- and intermediate-profi ciency groups performed at chance: They assigned half of the items scores of 4 or 5 and the other half of the items scores of 1 or 2. At the higher levels of profi ciency, several of

Table 1. Achievements in the present progressive by group

Group

Incomplete (addition) Complete (preemption)

Accept Reject Chance Total Accept Reject Chance Total

Low ( n = 46)

4 (18%) 3 (14%) 15 (68%) 22 13 (54%) 2 (8%) 9 (38%) 24

Intermediate ( n = 39)

4 (20%) 6 (30%) 10 (50%) 20 11 (58%) 4 (21%) 4 (21%) 19

High ( n = 16)

6 (86%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 7 2 (22%) 5 (56%) 2 (22%) 9

Near-natives ( n = 9)

4 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%) 5

English NSs ( n = 23)

11 (92%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 12 0 (0%) 11 (100%) 0 (0%) 11


the participants also clearly accepted the progressive with a complete context. With respect to individual verbs, go was the only verb that the L2 learners clearly rejected with the complete context, with an overall mean of 1.5. The results show that the learners had more diffi culty with the other verbs: return ( M = 3.1), come ( M = 3.2), arrive ( M = 3.4), leave ( M = 3.6), close ( M = 3.6), die ( M = 3.7), and open ( M = 4.5). In sum, preemp-tion remained a problem.

As predicted, there were differences in the results of the incomplete and complete contexts for achievements in the present progressive: Although the lower level learners demonstrated diffi culty in correctly accepting the present progressive with an incomplete context, a more targetlike interpretation emerges in the higher profi ciency levels. These results suggest that, as predicted, advanced learners perform more accurately when the acquisition task involves the addition of a new representation. The same pattern of development was not found with the preemption context: Individual analyses showed that even some advanced learners allowed the present progressive to refer to com-plete events.

The results for the present progressive sentences with accomplish-ments (e.g., Ken is painting a portrait of his family ) are also summa-rized in Figure 1 . The ANOVA indicated a signifi cant effect for context, F (1, 123) = 157.670, p < .001, but not for profi ciency level, F (4, 123) = 0.843, p = .501. However, a signifi cant interaction was found between context and profi ciency level, F (4, 123) = 2.971, p < .05. Independent samples t tests revealed that the distinction was in fact signifi cant for all groups (low: t (44) = 8.439, p < .0001; intermediate: t (37) = 4.871, p < .001; high: t (14) = 6.70, p < .001; near native: t (7) = 5.676, p < .001; NS: t (21) = 7.348, p < .001). As predicted, with accomplishments, all groups successfully accepted the progressive with the incomplete context (i.e., portrait in progress) and rejected the form with the complete context (i.e., por-trait completed), which indicates that the nontargetlike responses to the achievements were not due to diffi culty with the semantics of the present progressive in general.

Simple Past. Figure 2 summarizes the results for the simple past. The results for the achievements yielded a signifi cant effect for context, F (1, 123) = 537.913, p < .001, but not for profi ciency level, F (4, 123) = 1.584, p = .183, nor was there an interaction between these two factors, F (4, 123) = 1.079, p = .37. Similarly, the ANOVA for the accomplishments in the simple past revealed a signifi cant effect for context, F (1, 123) = 113.952, p < .001, but not for profi ciency level, F (4, 123) = 0.810, p = .521, nor was there an interaction between context and profi ciency level, F (4, 123) = 2.228, p = .07. In sum, these results for the simple past demon-strate a clear distinction between the incomplete and complete con-texts and indicate that the learners follow the same pattern as the NSs. 14

Alison Gabriele388

Furthermore, the targetlike results for the achievements in the simple past indicate that learners do not have diffi culty with the lexical aspec-tual class of achievements per se but rather with the interaction be-tween the achievements and the progressive operator.

LEARNERS OF L2 JAPANESE

Participants

The main participant group consisted of 33 English NSs who were study-ing Japanese at high schools or universities (mean age = 21, SD = 6.9). The control group was composed of 31 Japanese NSs, who were under-graduates tested in Japan. All L2 participants were initially exposed to Japanese after the age of 15. The participants had been studying Japa-nese for an average of 3 years (range: 6 months to 6 years). The listening comprehension section of the Japanese Language Profi ciency Test, which is administered by the Japan educational exchanges and ser-vices, was used as a profi ciency measure. 15 Raw scores on this 16-item test ranged from 1 to 14 ( M = 6.8). Learners who scored below the mean were classifi ed as low-profi ciency learners ( n = 16), and learners who scored above the mean were classifi ed as high-profi ciency learners ( n = 17).

Story Compatibility Task

The Japanese version of the task was designed in parallel to the English version. The Japanese verbs are listed in (8). (8) Accomplishments: keeki-o tsukuru “make a cake,” suna-no shiro-o tateru

“build a sandcastle,” koppu ippai-no koora-o nomu “drink a glass of coke,”

1

2

3

4

5

Low Int. High Near-natives

NSs Low Int. High Near-natives

NSs


Meanresponse

Incomplete

Complete

Figure 2. L2 English simple past: Mean responses to achievements and accomplishments. Int. = intermediate.


ippai-no raamen-o taberu “eat a bowl of ramen,” hon-o kaku “write a book,” e-o kaku “paint a portrait,” yamazumi no hon-o yomu “read a pile of books,” yamazumi-no shokki-o arau “wash a pile of dishes”

Achievements: tsuku “arrive,” shinu “die,” kuru “come,” kaeru “return,” aku “open INTRANSITIVE ,” shimaru “close INTRANSITIVE ,” deru “leave,” iku “go”

Here, only the results for the accomplishments and achievements

with the simple past marker –ta and the progressive marker te-iru will be discussed. The stories and test sentences for the accomplishment e-o kaku “paint a portrait” are provided in (9). The stories were nar-rated in Japanese, whereas the test sentences were both narrated and presented in written form, using Japanese script. All Chinese charac-ters (kanji) were also phonetically transcribed (in hiragana). In the stimuli, the polite form of the verb was used because learners are more familiar with this form: For example, in (9), the polite form of the imperfective marker, te-imasu , was used instead of te-iru .

In the complete context, as illustrated in (9a) for the accomplish-ment e-o kaku “paint a portrait,” Japanese NSs were predicted to accept the simple past sentence but to reject the sentence with the imperfective marker te-iru . In the incomplete context in (9b), on the other hand, the simple past was predicted to be rejected, and the sentence with the imperfective marker te-iru was predicted to be accepted. No diffi culty was predicted for the L2 learners with accom-plishments with the imperfective marker te-iru or with the simple past in general. (9) E-o kaku “paint a portrait” (accomplishment) Picture 1: Ken-wa gaka desu . Ken- TOPIC artist be- PRESENT 12ji-ni Ken-wa kazoku-no e-o kaki-hajimemasu . 12 o’clock at Ken- TOPIC family- GEN picture- ACC draw-begin- PRESENT “Ken is an artist. At 12:00 Ken begins to paint a picture of

his family.” a. Complete story context Picture 2a: 8ji-ni Ken-wa tanjoobi puresento toshite 8 o’clock at Ken- TOPIC birthday present as okaasan-ni e-o watashimasu . mother-at picture- ACC give- PRESENT “At 8:00 Ken gives the picture to his mother for her birthday.” i. Past: Ken-wa kazoku-no e-o kakimashita . Ken- TOPIC family- GEN picture- ACC draw- PAST “Ken painted a picture of his family.” (Expected rating of NSs: 5; L2 Japanese learners: 5) ii. Te-iru : Ken-wa kazoku-no e-o kai te-imasu . Ken- TOPIC family- GEN picture- ACC draw- te-iru - PRESENT “Ken is painting a picture of his family.” (Expect rating of NSs: 1; L2 Japanese learners: 1)

Alison Gabriele390

b. Incomplete story context Picture 2b: 12ji 30pun-ni Ken-wa okaasan-to otoosan-no e-o 12:30 at Ken- TOPIC mother and father- GEN picture- ACC kaki-hajimemasu . draw-begin- PRESENT “At 12:30 Ken begins to paint a picture of his mother and

father.” i. Past: Ken-wa kazoku-no e-o kakimashita . Ken- TOPIC family- GEN picture- ACC draw- PAST “Ken painted a picture of his family.” (Expected rating of NSs: 1; L2 Japanese learners: 1) ii. Te-iru : Ken-wa kazoku-no e-o kai te-imasu . Ken- TOPIC family- GEN picture- ACC draw- te-iru - PRESENT “Ken is painting a picture of his family.” (Expected rating of NSs: 5; L2 Japanese learners: 5)

Stories and test sentences for the achievement tsuku “arrive” are provided in (10). It was predicted that the Japanese NSs would ac-cept the simple past with the complete context in (10a) and reject it with the incomplete context in (10b). For achievements, the pre-dicted NS judgments are the same for the simple past and the sen-tences with the imperfective marker te-iru . In contrast, if the English NSs map the truth conditions for the English progressive be – ing onto the imperfective marker te-iru , they will interpret the sentence in (10) to mean The plane is arriving at the airport . Thus, in (10a), the learners will incorrectly reject the imperfective marker te-iru with the complete (i.e., addition) context; it was predicted that learners will have less diffi culty overcoming transfer in this context. Further-more, if the English NSs interpret the imperfective sentence in (10) as The plane is arriving at the airport , they should incorrectly accept the sentence with the incomplete (i.e., preemption) context in (10b). It was predicted that even learners at advanced profi ciency levels may have diffi culty with this context.

(10) Tsuku “arrive” (achievement) Picture 1: Kore-wa Tookyoo yuki-no hikooki desu . Ima 4ji This- TOPIC Tokyo bound- GEN plane be- PRESENT now 4 o’clock desu. Hikooki-wa kuukoo-no chikaku desu . be- PRESENT Plane- TOPIC airport- GEN close be- PRESENT “This is the plane bound for Tokyo. It’s 4:00 now. The plane is

near the airport.” a. Complete story context (addition) Picture 2a: 5ji desu . Jyookyaku-wa kuukoo-ni imasu . 5 o’clock be- PRESENT passenger- TOPIC airport-at exist- PRESENT “It’s 5:00. The passengers are at the airport.”


i. Past: Hikooki-wa kuukoo-ni tsukimashita . Plane- TOPIC airport-at arrive- PAST “The plane arrived at the airport.” (Expected rating for NSs: 5; L2 Japanese learners: 5) ii. Te-iru : Hikooki-wa kuukoo-ni tsui te-imasu . Plane- TOPIC airport-at arrive- te-iru - PRESENT “The plane is at the airport.” (Expected rating for NSs: 5; L2 Japanese learners: 1) b. Incomplete story context (preemption) Picture 2b: Kaze-ga tsuyoi desu. 4ji 30 pun-ni hikooki-wa

wind- NOM strong be- PRESENT 4:30 at plane- TOPIC mada sora-o hikoo-chyuu desu. still sky- ACC fl y-in the middle of be- PRESENT “The wind is strong. At 4:30 the plane is still in the sky.” i. Past: Hikooki-wa kuukoo-ni tsukimashita . Plane- TOPIC airport-at arrive- PAST “The plane arrived at the airport.” (Expected rating for NSs: 1; L2 Japanese learners: 1) ii. Te-iru : Hikooki-wa kuukoo-ni tsui te-imasu . Plane- TOPIC airport-at arrive- te-iru - PRESENT “The plane is at the airport.” (Expected rating of NSs: 1; L2 Japanese learners: 5)

Filler sentences were included to test whether the learners under-stood the aspectual theme of the stories (i.e., event in progress or event completed). Additionally, 16 distracter stories were included to balance the number of items expected to be acceptable and unacceptable. The L2 Japanese participants were provided with a comprehensive word list that was reviewed on the day of testing. Participants were tested in small groups. The profi ciency test and interpretation task took about 1 h total to complete. All participants were compensated for their time.

Results

The Imperfective Marker te-iru. The results of the achievement verbs (e.g., tsuite-imasu “has arrived”) used with the imperfective marker te-iru are presented in Figure 3 . Recall that, in the Japanese study, the com-plete context represented the addition task and the incomplete context represented the preemption task.

Japanese NSs responded as predicted, assigning high scores in the complete context (i.e., the plane has landed) and low scores in the in-complete context (i.e., the plane still in the air). The ANOVA indicated a signifi cant effect for context, F (1, 58) = 148.015, p < .001, and profi ciency level, F (2, 58) = 8.031, p < .01, as well as a signifi cant interaction between these two factors, F (2, 58) = 18.354, p < .001. Learners’ responses were found to generally follow the same pattern as the NSs; they correctly

Alison Gabriele392

assigned higher scores to achievements with the complete context than with the incomplete context. Independent samples t tests confi rmed that this distinction was signifi cant for all groups (low: t (14) = 3.093, p < .01; high: t (15) = 3.942, p < .01; Japanese NSs: t (29) = 22.802, p < .001). Thus, the learners performed more accurately than predicted.

The acceptance and rejection rates for achievement verbs are pre-sented in Table 2 . Participants are categorized according to whether they accepted at least 75% of the items (i.e., three of the four items) with a score of 4 or 5, rejected at least 75% of the items with a score of 1 or 2, or performed at chance. Recall that each participant responded to a given sentence type in only one context: complete or incomplete.

For the complete (i.e., addition) context, it was predicted—on the basis of transfer—that learners at lower levels of profi ciency would as-sign low scores to the imperfective marker te-iru . The results do not provide evidence of transfer in either group. The majority of the learn-ers performed similarly to the NSs; that is, they correctly accepted at least 75% of the test items. In the high-profi ciency group, fi ve learners accepted all of the items. With respect to individual verbs, both groups of learners performed well and provided mean responses above 4.0 on six of the eight verbs: The only two verbs that presented diffi culty were tsuku “arrive” ( M = 3.3) and iku “go” ( M = 3.1). These results demonstrate that very few learners had diffi culty with the addition task.

1

2

3

4

5

Low High NSs Low High NSs


Meanresponse

Incomplete

Complete

Figure 3. L2 Japanese imperfective marker te-iru : Mean responses to achievements and accomplishments.

Table 2. Achievements with the imperfective marker te-iru by group

Group

Complete (addition) Incomplete (preemption)

Accept Reject Chance Total Accept Reject Chance Total

Low ( n = 46) 6 (86%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 7 3 (33%) 0 (0%) 6 (67%) 9 High ( n = 16) 7 (70%) 0 (0%) 3 (30%) 10 0 (0%) 4 (57%) 3 (43%) 7 Japanese NSs ( n = 31)

16 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 16 0 (0%) 14 (93%) 1 (7%) 15


For the incomplete (i.e., preemption) context, it was predicted—on the basis of transfer—that the learners would incorrectly accept these sentences. In the low-profi ciency group, the results of three learners provide strong evidence of transfer because they incorrectly accepted 75% of these test items; for these learners, preemption was clearly a problem. Most learners performed at chance, however. Mean responses were calculated for each verb: The verbs that presented the most diffi -culty in the preemption context were iku “go” ( M = 4.6), deru “leave” ( M = 4.0), kaeru “return” ( M = 3.8), and tsuku “arrive” ( M = 3.0). The high-profi ciency group performed more accurately, with the majority of the learners correctly rejecting 75% of the test items. These results differ from the results of the L2 learners of English, in which even some near-native speakers had diffi culty with preemption.

Figure 3 summarizes the results for the imperfective marker te-iru used with accomplishments (e.g., e-o kaite-imasu “painting a portrait”). There was a signifi cant effect for context, F (1, 58) = 67.470, p < .001, but not for profi ciency level, F (2, 58) = 2.704, p = .075, nor was there an inter-action between context and profi ciency level, F (2, 58) = 1.555, p = .220. Participants clearly distinguished between the incomplete (i.e., portrait in progress) and complete (i.e., portrait complete) contexts.

Simple Past. Figure 4 summarizes the results for the simple past. The results for the achievements indicate a signifi cant effect for context, F (1, 58) = 288.764, p < .001, and a signifi cant interaction between context and profi ciency level, F (2, 58) = 10.850, p < .001, but no effect for profi -ciency level, F (2, 58) = 0.271, p = .764. The results for the accomplish-ments indicate a signifi cant effect for context, F (1, 58) = 74.929, p < .01, and for profi ciency level, F (2, 58) = 3.493, p < .05. However, post hoc com-parisons did not reveal signifi cant differences between any of the groups. No interaction was found between context and profi ciency level, F (2, 58) = 2.036, p = .140. These results indicate that the participants

1

2

3

4

5

Low High NSs Low High NSs


Meanresponse

Incomplete

Complete

Figure 4. L2 Japanese simple past: Mean responses to achievements and accomplishments.

Alison Gabriele394

generally performed as expected. Just as in the L2 learners of English, the simple past did not present diffi culty for the learners.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The goal of this study was to examine the nature of transfer in the do-main of aspectual semantics through the investigation of differences in the interaction between lexical and grammatical aspect in English and Japanese. It was predicted that learners’ performance on accomplish-ments would be better than their performance on achievements, and that performance on the addition context would be more accurate than performance on the preemption context. Finally, the bidirectional na-ture of this study allowed for the examination of whether L2 learners’ ability to overcome these crosslinguistic differences is infl uenced by the semantics of the target in the L2.

The hypothesis that learners of both L2 English and L2 Japanese would perform accurately on accomplishments was confi rmed, which demon-strates that learners do not have global diffi culty with either the semantics of the progressive in English or the imperfective marker te-iru in Japanese. Additionally, the learners’ targetlike results on achievements in the sim-ple past demonstrate that learners do not have global diffi culty with achievements. Thus, it becomes clear that it is the interaction between achievements and the progressive be –ing and the imperfective marker te-iru that presents the greatest challenge.

Although these results are consistent with those of previous studies for L2 English and L2 Japanese (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 1998 ; Shirai & Kurono, 1998 ), the novel contribution of this study was the consider-ation of not only acquisition but also preemption. The results confi rmed that the preemption contexts presented the greater problem for the learners of both L2 English and L2 Japanese. The learners of L2 English, at all profi ciency levels, performed poorly on the preemption context, allowing the present progressive to refer to complete events. This con-trasts with the addition context, in which the task presented diffi culty only for learners at lower profi ciency levels. For the learners of L2 Japa-nese, preemption was less of a problem, but there was still evidence of diffi culty, particularly among learners in the low-profi ciency group who allowed the imperfective marker te-iru to refer to ongoing events. These results for the preemption context contrast with the addition context in which the majority of the L2 Japanese learners were successful, irrespective of profi ciency level. In general, this suggests that the task was more diffi cult for the L2 English learners, with preemption present-ing the greatest challenge.

To reconcile the fi ndings of the two groups of L2 learners, their com-parability must be addressed: It is necessary to ascertain whether the


L2 Japanese learners simply had an advantage because of higher L2 profi ciency. The learners in the lower profi ciency levels differed with respect to years of L2 study: The low-profi ciency L2 English learners averaged 8 years of study (i.e., junior high school through university), whereas the low-profi ciency L2 Japanese learners averaged only 2 years (i.e., high school or university). In this respect, the L2 Japanese learners do not have an advantage. The advanced learners demonstrate a greater disparity: The most advanced L2 Japanese learners were still essentially classroom learners. Only 6 of the 17 L2 Japanese learners in the high-profi ciency group reported spending time in Japan ( M = 4 months abroad). On average, these learners reported using Japanese outside of the classroom for 1 h per week; only fi ve learners reported contact with NSs. In contrast, the high-profi ciency L2 English learners (tested in Ja-pan) all reported frequent contact with English NSs either through their jobs or through friendships with foreigners who live in Japan. The near-natives tested in New York City used English on a daily basis. Therefore, it is unlikely that the superior performance of the L2 Japanese partici-pants is due only to an advantage of profi ciency, exposure, or use. In fact, the L2 English learners seem to have the advantage. Neverthe-less, the results suggest that the learning task was more diffi cult for the L2 learners of English. I will argue that the explanation for this diffi culty lies in both the complexity of the grammatical form in English and the transparency of the input cues available to the learners.

For the L2 English learners, the learning task is likely to be more dif-fi cult because it requires that they master the semantics of progressive achievements. Under McClure’s ( 1995) account, diffi culty was predicted with progressive achievements because of the differences between English and Japanese; this proposal does not treat accomplishments and achievements in the scope of the progressive differently. However, several recent accounts have proposed that achievements need to un-dergo a type-shifting or coercion operation to be compatible with the semantics of the progressive (Michaelis, 2006 ; Moens & Steedman, 1988 ; Rothstein, 2004 ). Rothstein proposed that achievements (but not ac-complishments) require a semantic type-shifting operation to repair the aspectual mismatch between the VP and the progressive operator. Therefore, there is an extra step in the semantic computation: Achieve-ments must fi rst be converted to abstract accomplishments.

de Swart’s (1998) account of coercion provides an idea of what this extra processing step would entail. In her account, VPs can only be reinterpreted or coerced if an appropriate context is available. For ex-ample, the achievement verb die can be coerced to match the require-ments of the progressive only if one can identify preparatory stages that can be defi ned as events leading up to the point of culmination (i.e., death). This extra step in the computation would potentially entail that interpreting progressive achievements would incur an additional

Alison Gabriele396

processing cost; if the input is more diffi cult to process, then acquisi-tion may be delayed (Slabakova, 2002b ). Although progressive achieve-ments have not yet been examined in the sentence processing literature, a growing body of evidence suggests that the processing of other in-stances of aspectual coercion in fact incurs additional processing costs (Brennan & Pylkkänen, 2008 ; Piñango, Zuriff, & Jackendoff, 1999).

If the coercion account is correct, then it is possible that even NSs with L1s that, similar to English, also allow progressive achievements will experience diffi culty in their interpretation and processing. This notion would be compatible with the predictions of the AH, which pre-dicts a similar path of development for the progressive regardless of the L1. In the coercion account, the underlying cause of the diffi culty with progressive achievements is due to the semantic and pragmatic complexity of the computation. Thus, learners of a different L1 back-ground, such as Korean—which is similar to English in allowing pro-gressive achievements—should be tested. A comparison of Korean and Japanese learners of English would allow us to determine whether the diffi culty observed here was a consequence of transfer from Japanese, as argued, or whether the complexity of progressive achievements presents a challenge regardless of the properties of the L1. Preliminary work by Gabriele, Maekawa, and Alemán-Bañón ( 2009 ) suggests an ad-vantage for L1-L2 similarity, although even Korean learners are not able to perform at the level of NSs. Moreover, Montrul and Slabakova ( 2002) showed that similarity between the L1 and the L2 does not necessarily facilitate acquisition when learners confront sentence types that entail coercion (see also Gass & Ard, 1984 ).

In contrast to the L2 English learners, the L2 Japanese learners do not have to master the same type of semantic complexity. The combination of achievements with the imperfective marker te-iru does not require a shift in verb type or coercion. Therefore, the interpretation of achieve-ments as resultative is potentially a much easier task. In fact, a large body of research that addresses the AH has shown that learners tend to associate accomplishments and achievements with tense-aspect mark-ers that encode completion (Li & Shirai, 2000 ). Furthermore, it seems that this kind of type-shifting, as proposed by Rothstein ( 2004) for Eng-lish, is unreported in the aspectual domain in Japanese. If this is the case, then Japanese learners of English face an even greater challenge because they need to learn that aspectual mismatches can in fact be repaired via the type-shifting operation.

Finally, the input cues that might serve as the impetus for grammati-cal restructuring must be considered. There has been little discussion of how learning proceeds in the domain of semantics and what role the input might play. It is important to point out that there are differences that distinguish semantic from syntactic learning. A successful seman-tic analysis requires that the components of a sentence be successfully


integrated (compositionality), and that the sentence be successfully evaluated as true or false with respect to a particular context in the world. The need for this external evaluation presents a clear difference from the type of computation that syntactic learning requires, in which grammatical form is all that matters.

In some cases, the context may transparently guide a learner to re-structure his or her grammar. Imagine a particular context in which a L2 learner of English (L1 Japanese) is watching a movie with a friend. In the movie, an old man is on his deathbed, terminally ill but still speaking. A second friend enters the room and asks about the movie. The fi rst friend replies “The old man is dying.” If the L2 learner’s grammar is constrained by the semantic properties of the L1 Japanese, the sentence will be in-terpreted as The old man is dead . However, the output of the semantic analysis will be transparently incompatible with the real-world context: If the old man is talking, he cannot be dead. This type of incompatibility should drive the restructuring of the grammar and facilitate the acquisi-tion of a new representation in the L2. It is not hard to imagine that this kind of input might be readily available. However, this is not to say that all input will be so transparent. Imagine a different context in which the same L2 learner is now waiting at the train station with a friend. The L2 learner is chatting on her cell phone in the stairwell while the friend waits on the platform. Suddenly, the friend calls down to the L2 learner and says “The train is arriving.” If the L2 learner analyzes this sentence through the L1, the sentence will be interpreted as The train is here . As the L2 learner bounds the stairs to the platform, the train may already be pulling in to the platform. In other words, the learner’s incorrect in-terpretation will now appear correct. Achievements present only a short window of time before the event is actually realized, and it may often be diffi cult to distinguish the preparatory stages (e.g., the train approach-ing) from the point of culmination (e.g., the train at the platform). It is important to note that, in these cases, there will be no impetus for the learner to restructure his or her grammar, and the L1 option will be maintained. In contrast, the L2 Japanese learner is unlikely to face the same type of uncertainty. If an achievement such as tsuku “arrive” is used with the imperfective marker te-iru , it is unambiguously the case that the arrival has already taken place. If the English NS learning Japa-nese were to incorrectly interpret the form as is arriving , the learner would immediately realize that the output of his or her semantic com-putation was incorrect.

These examples show that a careful consideration of the input will allow for a better understanding of the circumstances in which learners are able to successfully converge on the target—and thus preempt L1 options—and those circumstances in which convergence is not possible. The input is likely to be particularly important in the domain of semantics in which the cues are often fairly subtle and learners must be able to

Alison Gabriele398

integrate extralinguistic information into their evaluation of a given form. These results suggest that if the input cues are not salient, a learner may vacillate between the available options until the evidence is strong enough to favor only the target, similar to the model proposed by Valian ( 1990) for L1 acquisition. Valian argued that L1 learners consider the dual options of a parameter simultaneously, weighing the evidence in favor of one or the other option, before fi nally converging on the target.

In sum, two factors have been proposed that arguably play a role in determining whether learners will successfully preempt L1 options. First, the grammatical complexity of the semantic target in the L2 is signifi cant. It was argued that the Japanese learners of English faced a more diffi cult learning task in that the interpretation of progressive achievements in English requires type-shifting or coercion, an addi-tional semantic computation that the English-speaking learners of Japa-nese do not need to confront. Additional research on both the acquisition and processing of forms that entail coercion is necessary to better un-derstand whether these forms are ultimately acquirable in SLA and to what extent the properties of the native language play a role.

Second, it has been argued that a consideration of the input cues can provide a better understanding of the cases in which grammatical re-structuring is not successful. In the domain of semantics, learners must evaluate a given sentence with respect to a particular context. It was proposed that the L2 learners of English again faced a more challenging task. 16 Achievements in the progressive often allow for a very short win-dow of time before the change of state is actually realized, and the dis-tinction between the event unfolding and the completion of that same event may sometimes be quite subtle. In general, it is proposed that unlearning is certainly possible in the semantic domain but that learn-ers’ success depends on several factors, which include the complexity of the semantic computation of the target and the transparency in which the L1 interpretation can be ruled out by the extralinguistic context.

(Received 20 January 2009)

NOTES

1. The bare noun–proper name parameter also addresses an additional semantic con-trast related to anaphoric binding (see Longobardi, 2001 ).

2. Shirai ( 2000) argued that some statives such as tigau “be different” are compatible with the imperfective marker te-iru . However, statives will not be addressed here, as they are not tested in the present study.

3. In certain contexts, activities and accomplishments with the imperfective marker te-iru can encode a perfect or experiential reading (e.g., Taroo has had the experience of reading a book ). The present study does not address this additional interpretation. The results of the experimental task in Japanese suggest that the experiential reading for the accomplishments was not accessed by either the NSs or the learners.


4. An anonymous SSLA reviewer asked about verbs such as keru “kick” and kushami suru “punch,” which look like achievements but would be interpreted progressively with the imperfective marker te-iru . In Shirai’s ( 2000) classifi cation, these verbs fall into a fi fth category of semelfactives; that is, they are punctual but also atelic and, therefore, are not relevant for this study.

5. See Gabriele ( 2005) for details of the formal semantics of the aspectual operator PROG.

6. In contrast, if the change of state is manifested, the resulting interpretation is per-fect or experiential (e.g., Taroo has had the experience of reading a book ). In this way, McClure’s ( 1995) proposal accounts for the two readings available for accomplishments with the imperfective marker te-iru .

7. The interpretation of the imperfective marker te-iru with each VP was verifi ed by the Japanese NS control group that participated in the study of the L2 learners of Japa-nese.

8. Here, the VP go ( to the store ) is classifi ed as an achievement because its Japanese equivalent iku “go” encodes a resultative interpretation with the imperfective marker te-iru .

9. Although a test design in which the participants do not respond to all test conditions has limitations, particularly with respect to individual analyses, it was used because of the concern that a participant’s response to one item might be infl u-enced by other items on the same test. Additionally, for each participant to respond to each sentence type (e.g., simple past, present progressive, past progressive, or fi ller) for each story, they would have to listen to each of the 32 stories four separate times.

10. A series of independent samples t tests showed that, within each profi ciency level, the two participants groups did not differ in terms of performance on the profi -ciency test. The same method was followed for both the learners of L2 English and Japanese.

11. For complete stimuli, see Gabriele ( 2005) . 12. Results of the English NSs as well as the L2 English intermediate- and high-

profi ciency learners for the accomplishments in the present progressive and the simple past were also reported in Gabriele and Maekawa ( 2008) .

13. It is interesting to note that all learners correctly accepted Vicky is going to the store with the incomplete context. After further investigation, it was found that the Japa-nese NSs accepted iku “go” with the imperfective marker te-iru in the incomplete context more than with any other achievement verb. The mean rating for all achievements with the exception of iku “go” fell in the range of 1–2, which demonstrates clear rejection, but the mean rating for iku “go” was 2.9. Therefore, it may be that iku “go,” for some NSs, al-lows a progressive interpretation with the imperfective marker te-iru , unlike the other achievements tested. If this is true, the L1 could have assisted the learners in this context.

14. The only surprising result is that mean responses to sentences in the incomplete context are not quite as low as predicted for both learners and NSs. It is possible that because the accomplishments tested involve creation or consumption VPs, speakers are more likely to accept the simple past sentences even when just part of the object has been created or consumed.

15. To ensure that the exam results would distinguish between learners at different profi ciency levels, questions designed for intermediate learners (Level 3) and questions designed for quite advanced learners (Level 2) were used from the Japanese Language Profi ciency Test.

16. An alternative explanation is that the L2 learners of Japanese had access to nega-tive evidence, whereas the L2 learners of English did not. Although it may be the case that this type of negative evidence is available, it is nevertheless an empirical question whether negative evidence is in fact benefi cial (e.g., White, 1991a , 1991b ). Nishi ( 2003) conducted a classroom study to investigate the effectiveness of form-focused instruction in teaching the various interpretations of the imperfective marker te-iru . Learners who received in-struction demonstrated improvement; however, the difference between those learners and the control group, who did not receive instruction, was not large enough to be conclusive.

Alison Gabriele400

REFERENCES

Bardovi-Harlig , K . ( 1998 ). Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring factors in sec-ond language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology . Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 20 , 471 – 508 .

Bardovi-Harlig , K . ( 2000 ). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning and use . Oxford : Blackwell .

Bardovi-Harlig , K. , & Reynolds , D. W . ( 1995 ). The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense and aspect . TESOL Quarterly , 29 , 107 – 131 .

Brennan , J. , & Pylkkänen , L . ( 2008 ). Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic cor-relates of aspectual coercion . Brain and Language , 106 , 132 – 143 .

Carroll , S . ( 2001 ). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition . Amsterdam : Benjamins .

Collins , L . ( 2004 ). The particulars on universals: A comparison of the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology among Japanese- and French-speaking learners of English . Cana-dian Modern Language Review , 61 , 251 – 274 .

Comrie , B . ( 1976 ). Aspect . New York : Cambridge University Press . de Swart , H . ( 1998 ). Aspect shift and coercion . Natural Language and Linguistic Theory , 16 ,

347 – 385 . Dowty , D . ( 1979 ). Word meaning and Montague grammar . Dordrecht : Reidel . Epstein , S. , Flynn , S. , & Martohardjono , G . ( 1996 ). Second language acquisition: Theoreti-

cal and experimental issues in contemporary research . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 19 , 677 – 714 .

Gabriele , A . ( 2005 ). The acquisition of aspect in a second language: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese . Unpublished doctoral dissertation , City University of New York Graduate Center .

Gabriele , A. , & Maekawa , J . ( 2008 ). Interpreting tense in a second language . EUROSLA Yearbook , 8 , 79 – 106 .

Gabriele , A. , Maekawa , J. , & Alemán-Bañón , J . ( 2009 ). Can we predict when dying will be diffi cult: Progressive achievements in L2 English . In J. Chandlee , M. Franchini , S. Lord , & G. M. Rheiner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 175 – 186 ). Somerville, MA : Cascadilla Press .

Gabriele , A. , Martohardjono , G. , & McClure , W . ( 2003 ). Why swimming is just as diffi cult as dying for Japanese learners of English . ZAS Papers in Linguistics , 29 , 85 – 103 .

Gass , S. M. , & Ard , J . ( 1984 ). Second language acquisition and the ontology of language universals . In W. E. Rutherford (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisi-tion (pp. 33 – 67 ). Amsterdam : Benjamins .

Gregg , K . ( 1996 ). The logical and developmental problems of second language acquisition . In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49 – 81 ). San Diego, CA : Academic Press .

Hawkins , R . ( 2001 ). The theoretical signifi cance of Universal Grammar in SLA . Second Lan-guage Research , 17 , 345 – 367 .

Hirakawa , M . ( 2001 ). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs . Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 23 , 221 – 245 .

Inagaki , S . ( 2001 ). Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japa-nese . Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 23 , 153 – 170 .

Ishida , M . ( 2004 ). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language . Language Learning , 54 , 311 – 394 .

Jacobsen , W . ( 1992 ). The transitive structure of events in Japanese . Tokyo : Kurosio . Juffs , A . ( 1996 ). Learnability and the lexicon: Theories and second language acquisition re-

search . Amsterdam : Benjamins . Kindaichi , H . ( 1950 ). Kokugo dooshi no ichibunrui [Classifi cation of Japanese verbs] .

Gengo Kenkyuu , 15 , 48 – 63 . Klein , E. , & Martohardjono , G . ( 1999 ). Investigating second language grammars: Some

conceptual and methodological issues in generative SLA research . In E. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp. 3 – 34 ). Amsterdam : Benjamins .

Landman , F . ( 1992 ). The progressive . Natural Language Semantics , 1 , 1 – 32 .


Li , P. , & Shirai , Y . ( 2000 ). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect . Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter .

Longobardi , G . ( 2001 ). How comparative is semantics? A unifi ed parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names . Natural Language Semantics , 9 , 335 – 369 .

Mazurkewich , I . ( 1984 ). Dative questions and markedness . In F. R. Eckman , D. Nelson , & L. H. Bell (Eds.), Universals of second language acquisition (pp. 119 – 131 ). Rowley, MA : Newbury House .

McClure , W . ( 1995 ). Syntactic projections of the semantics of aspect . Tokyo : Hituzi Syobo . Michaelis , L . ( 2006 ). Tense and time . In B. Aarts & A. MacMahon (Eds.), The handbook of

English linguistics (pp. 220 – 243 ). Oxford : Blackwell . Moens , M. , & Steedman , M . ( 1988 ). Temporal ontology and temporal reference . Computa-

tional Linguistics , 14 , 15 – 28 . Montrul , S. , & Slabakova , R . ( 2002 ). Acquiring morphosyntactic and semantic properties

of aspectual tenses in L2 Spanish . In A. T. Péréz-Lerouz & J. Liceras (Eds.), The acquisi-tion of Spanish morphosyntax: The L1-L2 connection (pp. 113 – 149 ). Dordrecht : Kluwer .

Montrul , S. , & Slabakova , R . ( 2003 ). Competence similarities between native and near- native speakers: An investigation of the preterite-imperfect contrast in Spanish . Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 25 , 351 – 398 .

Nishi , Y . ( 2003 ). Verb learning and the acquisition of aspect: The infl uence of crosslinguistic variation in inherent lexical aspect . Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University , Ithaca, NY .

Nishi , Y. , & Shirai , Y . ( 2007 ). Where L1 semantic transfer occurs: The signifi cance of cross-linguistic variation in lexical aspect in the L2 acquisition of aspect . In Y. Matsumoto , D. Y. Oshima , O. Robinson , & P. Sells (Eds.), Diversity in language: Perspectives and im plications (pp. 219 – 241 ). Stanford, CA : CSLI Publications .

Ogihara , T . ( 1998 ). The ambiguity of the - te iru form in Japanese . Journal of East Asian Linguistics , 7 , 87 – 120 .

Parsons , T . ( 1990 ). Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .

Piñango , M. , Zurif , E. B. , & Jackendoff , R . ( 1999 ). Real-time processing implications of en-riched composition and the syntax-semantics interface . Journal of Psycholinguistic Research , 28 , 395 – 414 .

Reichenbach , H . ( 1947 ). Elements of symbolic logic . New York : Free Press . Robertson , D. , & Sorace , A . ( 1999 ). Losing the V2 constraint . In E. Klein & G. Martohard-

jono (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp. 317 – 361 ). Amsterdam : Benjamins .

Robison , R . ( 1995 ). The aspect hypothesis revisited: A cross-sectional study of tense and aspect marking in interlanguage . Applied Linguistics , 16 , 344 – 370 .

Rocca , S . ( 2002 ). Lexical aspect in child second language acquisition of temporal morphol-ogy: A bidirectional study . In R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology (pp. 249 – 284 ). Amsterdam : Benjamins .

Rothstein , S . ( 2004 ). Structuring events: A study in the semantics of aspect . Oxford : Blackwell .

Salaberry , R. , & Shirai , Y . ( 2002 ). L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology . In R. Salab-erry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology (pp. 1 – 20 ). Am-sterdam : Benjamins .

Schwartz , B. D. , & Sprouse , R. A . ( 1996 ). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model . Second Language Research , 12 , 40 – 72 .

Shibata , M . ( 1999 ). The use of Japanese tense-aspect morphology in L2 discourse narra-tives . Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language , 2 , 68 – 102 .

Shirai , Y . ( 2000 ). The semantics of the Japanese imperfective - teiru : An integrative approach . Journal of Pragmatics , 32 , 327 – 361 .

Shirai , Y . ( 2002 ). The aspect hypothesis in SLA and the acquisition of Japanese . Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language , 5 , 42 – 61 .

Shirai , Y. , & Kurono , A . ( 1998 ). The acquisition of tense/aspect marking in Japanese as a second language . Language Learning , 48 , 245 – 279 .

Slabakova , R . ( 2001 ). Telicity in the second language . Amsterdam : Benjamins . Slabakova , R . ( 2002 a). The compounding parameter in second language acquisition .

Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 24 , 507 – 540 .

Alison Gabriele402

Slabakova , R . ( 2002 b). Recent research on the acquisition of aspect: An embarrassment of riches? Second Language Research 18 , 172 – 188 .

Slabakova , R . ( 2003 ). Semantic evidence for functional categories in interlanguage grammars . Second Language Research , 19 , 42 – 75 .

Slabakova , R . ( 2006 ). Learnability in the second language acquisition of semantics: A bidi-rectional study of a semantic parameter . Second Language Research , 22 , 498 – 523 .

Smith , C . ( 1991/1997 ). The parameter of aspect . Dordrecht : Kluwer . Sorace , A . ( 1993 ). Incomplete and divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-

native grammars of Italian . Second Language Research , 9 , 22 – 48 . Sugaya , N. , & Shirai , Y . ( 2007 ). The acquisition of progressive and resultative meanings of

the imperfective aspect marker by L2 learners of Japanese . Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition , 29 , 1 – 38 .

Trahey , M. , & White , L . ( 1993 ). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom . Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 15 , 181 – 204 .

Truscott , J . ( 2006 ). Optionality in second language acquisition: A generative, processing oriented account . International Review of Applied Linguistics , 44 , 311 – 330 .

Valian , V . ( 1990 ). Null subjects: A problem for parameter-setting models of language acqui-sition . Cognition , 35 , 105 – 122 .

Vendler , Z . ( 1967 ). Verbs and times . In Z. Vendler (Ed.), Linguistics in philosophy (pp. 97 – 121 ). Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press .

Verkuyl , H . ( 1972 ). On the compositional nature of the aspects . Dordrecht : Reidel . Verkuyl , H . ( 1989 ). Aspectual classes and aspectual composition . Linguistics and Philosophy ,

12 , 39 – 94 . Verkuyl , H . ( 1993 ). A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal

structure . New York : Cambridge University Press . Westergaard , M . ( 2003 ). Unlearning V2: Transfer, markedness and the importance of input

cues in the acquisition of word order in English by Norwegian children . EUROSLA Yearbook , 3 , 73 – 101 .

White , L . ( 1987 ). Markedness and second language acquisition: The question of transfer . Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 9 , 261 – 286 .

White , L . ( 1991 a). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom . Second Language Research , 7 , 133 – 161 .

White , L . ( 1991 b). The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition . Language Acquisition , 1 , 337 – 360 .

White , L . ( 2003 ). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar . New York : Cambridge University Press .

Whong-Barr , M . ( 2006 ). What transfers? In S. Unsworth , T. Parodi , A. Sorace , & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Paths of development in L1 and L2 acquisition (pp. 187 – 200 ). Amsterdam : Benjamins .

Yuan , B . ( 2001 ). The status of thematic verbs in second language acquisition of Chinese: Against the inevitability of thematic verb-raising in L2 acquisition . Second Language Research , 17 , 248 – 272 .

Yuan , B . ( 2004 ). Negation in French-Chinese, German-Chinese and English-Chinese inter-languages . Transactions of the Philological Society , 102 , 169 – 197 .

transfer and transition in the sla of aspect

Documents