Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:43:40.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animacy hierarchy effects on the second language acquisition of attributive psych adjectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2013

JINGYU ZHANG
JINGYU ZHANG*
Affiliation:
Shaanxi Normal University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Jingyu Zhang, School of Foreign Languages, Shaanxi Normal University, 199 South Chang'an Road, Xi'an, China. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that “animacy” in the context of attributive psych adjectives can be subcategorized into “human,” “human by metonymy,” and “animate” and that these subcategories play a role for Chinese speakers acquiring English. A study that involved an acceptability judgment test found that, in contrast to a group of native controls, the second language (L2) speakers misuse adjectival –ed for adjectival –ing with animate nouns and adjectival –ing for adjectival –ed with human by metonymy nouns, indicating that L2 speakers appeal to an “animacy hierarchy” in determining the meanings of English psych adjectives. There is no evidence in the target language input for such a hierarchy, so the results are consistent with the view that these L2 learners are drawing on universal properties of thematic organization.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , March 2015 , pp. 275 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Ackerman, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (1996). Constraints on adjective past participles. In Goldberg, A. E. (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 17–30). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 673–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. (1984). The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning, 34, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. (1988). Models, processes, principles, and strategies: Second language in and out of the classroom. IDEAL, 3, 111–38. Reprinted in B. VanPattern & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition—Foreign language learning (pp. 45–78). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. (1993). Four operating principles and input distribution as explanations for underdeveloped and mature morphological systems. In Hyltenstam, K. & Viborg, A. (Eds.), Progression and regression in language (pp. 309–339). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, R., & Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 133–156.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1997). Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Hageman, L. (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 73–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Barrett, M. B. (1982). Distinguishing between prototypes: The early acquisition of meaning of object names. In Kuczaj, S. A. (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 1. Syntax and semantics (pp. 313–334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barrett, M. B. (1986). Early semantic representations and early word usage. In Kuczaj, S. A. & Barrett, M. B. (Eds.), The early development of word meaning (pp. 39–67). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291–352.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1981). The child's expression of meaning: Expanding relationships among lexicon, syntax, and morphology. In Winits, H. (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 172–189). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate “linking rules”? Linguistics, 28, 1253–1289.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Nikitina, T. (2003). On the gradience of the dative alternation. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Burt, M., Dulay, H., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, M., & Kiparsky, C. (1972). The gooficon: A repair manual for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., Hildebrandt, H., & Waters, G. S. (1994). Interaction of verb selectional restrictions, noun animacy and syntactic form in sentences processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 549–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2005). Input and SLA: Adults’ sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 55 (Suppl. 1), 79–138.Google Scholar
Chen, D. (1996). L2 Acquisition of English psych verbs by native speakers of Chinese and French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Demuth, K., Machobane, M., Moloi, F., & Odato, C. (2005). Learning animacy hierarchy effects in Sesotho double object applicatives. Language, 81, 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, N. (2005). Flying squirrels and dancing girls: Events, inadvertent cause and unaccusativity in English. In Bateman, L., & Ussery, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 35, (pp. 159–170). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
GibbsRaymond W., Jr. Raymond W., Jr. (1990). Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 56–66.Google ScholarPubMed
Gleitman, L. (1990). Structural sources of verb meaning. Language Acquisition, 1, 3–55.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J., & Kuxzaj, S. A. (1982). Towards a theory of substantive word-meaning acquisition. In Kuczaj, S. A. (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 1. Syntax and semantics (pp. 275–311). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S. (1997). Japanese and Chinese learners’ acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alternation in English. Language Learning, 47, 637–669.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1996). Learnability and the lexicon: Theories & second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Carlson, G. & Pelletier, J. (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 125–175). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lidz, J., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. (2003). Understanding how input matters: Verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar. Cognition, 87, 151–178.Google Scholar
Lord, C. (1979). “Don't you fall me down”: Children's generalizations regarding cause and transitivity. Papers and Reports on Child language Development, 17, 81–89.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2001). First-language-strained variability in the second-language acquisition of argument-structure-changing morphology with causative verbs. Second Language Research, 17, 144–194.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, J. (1995). Zero syntax: Experiences and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). How could a child use verb syntax to learn verb semantics? Lingua, 92, 377–410.Google Scholar
Rosh, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In More, T. E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111–144). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosh, E. H. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosh, E. H. & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosh, E. H., & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirao, Y., & Andersen, R. (1995). The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language, 71, 743–762.Google Scholar
Shute, N. (2007). Paternity tests: Not just for the rich. US News and World Report. Retrieved from http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/070301/1paternity.htmGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1981). The origins of grammatical encoding of events. In Deutsch, W. (Ed.), The child's construction of language (pp. 185–199). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Theoretical issues (pp. 1157–1256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Shomura, Y. (2001). Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity: Evidence from L2 Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 247–278.Google Scholar
Wang, C., & Lee, T. (1999). L2 acquisition of conflation classes of prenominal adjectival participles. Language Learning, 49, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1995). Psych verbs and the T/SM restriction: What do L2 learners know? In Koskinen, P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1995 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association: Toronto working papers in linguistics (pp. 615–625). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
White, L., Montrul, S., Hirakawa, M., Chen, D., Bruhn-Garavito, J., & Brown, C. (1998). Zero morphology and the T/SM restriction in L2 acquisition of psych verbs. In Beck, Maria-Luise (Ed.), Morphology and its interface in second language knowledge (pp. 257–282). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Whong-Barr, M., & Schwartz, B. (2002). Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of English dative alternation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 579–616.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. (2007a). The semantic salience hierarchy model: L2 acquisition of psych predicates. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. (2007b). Metonymic human and animacy hierarchy. Unpublished manuscript, Shaanxi Normal University.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. (2013). Comprehending literal and figurative expressions with psych adjectives in a second language. Unpublished manuscript, Shaanxi Normal University.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Zhang, C., & Wen, X. (2004). Youshengxing zai zhongxuesheng xinli weici xide zhong de renzhi zuoyong [Animacy as a cognitive strategy in middle school students’ acquisition of English psych predicates]. Waiyu jiaoxue yu yanjiu [Foreign Language Teaching and Research], 36, 333–340.Google Scholar