Syntactic
Differences of Bilingual speakers: The case study of Japanese |
|
Vivian
Cook, Chise Kasai & Miho Sasaki |
Aim: to show that the first language of L2 users differs from that of monolinguals
Context: The
multi-competence view of language sees the two languages in the mind as part of
one overall system at some level. A new research paradigm is investigating how
the first language of L2 users differs from that of monolinguals, being subject
to change as well as attrition (Cook, 2003). Yet so far little research has
looked at this issue with the well-known areas of syntax such as the pro-drop
parameter.
Previous Research: Most
previous research has shown changing L1s in L2 users for example: intonation (Mennen, 2004; Queen, 2001) ; writing system (Bassetti, 2004); literacy (Kecskes & Papp, 2000);
syntactic processing; using a Competition Model, L2 users of Japanese, Spanish
and Greek used cues for finding the L1 subject of the sentence differently from
monolinguals (Cook et al, 2003) But not really for knowledge of L1 syntax.
Hypothesis: High bilingual’
Japanese L2 users of English will differ in their acceptance of Japanese
sentences with and without subjects/objects from ‘low level’ Japanese L2
users of English
The Pro-drop Parameter: A
parameter of variation in principles and parameters syntax, now taken to consist of the compulsory or optional use of pronoun subjects.
Japanese is pro-drop; English is non-pro-drop. Many alternative analyses over
the years. Some languages such as
Chinese and Japanese are also object-drop.
Previous
Test Sentences in English Japanese
versions below.
± Objects in matrix
clause
A/B Catherine immediately recognised the students and Mary also
recognised (them).
|
4
+ 4
|
± Objects in embedded clause
C/D Sandra
said those students were in the library but Peter told her the
teacher couldn’t find (them) there.
|
4
+ 4
|
Distracters:
agreement
E/F: Peter start(s) his new course next week.
|
6
+ 6
|
± Subjects in matrix
clause
G/H: Peter
once met John’s wife. (She) plays golf.
|
6 + 6
|
± Subjects in
embedded clause
I/J: Peter
has started his new job. His mother hopes that (he) will succeed.
|
6 +6
|
subjects: Japanese
L2 users of English with 3 years in
Method: Grammaticality
judgments graded on a 1 to 5 scale, with 4-6 examples of 5 sentence types, in
grammatical and ungrammatical versions, plus 2 sets of 6 distractors
(agreement), tested in the first language,
Japanese.
Instructions: Would each sentence
sound odd or natural if an educated speaker of Japanese said it in an everyday
speech situation?
Jane once met Sue's husband. Plays tennis.
o
o
o o o
very odd
odd not
sure natural very
natural
Results
Sentence type
|
Bil
N=14
|
Lo |
A* Objects in matrix clause +
|
3.8
|
4.2
|
B
-
|
4.0
|
4.1
|
C Objects in embedded clause +
|
3.5
|
3.2
|
D
-
|
3.2
|
3.3
|
E Distracters: agreement
+
|
4.4
|
4.2
|
F -
|
4.3
|
4.3
|
G* Subjects in matrix clause
+
|
3.8
|
3.4
|
H*
-
|
3.7
|
3.2
|
I Subjects in embedded clause +
|
3.7
|
3.9
|
J
-
|
3.9
|
3.8
|
*= sig. at p. <0.05 test. Mann-Whitney, two-tailed
Discussion
1. Hi bilinguals find the presence of objects in matrix clauses in Japanese less
natural than low level users (sentence A) (no diffs for –Object B)
2. Hi bilinguals find the presence of subjects in matrix clauses more
natural (sentence G)
3. Bilinguals find the absence of subjects in matrix clauses more natural (sentence
H)
4. No differences for Subjects
in embedded clauses (I/J) and for +/- objects in
embedded clauses (sentence C & D))
Conclusions
· in some ways the L1 of advanced L2 users has moved towards
the L2 (sentence G subjects in matrix clauses)
· in some ways the L1 of
advanced L2 users has moved towards the L1 extremes more than monolinguals: more
Japanese than the Japanese – as was found in Cook et al (2003) (sentences A
& H)
· the L2 user’s
multi-competence is not just a straightforward movement from L2 to L1 and L1 to
L2 but a system of its own
· the L1 of L2 users changes
in surprising, unpredicta
· need to look at range of
uses for a parameter in the syntax, not just a single form
· is this an artefact of
grammaticality judgments methodology?
Bassetti,
B. (2004), Second language reading and second language awareness in
English-speaking learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language. PhD thesis,
Cook, V.J. (ed.) (2002), Portraits of the L2 User, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters
Cook,
V.J., Iarossi, E., Stellakis, N. & Tokumaru, Y. (2003), 'Effects of the
second language on the syntactic processing of the first language' in V.J. Cook
(ed.),193-213
Hirakawa,
M. (1993), ‘Null subjects versus null-objects in an early grammar of
Japanese’, McGill Papers in Linguistics, 9. 30-45
Kecskes,
I. & Papp, T. (2000), Foreign Language
and Mother Tongue.
Mennen,
Queen,
R.M. (2001), ‘Bilingual intonation patterns: evidence of language change from Turkish-German bilingual children’, Language in Society, 30, 55-80
Tsimpli,
T., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. & Filiaci, F. (2004), ‘First language
attrition and syntactic subjects: a study of Greek and Italian near native
speakers of English’, IJB, 3,
257-278
White,
L. (1986), 'Implications of parametric variation for adult second language
acquisition: an investigation of the pro-drop parameter', in Cook, V.J. (ed.)
(1986), Experimental Approaches to Second Language Acquisition,
Yuan,
B.P. (1997), ‘Asymmetry of null subjects and null objects in Chinese
speakers’ L2 English’, Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 19, 467-497